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.
  • Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.

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 Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 21 26 47
TfD 0 0 2 10 12
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 0 13 3 16
AfD 0 0 0 55 55

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 2690 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
UFC 263 2021-06-16 06:20 2021-06-30 06:20 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry: disruption now from confirmed accounts (but they waited till the semi expired, for some reason, I dunno) El C
Evelyn Mora 2021-06-16 02:06 2021-09-16 02:06 edit Longtime issues with sockpuppets both whitewashing and attacking the subject. GeneralNotability
Draft:WCC-FM 2021-06-15 21:28 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Bradv
RNA vaccine 2021-06-15 20:18 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/COVID19 ToBeFree
Mirza Masroor Ahmad 2021-06-15 18:25 2022-06-15 18:25 edit Resumption of vandalism immediately following expiry of last protection. Cabayi
Rajput 2021-06-15 17:23 indefinite edit Arbitration enforcement: Restoring the WP:ECP that used to be here, before the period of full protection was imposed EdJohnston
2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes 2021-06-15 16:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: Per WP:ARBIPA. See also the protection log EdJohnston
Gjon's Tears 2021-06-15 00:02 2021-06-22 00:02 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute Anachronist
Mohammed Dahlan 2021-06-14 22:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather
Prasanth Nair 2021-06-14 21:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Logan Thirtyacre (actor) 2021-06-14 05:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Repeatedly recreated under a variety of different names Liz
B. R. Ambedkar 2021-06-14 04:03 indefinite edit Disruptive editing and frequent sockpuppetry. Protected under WP:ARBIPA EdJohnston
Tharshan Thiyagarajah 2021-06-14 03:46 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Draft:Aaron Gabriel Golbin 2021-06-14 03:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated The Earwig
Draft:Aaron Golbin 2021-06-14 03:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated The Earwig 2021-06-14 03:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated The Earwig 2021-06-14 03:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated The Earwig
Thirty-sixth government of Israel 2021-06-14 02:24 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Scottywong
List of Saini people 2021-06-13 23:26 indefinite edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: WP:CASTE RegentsPark
Draft:DebateIsland 2021-06-13 15:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated El C
DebateIsland 2021-06-13 15:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated El C
Aaron Gabriel Golbin 2021-06-13 05:08 indefinite create match Aaron Golbin per WP:RFPP request Johnuniq
Mahmood ul Hassan 2021-06-12 20:23 2022-06-12 20:23 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Liz
Ali Al Suleiman (Journalist) 2021-06-12 20:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Draft:Ali Al Suleiman (Journalist) 2021-06-12 20:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Radio Free Asia 2021-06-12 17:08 2022-06-12 17:08 edit,move WP:GS/UYGHUR-related El C
Kashmir conflict 2021-06-12 15:59 indefinite edit upgrade protection: WP:GS/IPAK nexus El C
Love Jihad 2021-06-12 13:26 indefinite edit Arbitration enforcement: upgrade protection (WP:ARBIPA) El C

Off-wiki brigading regarding Uyghur genocide- and Chinese Communist Party-related topics[edit]

Hello. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate board for this (and if it isn't, please summarily close this/move this to another board), though I don't really know where else to post this considering that likely applies to a number of pages and it contains information on off-wiki brigading that is being planned by a the subreddit /r/genzedong on articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide and the Chinese Communist Party.

  1. As far as I can tell, the brigading has been ongoing since a little over 5 months ago when a redditor by the username of /u/FuckedByRailcars, who describes themself as an Undercover commie wikipedian here noted that they had an extended-confirmed account. The user called upon others to join them to defend the motherland and noted that they knew that doing so would be in violation of wikipedia policies.
  2. The discussions of making edits to wikipedia on the subreddit have accelerated in recent weeks. One month ago, a post was made that encouraged individuals to sign-up and edit random wikipedia articles in order to gain edits (and privileges) on the site, with the eventual goal of coordinating a campaign to remove what the OP and their fellow brigadiers deem "anti-Chinese bias". The editor also encouraged individuals to reach out to them in order to facilitate this stated goal (which seems to be improper off-wiki communication).
  3. Discussions on the subreddit have alleged that Horse Eye's Back, myself, and oranjelo100 are CIA shills. Other comments in the thread note from members of the subreddit have stated that we've made a decade long mistake with wikipedia. we should have targeted admin roles there. now we're fucked and trying to catch from behind and Let’s start editing it 👍.
  4. More recently, the subreddit has discussed trying to infiltrate wikipedia and redditors appear to have responded with interest. One redditor stated that the would have a discord server and kick ass project name for a psy op that can be this influential.

I'm a good bit concerned about what this means regarding the potential for tendentious editing in the topic area, which is obviously an issue of international political controversy. I also would not be surprised, owing to the timing of the posts on the subreddit, if the subreddit has been the source of brigading IP that have engaged in personal attacks against me and other editors. The subreddit also appears to be actively monitoring edits in the area (tagging Chipmunkdavis since they are also targeted in this post), and appears to think that there's a CIA conspiracy to make the page the way it is. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed, though I'm generally concerned regarding the potential for this sort of coordinated brigading to move articles away from compliance with WP:NPOV in line with tendentious goals. I'm especially concerned regarding the comments that appear to want to target admin roles and specific articles, and I wanted to post this here to see if any admins have suggestions for a way forward in light of the evidence of coordinated brigading. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I'd forgotten about those pages. I'm not really involved in this area, my edits in the above images part of a larger clean-up, but the pages in question could definitely use a lot more eyes. This off-wiki canvassing possibly relates to the accounts that popped up at Radio Free Asia last month (previous ANI discussion). CMD (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: I think you’re mostly involved in this through sockpuppet work, Ineedtostopforgetting is one of the main POV pushers in that space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Considering the allegations against User:Oranjelo100 in the subreddit, which Mikehawk10 mentions, it's a little worrying that Oranjelo has recently been indeffed per this ANI thread. They have responded, but without using the unblock template. (We know templates are alarming.) I have now put their comment into a template so it'll be considered. Perhaps somebody would like to review it ASAP, or possibly unblock them for the purpose of replying here? Pinging Drmies, the blocking admin. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC).
That is actually a little worrying, I hadn’t thought much of it at the time (probably because Oranjelo can be a bit annoying) but a few of the editors who wanted to deep six them I hadn’t seen around those parts before and I felt that the proposal was just odd given the zero block history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it should be taken a look at, although the participants in the community review look mostly like long-term active editors to me.
Regarding the proposal, it was an admin who had suggested the CBAN route to me in such situations because of the long tenure and type of issues. — MarkH21talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Not trying to cast shade on you or other editors who voted for a CBAN, there was a clear case for it. I just wish an admin had blocked them at least once over the years, I never got the feeling that they realized they were over the line. As Dmries said with no defense they dug their own grave and the many people Oranjelo100 pissed off can definitely explain why so many people chimed in against them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bishonen: Unfortunately, WP:CBANs are a bit harder to overcome than a normal block. Needs community approval at its own discussion. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I can't help Oranje100; they dug their own grave. That discussion was open for eight days, and many of the "aye" votes are from longterm users--it was hardly a reddit-inflected sock fest. Having said that, obviously this is a matter of grave concern, but the Oranje100 ban is another matter. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
This isn’t a new thing... Its been going on for a while and has tainted a number of discussions (particularly around whether or not mainland Chinese sources are WP:RS), [1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
This is pretty concerning, and may explain the several new editors that appeared almost weekly at Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 6 and Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 7 for example.
Are there appropriate remedies for this beside increased admin attention? General sanctions? In this area, I think that currently there is just WP:AFLG. — MarkH21talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, nothing has gone to arbitration on this more broadly thus far. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@MarkH21: Actually, the more I look at this, the more I think that this ANI thread should be reopened. There was considerable support for a WP:CBAN owing to WP:NOTHERE, and this sort of stuff might make those who were on the fence tip towards supporting some sort of sanction. Is there a way to request administrative review of the thread regarding whether there was a consensus on the issue?
My alternative idea would be to make a proposal that imposes a semi-protection on all articles/templates related to Uyghurs and/or Xinjiang, broadly construed, though I don't know what the right venue would be to propose that. If we're getting organized brigading and clear efforts to coordinate POVPUSHing, it might be the most narrowly tailored approach for now, though the members of the self-described psy op seems to be sophisticated enough to understand that they can edit other articles to get around this limit pretty quickly. I know that this is something typically done by ARBCOM, but I don't see any immediate reason why the community couldn't decide to impose it (via consensus) without going to arbitration. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I worry about restricting access or trying to identify “infiltrators” or whatever those guys want to be... We have to be careful to avoid a red scare or dissuading good faith wikipedia editors who are socialists or communists from participating in the topic area by giving the idea that they are unwelcome. Semi-protection might be an option, but as you said there are ways around that and I don’t think thats new editors/IPS who would be restricted from editing are causing major issues at the moment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I also don't think we have evidence to connect specific editors to particular users of /r/GenZedong (as of yet), and I'm not sure that doing so would be in line with wikipedia policies anyway. My worry is more that they are... continuously monitoring (archive) the discussion on the topic and also my talk page (archive). My point regarding protection is more that a semi-protection doesn't really impose a burden on legitimate editors (on these topics), while it puts up a barrier to IP vandalism that we've seen (both on talk pages and in articles). Additionally, I think that the ANI complain should probably have been given a close rather than turned into an archive, and I am wondering if an admin could review it.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
My first guess would be that someone is simply monitoring your contributions, hence for example the activity on the Chen Weihua article you created just over a week ago. While I don't have a link to hand right now, I remember there has previously been discussion about discretionary sanctions for China/Hong Kong/Taiwan related articles, with there being no agreement that there has been enough disruption to implement such measures. (I haven't seen that much IP vandalism, but again I don't actually edit much in this area.) CMD (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

As an additional heads up, the users now seem to have targeted (archive) Horse Eye's Back and are attempting (archive) to falsely smear the editor as a paid contractor. There also appears to have been some coordination beginning at least 8 months ago at /r/sino (archive), including the creation of a discord server to protect the image of China in Wikipedia, both professionally and swiftly. The same subreddit has attacked (archive) Amigao for their past edits, while other posts on the subreddit may have inspired additional brigading in related areas (such as the article for Adrian Zenz.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be escalating, we may need to 30/500 the whole space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
To add onto these findings, it looks like the recent move discussion regarding Uyghur Genocide was also brigaded by /r/aznidentiy. Overall, it looks like there is a lot of brigading on this sort of stuff, including brigading that targets talk pages. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • One of them in a previous thread raised concerns about if several admins here would send messages to Reddit admins about the brigading from that subreddit and getting it shut down. The implication was that something like that had happened before for some other subreddit? Either way, it's an interesting idea. Since their threads and actions are a pretty clear violation of the Reddit TOS (not to mention our own rules here). SilverserenC 06:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There has been a lot of activity today I've noted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting (mentioned above), and I thought it was just following me around, however one new account has appeared to revert both myself and the article S. Ramadoss, which I have never edited but Mikehawk10 has (and it is a revert of their edit). That, and the diversity of related IP addresses, makes me feel it may be related to this situation. CMD (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Another thread today, celebrating the ban of Oranjelo100 [2]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Horse Eye's Back: You and I appear to be mentioned there too in the comments. The title "includes only one more CIA to go," which implies that they may be planning to ban another user (the OP on the Reddit post keeps calling me one, and I have definitely seen random IPs engaging in personal attacks over the past few weeks or so). It's a community with an extremely online focus, so I do not expect this sort of stuff to go away any time soon.
On a separate note, the thread also appears to be smearing the now-banned Oranjelo100 by posting pictures of another thread involving a vandal IP and attributing it to Oranjelo100. They also say I have proposed to twice ban edits(???) on the Uyghur genocide page for a year, when I don’t think I have ever requested full protection on the page for a year. If it isn’t incompetence (and the amount of digging through Wikipedia and citing policies by u/No_Static_At_All doesn’t appear to indicate that incompetence is likely) it would seem like an attempt to rile up the base towards some WP:NOTHERE end. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
To update the above, a couple of posts over the past five days have been made that seem to be directly targeted at me, and both of which are spreading disinformation regarding my editing habits. One of the posts (reddit archive) is regarding yet another topic sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party, the Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. The other post just appears to be a straw man post (reddit archive) that wants to smear me by making false sockpuppetry and CIA operative allegations and vaguely pointing to Operation Earnest Voice. Again, this is from the same redditor, /u/No_Static_At_All. The following of my edits by a non-Wikipedian would be rather strange, so I'm having suspicions that the user may be an editor that following around my edits and using the subreddit to try to stir up their reddit buddies. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • More harassment from single use accounts [3][4], both now blocked. Thank you @Sasquatch: and @Zzuuzz:, I hope this thread sheds a little light on those two seemingly random incidents. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I usually do not edit in this subject area, but yes, there are definitely many accounts with few edits in this subject area who edit clearly to support POV of CCP. My very best wishes (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • What especially troubles me here is persistent editing through proxies. For example, [5], [6]. As appeared during a recent SPI case, some named accounts in this subject area also edit though proxies, which effectively make them "immune" to SP investigations. I have three suggestions. (1) make a semiprotection of such pages, (2) use 30/500 protection; and (3) named accounts should not be allowed to proxies in this subject area, or any other areas covered by DS or CS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I may not be around to follow-up, so you or someone else could do it. I am not sure though. Since we have the CS regime now, (1) and (2) can already be enacted on specific pages by admins if needed (I think). With regard to (3), one would need to consult with someone more familiar with proxy accounts and other related issues. My very best wishes (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Semi-protect articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for a period 1 year[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As has been shown above, there are multiple off-wiki communities that have engaged in targeted brigading of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide, and others that have engaged in brigading on other topics sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party. These include several reddit communities that have formed discord servers for the purpose of promoting their point-of-view on these pages, as well as twitter users with relatively large followings. Editors have been made the subject of personal attacks, and this off-wiki behavior appears to be resulting in a lot of article editing and commenting on talk pages that screams WP:NOTHERE. I propose that all articles (and their respective talk pages) (amended per below discussion) relating to the Uyghur genocide, broadly construed, be semi-protected for a period of one-year in order to prevent additional damage to the project that this brigading causes and will continue to cause if these pages are left unprotected. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Semi-protection of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for 1 year[edit]

  • Support retract as nominator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Firstly, while there's evidence of upvoted reddit posts encouraging brigading, this shouldn't itself lead to either semi or 30/500. Is there evidence several wiki pages and discussions have actually and persistently been disrupted, far greater than is the norm in other topics (noting that many topic areas occasionally experience canvassing and brigading and require no such strong measures)? Is there evidence normal community processes (ie ANI and NOTHERE blocks) are unable to handle the excess workload caused by the disruption? If the answer to both these questions suggests further measures are required, I think it'd be better to allow admins to, at their discretion, more freely protect pages they believe are of concern, similar to WP:GS/PAGEANT, rather than a blanket protection of a topic area as proposed, which will probably result in unnecessary protections. Talk page protection should be employed conservatively on single pages and for no longer than necessary; even WP:ARBPIA4 doesn't restrict the talk namespace. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Fair point regarding the talk space. My thought was to bring this in line with the recent discussion on COVID-19 misinformation, though that conversation is much more narrowly tailored than this one. I've amended the proposal to exclude the talk space. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: place the Uyghur genocide and any articles relating to it, WP:Broadly construed, under community discretionary sanctions[edit]

I should note first that I was invited to review this as an uninvolved admin by Mikehawk10 at my talk page, but I don't think that stands in the way of implementing what seems to be a rather clear consensus that community-imposed discretionary sanctions represent the appropriate next step—prior to any arbitration committee involvement—for Uyghur genocide and articles related to it, broadly construed, for an indefinite period, under the community's authority here. Generally, discussants feel that this is a more narrowly tailored solution than 30/500-ing a swath of articles, though that could remain on the table in the future. Go Phightins! 10:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What it says on the thin. This would be a first step to allow uninvolved administrators to dispense adequate actions when required. Or it could alternatively be sent to ArbCom for resolution by motion, though at this stage the disruption mostly appears to be from mostly NOTHERE accounts so it maybe does not require ArbCom intervention. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @RandomCanadian: how would one send it to ArbCom for resolution by motion? Would this be after community discretionary sanctions are imposed, or would this be in lieu of this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Mikehawk10: In lieu of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @RandomCanadian: Honestly, I think that ArbCom might be a good option at this point. There appear to be a lot of WP:NOTHERE accounts that have popped up in this space, and this is probably going to be a mess even with community discretionary sanctions if we don't address that issue. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Mikehawk10: In that case there's nothing stopping you from making a case request there. I have only very minimal involvement in this (having noticed only one sock recently while patrolling something else), so I guess you or somebody else would be the person with the most relevant background to make a coherent request so it can be dealt with minimum fuss by ArbCom. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Makes sense. Thank you for your time on this; I'll stop pestering you with questions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Would it be appropriate to ping the users who have contributed to the discussion above but haven't specifically commented on this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support community discretionary sanctions. I believe that this is much more narrowly tailored than my (withdrawn) proposal and it would allow for additional administrative oversight in the area, though I do have concerns that this may not be enough at the current moment. However, it's certainly a step in the right direction, so I will give it my support. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support due to persistent disruption from new accounts, particularly the deletion of references and repeated addition of poorly sourced material in many Wikipedia articles within this field. Homemade Pencils (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose portion of my comment above applies here too. Discretionary sanctions should not be applied lightly, or solely because a topic area is experiencing (or has experienced) disruption. Probably every topic area on Wikipedia has experienced some degree of disruption at one point or another over the past 20 years. Community discretionary sanctions should be authorised when the volume/nature of disruption is too much for WP:ANI to handle, or where there's a need for admins to skip steps in the protection policy when protecting pages. There needs to be clear evidence presented that these measures are necessary, and that existing measures are insufficient. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I doubt that any of such accounts would be banned on the ANI because they would have some supporters. One needs a qualified judgment by one or two admins here, and that is exactly what DS provides. My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Do we have links to ANI discussions of this happening? Or are we just assuming that ANI won't do anything, and so aren't trying it in the first place? Looking at the evidence above, it's a bunch of blocked socks at SPI, one ban at ANI (unrelated to the genocide), a bunch of reddit posts with no evidence of any disruption onwiki, several harassment/DE blocks, and some talk page comments that were never reported to ANI... Really struggling to identify any evidence suggesting there exists disruption that's actually reported but not resolved by admins / ANI consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This appears to be an area where easier access to administrative action would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I haven't read the whole thread, so don't put much stock in this, but I'd rather not add another DS/GS category right as ArbCom is trying to rework the system. Like PR was saying, there are a lot of hot-button issues that experience disruption when in the news cycle, but generally these can be handled through our existing policies and tools. Would it be enough to just tell admins to be aware of this situation and keep it in mind when determining protection and block durations? I'd even be open to more specific restrictions similar to 4/10 or 30/500 protecting the area or central articles, but a general sanctions regime feels too bulky for the problem. Wug·a·po·des 23:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Why not? If adopted here, that would be a community sanction, and Arbcom would not have to do anything with this. But the individual admins would be able to do a lot more. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It seems like the right solution at this point.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This is every bit as contentiously-edited as, for example, the Israel-Palestine dispute, which is under similar discretionary sanctions. I am not surprised to see these people proposing entryism and even becoming admins on Wiki and I think we should try especially hard to guard against this. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It's clear this article is being targeted by a coordinated off-wiki meat puppet campaign, so this makes sense. — Czello 09:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    DS is not particularly useful for offwiki meat puppet campaigns. Firstly because editors need to be WP:AWARE first, and secondly because meatpuppets tend to be site blocked. DS is more useful for established editors for whom topic bans may be better than site blocks. If the issue is solely about page protection, then something like WP:GS/PAGEANT for that purpose should be created. With all due respect, I think this proposal is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to do something about the issue, without fair consideration as to what 'something' will actually help. If this sanction is implemented I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there were an empty or near-empty user sanction log after a few months or a year. See above, where many of the votes either don't provide a rationale as to why this proposal will help, mention a concern not solved by DS, or are purely idealistic (eg so that the remedy will be community-derived rather than ArbCom derived). The stickiness of GS authorisations, such as WP:GS/PW, WP:GS/MJ and WP:GS/UKU, which fail to be repealed due to vague unspecified 'concerns' (even though the log is completely empty of admin actions going back to 2014), should urge caution before instituting useless sanctions regimes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
It depends. Perhaps some of these "meat" accounts hide their tracks well. But some others act almost openly, by starting their editing as a "new" account from aggressively reverting edits by others to whitewash CPC and slander reliable "West" news organizatiions as propaganda outlets. At the same time, such "new" accounts are showing an exceptional knowledge of WP policies and practices. If that happens, I think such accounts should be blocked on spot, which will be much easier with DS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This is a good candidate for community discretionary sanctions. Hopefully we can handle it through the community rather than having to take it to arbcom. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support way overdue. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: I've seen a lot of problems in this area. ProcrastinatingReader makes a good point above, and sanctions might not be the solution here; at the same time, the worst they could do is be useless, and the best they could do is help to fix the issues. jp×g 20:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Consistent source of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: administrator investigation[edit]

Unactionable - if you have reasonable concerns, the proper place is SPI. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some accounts active in the Uyghur genocide topic area are also active in the COVID-19 origins topic area, and their views are very much aligned with the Chinese Communist party’s narrative. There needs to be an administrator investigation into what is going on here. Tinybubi (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Tinybubi (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what specific data or other non-public information that admins would have access to that would enable an investigation, and I'm also not sure what the scope of an investigation like this would be. Do you mean to suggest a sockpuppetry investigation, or is there something else you had in mind?
    I'm also not sure that supporting the natural origin hypothesis of COVID-19 (if that is what you mean by the Chinese Communist Party's narrative) is evidence of malfeasance, especially given that various versions of that hypothesis appear to be clearly within the mainstream scientific views on the matter. Do you mean to suggest that somebody involved is spreading misinformation relating to a non-China origin of COVID-19, or is it their spreading of one of the standard natural origin hypotheses? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible new tool/technique/procedure[edit]

I would like to discuss a possible addition to the "bag of tricks" an admin can use to deal with various situations. I am not advocating the following. I am asking whether the idea has merit.

Normally when a page is semiprotected, nonconfirmed users get an automatic invitation to make a semiprotected edit request. For the vast majority of pages that is well and good. Alas, certain pages are the targets of off-wiki campaigns. Most recently OpIndia and the Discovery Institute have launched such campaigns, but it has been an ongoing issue. The sign of this happening is new user after new user flooding the talk page with near-identical semi-protected edit requests, none of which even attempt to follow the...

"This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. 'Please change X' is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'."


I propose that on selected talk pages we disable the automatic creation of edit requests and instead send the unconfirmed user to an edit window with a new section on the article talk page. I wouldn't want just anyone to be allowed to do this to a semiprotected talk page, so I would like to make this something an administrator would do.

My first question is, is this a good idea or a bad idea?

If the answer is "good idea", what are the nuts and bolts of making this happen? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're suggesting that on the talk pages of certain semi-protected articles, a non-confirmed user attempting to make am edit request would be forced to provide the required full statement of what is being requested. Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
No. They're simply suggesting the removal of the edit notice on certain semi protected pages. The edit notice includes a button to make an edit request. It makes it easier to make an edit request and explains what you're supposed to do including saying editors need to make a full statement of what is being requested. Incomplete or unclear edit requests are generally rejected but the problem with these sort of pages isn't so much this although many such edit requests are incomplete. The problem is even if the edit request is complete, it's something already rejected 100 times over and clearly lacks consensus. The message does explain that edit requests are only for simple or uncontroversial changes and to make sure there's no discussion, but such messages are either not understood or ignored. If editors here are still confused about what Guy Macon is referring to, I suggest they check our a semi protected page like Chauvinism without being logged in e.g. private mode in their browser. If not an admin, they can also check out a fully protected page like Jordan Lawson as the template on the page (but not the edit request) is very similar. The hope seems to be the removal or change of the edit notice will make it less likely editors will make useless edit requests since they will need to figure out how to find the talk page and post. (Well to make an actual edit request they will also need to figure out how to use the template but frankly for the sort of pages and edits Guy Macon seems to be referring to, I don't think it matters if the template is used. I'm fairly sure most of them are dealt with by page watchers rather than those looking into the cat or whatever.) The whole point of the edit notice is to encourage edit requests by making it easier for editors to figure out how to make them, but this is maybe undesirable with a small number of pages. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. Here are some examples:
All of the above were handled by the editors on the talk page.
They should have been normal comments, not edit requests.
There was no need to needlessly fill up the edit requests category with the above requests.
The user should not have seen a button to make an edit request.
--Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Let's assume that we have a consensus to take away the edit request button on the minecraft talk page (looking at the examples above I don't see how anyone could oppose that). How would that work? Is it even possible, or is it "baked in" to the Wikimedia software? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
This could be done with a protection notice. Examples here. I think any user with tboverride rights can create one of these. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, nobody has come out and said it was a bad idea, so I am requesting that the edit notice that creates a button that generates extended-confirmed-protected edit requests on Talk:Minecraft be removed. There are a couple of other talk pages that are being flooded with edit requests but I would like to see how taking away the button works on the Minecraft talk page first. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I'll take care of it if nobody gets to it before I can log in to my admin account, I agree it's worth a try. A while back I recall asking about an edit filter for empty edit requests, but I can't find the request now and it's possible I just dreamt it. So, how about an edit filter to block empty edit requests, or to throttle too-short requests on pages with heavy request activity, or something like that? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    On second thought, there have not been any edit requests on that page in over a week, and the two that have appeared since April 24 have both been in good faith. Is there a page currently experiencing a problem we could try this on? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think you are going to find a page with 100% bad edit requests. The question is not whether nonconfirmed users sometimes make good suggestions but rather whether they will continue to do so if you take away the button, and whether the suggestions are responded to by those who are watching the talk page or by someone summoned from the list of unanswered edit requests. How about replacing the button that creates an edit request with one that simply opens a new section on the talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This suggestion and especially its background cross off one of my personal WP-mysteries regarding the vast amount of empty or severely incomplete edit requests. I had no idea that's how it worked. I cannot but support something like what Guy Macon is floating. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Here are some examples on other pages:[18][19][20][21][22] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
So, should I post an RfC on each individual talk page that is being flooded with edit requests because of our "one click" button? Or can we just try it on the Minecraft talk page and see how it works out for us? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Wow. another one.[23][24] What a shock. Who could have predicted that this would happen? Related: Attractive nuisance doctrine. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not strictly opposed to removing the click-and-save method of spamming help requests for high-trafficked pages (and/or pages that are repeatedly spammed) but I haven't had an opportunity to look into the issue enough to know exactly how to enact that. I feel like it would need to be a dev-level change. I also feel like it should be required that any such changes be logged somewhere, so that there is a record of currently-active we've-removed-functionality articles and pages. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. The entire edit request system is built using local templates and modules, so this can be done locally. In fact, any template editor, page mover or admin can override the entire message shown when editing a specific protected page by creating "Template:Editnotices/Protection/<page name>". Just to make sure I understand the proposal correctly, it's proposing that the "submit an edit request" button omits the usual preload and editintro and just goes to the same place as clicking "New section" on the talk page? * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I suppose then clarification would be indeed needed, because I wasn't necessarily referring to the specific "request an edit" template that we use (I do know how to do that) but rather the page message that is displayed when an IP tries to edit a protected page (at the very least, it feels like it would be in the MediaWiki: namespace) but I don't know where it is or how it's set up. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
That message is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. That MediaWiki page first checks if it is transcluded a cascade-protected page other than itself (and produces no output if so; the message that one sees when trying to edit a cascade-protected page is MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected). Then, it checks to see if the appropriate protection notice exists, and if so calls it, and if not produces a standard message based on the level of protection (Template:Protected page text/semi for semi-protected pages, Template:Protected page text/extendedconfirmed for extended-confirmed-protected pages, etc) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes. That is my request. As I wrote before, "How about replacing the button that creates an edit request with one that simply opens a new section on the talk page?" --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at implementing the technical side of this. First, an admin needs to carry out my request at Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021, and then any template editor, page mover, or admin can carry out this proposal by creating the appropriate editnotice (for Minecraft: Template:Editnotices/Protection/Minecraft) with {{subst:manual edit requests}} * Pppery * it has begun... 19:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
(...Chirp...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
(...Chirp...) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I much prefer cricket (note that this is also a time consuming enterprise - if England don't pull off that thing which only they are capable of doing (being terrible at a game they invented), they've still got 3 more days to go against NewZealand...) to crickets, so agree some action should be done: @Ivanvector: (or anybody, really)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I've got it. Izno (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Purposely implementing user-hostile design to discourage unconfirmed editors from making any edit requests with no replacement is WP:BITEY and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, specifically that "anyone can edit". I hate this idea. This is just a band-aid "solution" designed to circumvent community consensus by ensuring that anyone who might actually use an edit request on certain pages are unable to do so due to a lack of knowledge. In essence it's just blocking edit requests for certain semi-protected pages.
Maybe we should be focusing on implementing a better solution that actually directs users seeking to edit semi-protected articles to potential options other than "submit an edit request". Looking at the editnotice, I see a big wall of text full of boring stuff about what protection is and wikibureaucracy. Then I see a big blue button saying "submit an edit request". The average person is going to assume the only way to propose changes to the article is by clicking the big blue button. They are usually not going to click on the wikilinked "discuss this page with others" that doesn't really clarify that a normal talk page thread is where controversial changes or less specific ideas should be proposed. And even if they do, I have to scroll down through a bunch of hatnotes, see sections, etc etc and have no idea how to do any of this talkpage etiquette without reading wiki help pages that aren't linked anywhere for me.
I would like admins to consider potentially changing the template to make the blue button "open a talk page thread" (which directs the user to create a new section on the talk page) and shift "edit request" to a white button, as well as a brief explanation as what opening a talk page thread entails. This makes it clear that the preferred and normal option is to open a talk page thread while still allowing users to make edit requests. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
It is not up to admins to make such a change, it would have to be a community decision. Admins are entrusted with tools needed to perform certain chores. Policies, guidelines, and procedures are set by the community as a whole. You can start an RfC to change the template yourself, and any Wikipedian can comment on it. - Donald Albury 13:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Albury: If it's supposedly "not up to admins" to make changes to this template then why wasn't this proposal given an RfC? Why was the only discussion on the talk page of the template in question an edit request (ironic isn't it?) and on the administrators' noticeboard? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I will be happy to post an RfC; this is the first hint that I have received that anyone might find this template change controversial.
Just to make sure that I ask the right question in the RfC, as I understand it the request at Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021 only makes changing the "edit request" button so that it opens a talk page section possible but does not actually change anything, right? So the objection is to making this an option? Or am I misunderstanding?
Note that I specified in my original "possible new tool/technique/procedure" question that we require an administrator to evaluate whether edit requests are disruptive on a particular page and make the decision to change the "edit request" button to a "post talk page comment" button on that page. We also discussed trying it on Talk:Minecraft to see if it causes any problems. Given those restrictions is there still someone who objects?--Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
You've understood the technical aspects correctly. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Chess:I apalogize, as I seem to have misunderstood what was happening here. I was reacting to the implication that only admins can/should edit a template. As the template in question is protected at the extendedconfirmed level, it would indeed take an admin to actually edit it, but anyone can request the edit at the talk page (a bit self-referential, there). - Donald Albury 16:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Re the comment above:

"Purposely implementing user-hostile design to discourage unconfirmed editors from making any edit requests with no replacement is WP:BITEY and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, specifically that 'anyone can edit'. I hate this idea."

That would be a valid objection if that was what was being proposed, but the "with no replacement" bit is factually incorrect. I proposed that on certain pages, determined by an administrator to be experiencing disruption that we take away the one-click edit request button and replace it with a one-click open a new talk page section button. We aren't "discouraging unconfirmed editors" doing anything. They simply click the button, say what they want to say, and the comment gets handled by the regulars like any other talk page comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

So basically admins get carte blanche to implement a new tool that takes away the ability of often new users to make edit requests (because let's face it; there's only a handful of non-autoconfirmed editors who would know how to do a manual request edit or are willing to go through the mounds of wikibureaucracy to figure out how to request an edit). This tool will be used by admins to just take away the request edit button if they believe a page is "experiencing disruption". The "replacement" is you just get sent to open a new section on the talk page; the original proposal wasn't very clear on how this was done and it appeared to me as if users just get sent to the talk page without any real guidance on how to suggest changes (just a new section on talk page go nuts!) And of course, this gets implemented because at this random Administrator's Noticeboard thread admins haven't really disagreed with your proposal. Admins not voting to give themselves more power.
I would like to see this proposal more fleshed out before it even goes to RfC. I'd like to see some kind of central logging for when admins disable edit requests; not just a category of all pages currently under manual edit requests but a central place that logs when, why, and on what pages admins have decided to implement manual edit requests so we can actually have oversight. I'd also like to see something more substantive than just when an admin believes a page is "experiencing disruption". Is it when we get organized groups of people filing obviously frivolous edit requests? Or will this be used whenever new users just make bad edit requests because they don't know what they're doing? I'd also like to see some method to ensure that it's possible to make it so that restrictions automatically expire after a certain period of time so admins don't indef manual request edit.
That being said I'm not opposed to the general principle of having request edit not be the "default" option anymore. I hope I made that clear earlier when I proposed making the default for all articles to "post to the talk page" and instead make request edit a non-default button. I believe the primary issue with request edit here is that it's seemingly the only option for a user wanting to have a change made to a Wikipedia article, not that organized groups of people are using it to somehow attack Wikipedia i.e. it's an issue with our interface rather than with our users and that blaming the editors is BITEY. I also don't like the idea "They simply click the button, say what they want to say, and the comment gets handled by the regulars like any other talk page comment." because it implies that new editors operate from an inferior position (needing to be "handled") to "regulars". We're not "handling" new editors we're supposed to try to collaborate with them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
If you don't like the concept of "requests" being "handled", your disagreement is with the English language, not with my proposal. If you don't like the idea that many pages have a number of regulars who typically handle edit requests you should remove all pages from your watch list so as to not be a "regular" on those pages. The reality is that on pages like SQUID and Cockcroft–Walton generator most people have zero interest in the topic while a few of us are watching the page and making sure that it stays accurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I like Guy's idea a lot. I agree that it isn't bitey. This also would partially solve a related problem, that of people patrolling requested edits coming into high-traffic pages they aren't familiar with and dropping a not-really-helpful canned response to those few edit requests that are actually good ones. Pinging EEng, with whom I've been discussing that at my talk. —valereee (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Still getting edit requests on Talk:Minecraft which would have been handled just fine by the editors watching the page as ordinary talk page posts without summoning outside help with the edit request template: [25][26][27][28][29][30] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, if that page is being sufficiently watched perhaps lowering the protection level as Ferret did a week ago is the better response. — xaosflux Talk 14:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
        • There's been one edit request since lowering the protection from ECP to Semi. Of course, IPs are caught in either case. If the question is, should we consider unprotecting entirely, my position would be "No." on this particular article. But I sympathize with Guy's position in this thread. My watchlist is regularly filled with empty requests or nonsense requests. Although I don't patrol edit requests explicitly, I do handle them within my watchlist scope. -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
          • If the page is heavily watched, and the ER's are infrequent you could try SPP-->PCP as well. — xaosflux Talk 14:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
            • Pending Changes is useless, because it leaves the vandalism in the history and often will require twice as much cleanup in order to actually hide everything properly (specifically re-OSable additions). Primefac (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I give up. I suggested Talk:Minecraft as a first place to test this specifically because it doesn't get a huge volume of edit requests and most of them are good-faith. So I am told that Talk:Minecraft isn't a good place to test this specifically because it doesn't get a huge volume of edit requests. You want to test this on pages where pretty much every talk page post starts a giant fight? Fine. Do the test on Talk:Creationism and Talk:Ayurveda. Then we can hear complaints that there is still a lot of disruption, just not disruption in the form of edit requests. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to see us test this somewhere. @Guy Macon, if we test at Minecraft, how/when will we be able to tell whether it's "working"? —valereee (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Concerns by User:Storm598[edit]

After reviewing this discussion I find that there is a consensus from the community to ban User:Storm598 from the topic of American politics, all eras, broadly construed. This is a community ban and not done under any arbcom case. While there is some support for banning from the topic of all politics I don't feel that has gained enough support.
This ban will remain in place until the community comes to a consensus to modify or remove it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The user is using 'modern liberal' biased techniques in documents related to American politics in the English Wikipedia. In many cases, he criticized me maliciously to justify such biased technology. (I said I wouldn't edit the US political document for three months because I didn't want to cause trouble with this user. But looking back on my edit, I don't know what the hell I did wrong in contributing to American political page.)

  • Although the Blue Dog Coalition is commonly referred to as the "Conservative Democrats" and the Republican Governance Group is generally referred to as the "Liberal Republicans", the user denies it and makes a POV statement. #, #
    • The Blue Dog Coalition page even carried out serious original research. Without any source, the user described that there was a "right-wing" in the organization's "Blue Dog Coalition". I thought this was an obvious original research before, but it was hard to point out that the user was maliciously selling me at the time. See history of page in the last three months.#
    • In addition, while the Republican Governance Group has no source referred to as "moderate conservatism", the user maintains the POV view that the former is right and the latter is wrong, despite numerous sources referred to as "liberal".

In addition, the user lacked a very good understanding of East Asian politics, but he also decided that my editing was inappropriate and reversed it. Still, Beyond My Ken are attacking me for my lack of understanding of American politics. However, I have never used biased techniques in American political page.

  • User:Beyond My Ken also twisted my argument and maliciously criticized me in the Talk of Law and Justice page.#
  • User:Beyond My Ken interrupted my legitimate Wikipedia editing countless times. #, #, #, etc.)

I think it's actually a threat to a new user, me, to repeatedly mention in Talk that the user will post me on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Although I'm not perfect at editing American political documents, Beyond My Ken has conned me to justify his no source POV contribution. --Storm598 (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken always threatens to put me on the Administrators' Noticeboard, saying I lack understanding of American politics when Beyond My Ken justifies Beyond My Ken's no source POV views. On the other hand, I have never done this to Beyond My Ken.--Storm598 (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Storm598: it says in ultra-large bold writing in a coloured box at the top that you need to notify subjects who you make a thread about. I have dropped BMK a line for you. Please do not forget again, as it clearly indicates you didn't read the instructions before posting Nosebagbear (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it is more likely that as Storm598 is banned from BMK's talk page, he did not think he should. Maybe he forgot that notifications required by policy are one of the exceptions. P-K3 (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
That's exactly what P-K3 said. Thank you for understanding me. I just sent it to BMK's talk.--Storm598 (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
That's interesting, because when I notified you that I didn't want you to post to my talk page anymore (for reasons that are probably obvious to the readers of this laborious thread), I wrote: ...unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. [31] Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Storm598: Why are you posting this complaint? What outcome do you hope to achieve? SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: BMK often goes back almost reflexively every time I edit some pages on Wikipedia. Clearly, even if it was my reasonable editing, it is often deleted by BMK's arbitrary judgment. Every time I edit American politics, they keep bothering me that I don't understand American politics and that they'll take issue with my editing on the Administrators' noticeboard. In fact, he mentioned me in the 'Administrators' noticeboard' before, exaggerating or distorting me. I'm not saying that we should sanction BMK within Wikipedia, but please refrain from doing so. I want the BMK to stop denouncing me with Xenophobia. I have a certain understanding of American politics, and BMK often does original research on American politics without sources on some pages. That's why I don't want BMK to branded or interrupt my editing. --Storm598 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I refer readers back to this discussion from March, in which Storm598 avoided an AP2 topic ban by voluntarily imposing a 3-month "block" on himself, which he later interpreted as a 3-month topic ban from articles about American politics. Nevertheless, he has broken this voluntary TB several times since [32], [33], [34], under the impression, apparently, that the 3 months was over. (Since he imposed it on himself on March 16, it will be over on June 16.)
The essential problem -- reflected in Storm598's editing throughout Wikipedia, not just in the AP2 area -- is that they get their political information from an unnamed South Korean blog, and then uses that information to make changes on a wide variety of article throughout the encyclopedia, most of which concerns who is conservative, moderate and liberal. I'm not familiar with politics outside the US, so I cannot say if their changes to those articles are good or not, but I do know that when it comes to American politics, their definitions do not match up with those in conventional use, and the changes they make are therefore not helpful.
I continue to believe that Storm598 should be under an indefinite AP2 TB until they can show that their understanding of American politics is more grounded in reality than it currently is, but I'm not going to make the case for that. Those who are interested can read the discussion from March, Storm598's talk page, and their contributions to form their own conclusions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I call on Storm598 to provide specific diffs of when I have reverted their edits since March 16, 2021 that did not involve American politics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please explain what Storm598 means when they write "The user is using 'modern liberal' biased techniques in documents related to American politics in the English Wikipedia." What are "'modern liberal' biased techniques"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
What is the evidence that I get political information from the South Korean blog? I look for major media outlets in English and South Korea.--Storm598 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
You said it yourself in one of our discussions. I'll dig up the diff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Here you go: "I live in South Korea, the largest Korean wiki classifies the U.S. Democratic Party as a social liberal and social democratic party and the Democratic Party of South Korea as a social liberal and social conservative party." [35] This is the source you cited on Talk:California Democratic Party for making changes to that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
# Is this what you're looking for? I didn't mention anything about the South Korean blog. For reference, I mentioned the major wiki of South Korea and only once mentioned how South Koreans perceive the California Democratic Party. The California Democratic Party is not considered a centrist at least in the context of U.S. politics, as there are many democratic socialists, and this is what many have pointed out before.--Storm598 (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Wiki/blog, same thing, they're both self-published sources, and you're clearly taking your views from one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not true that I don't understand American politics, it's just that you're blaming me. BMK did the original research without any source just by looking at the 'Republican Governance Group' page or the 'Blue Dog Collaboration' page. I'm not the only wiki user to protest your 'modern liberal' bias statement.--Storm598 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The reason for describing it as a modern liberal biased technique is simple.
  • You claimed part of the Blue Dog was 'right-wing', but you didn't provide the source.
  • You did not suggest that the Republican Governance Group is not a liberal or moderate organization, nor did you suggest a moderate conservative organization. On the other hand, I suggested a credible source.
American media and English-speaking academic sources also refer to the Republican Governance Group as "liberalism". Can't American media understand American politics more than BLM, which is just a wiki user?--Storm598 (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This is my last comment here, as this is not the place to discuss content disputes. (1) Do not change your comments after they have been replied to except by striking out. (2) We have "articles" on Wikipedia, not "documents". I have told you this numerous times, but like the definition of American liberalism, you refuse to take it in. (3) Please provide a citation from a reliable source which refers to the Republican Governance Group as "liberal", in the American definition.
I think that readers can see the problem with Storm598: they have fixed views which are demonstrably wrong, and will not take in any factual corrections to those views, but instead continue to edit in accordance with those inaccurate views. Their behavior in this discussion shows how frustrating it is to interact with them, which can be verified by looking at their article talk page discussions involving other editors as well as myself. [36], [37]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't confirm that you responded. So I tried to correct it, but this is my mistake.(1) If RSS is not liberal in the American political context, then Blue Dog is not conservative in the American political context. The Blue Dog's propensity to vote is not much different from the New Democrat Coalition. (3)--Storm598 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
And I think it's certainly malicious that you mentioned the Law and Justice.[38] I made it clear that I thought Law and Justice was a far-right party, but you accused myself of making a biased statement. You also think Law and Justice are anti-liberal far right. I think so too. However, the Law and Justice document did not originally describe the far-right, and in the end, you and I did not disagree.--Storm598 (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hatting this because it's an irrelevant discussion about a WP:TPO issue. If an admin feels that the hatting is inappropriate, please undo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And I'll ask you the other way around. Why did you erase what you wrote here?--Storm598 (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
To my knowledge, I did not "erase" anything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
No, you obviously erased what I wrote. # --Storm598 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
See WP:TPO. You changed your comment after I responded to it. I corrected it back to the original version. We are not the Ministry of Truth, you dont get to re-write history and erase you mistakes. If you wanted to change it, the proper way to do so would be to cross out the "BLM" and replace it with "BMK", like this: BLM BMK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, no, Beyond My Ken. You would do that if the original text was "BLM BMK" and you were striking the "BLM" part. When you replace something with something else (i.e. "change something"), you strike the old and underscore the new, as "BLM BMK". If you correct an editor on something like this, please do so correctly. You not only gave wrong information to Storm598 but other editors reading this as well.
A more "advanced" case is when you are merely adding text without replacing anything. Since some editors use underscore for emphasis (which is discouraged in the guidance, presumably because it creates this ambiguity), best practice is to strike the last word preceding the inserted text and repeat it, as "She said it was yesterday. yesterday. But she was mistaken." This practice helps clarify that the underscoring is for inserted text, not emphasis. To my knowledge it is not included in the written guidance, however. Apologies for this off-topic but I felt the error was worth clearing up with the same level of visibility. (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I see you took a WikiBreak from 28 October 2011 until 15 March 2021. [39] It looks like practice may have changed somewhat during your almost 10-year absence. I'll stand by my explanation, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I expected you might; I have that much experience with you. Don't make the mistake of assuming that my editing history is contained in the contribs for this IP address. I just might be a longtime registered editor in good standing, recently 99% retired but very occasionally dropping in a comment here and there (quite legally). See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments if you care. (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I assume you won't mind revealing to an admin what your account is so that it can be verified that you've been editing with an IP, instead of with your account, "quite legally" - since you have nothing to hide. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I sometimes advocated requirements for such disclosures by IPs, but I always lost. It appears that we presume innocence unless there is tangible evidence of abuse; i.e. the burden of evidence is on you, not me. I never saw a logged-out editor provide more disclosure than required because they had nothing to hide. You are free to file an SPI, and you are free to advocate for improvements to the system. I'm sorry but not surprised that you resort to such attack because you resent being publicly corrected on a minor TPG point. (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
"BMK" not "BLM".
You continue to confuse the classical definition of "liberal", by which almost every American politician is a liberal, and the very different definition used in American politics. By that definition, the modern Republican Party -- which used to have an actual liberal wing, more moderate than the Democratic liberal wing, but still verifiably liberal (Rockefeller, Javits etc.) -- no longer has any liberals in it: the furthest to the left it goes on the national level is a handful of moderates. You simply refuse to accept that a "liberal" in the US is not the same as a "liberal" in Europe or elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
BLM is a typo. I'm sorry about that. I support Black Lives Matter.--Storm598 (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I thought it was possibly a reference to the Bureau of Land Management. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken:The RGG is a clear 'liberal' group. It's just your opinion that there's no 'liberal' in modern Republicans. Many sources call RGG a 'liberal' group, and it's an original research to deny it. Authoritative sources call RSS 'liberal'. I know that the context in which 'liberal' is used in America is different from Europe. In the United States, 'liberal' usually refers to 'modern liberal'. That's why I wrote center-right 'conservative liberal' on purpose. On the other hand, RSS is rarely described as a conservative organization. Therefore, it is the Original Research that calls RSS 'moderate conservatism'.--Storm598 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
No, it is not only my opinion, but the fact that you think so is a very good indication -- again -- that you really don't comprehend American politics. If this were an article, and I was making a claim to insert into the article, I could find innumerable citations from reliable sources which would back me up, but for the purposes of this discussion I am comfortable that 40 years of closely observing American politics -- not a foreign "wiki" -- tells me that it is the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I am obviously aware of this discussion, please stop pinging me. I have other articles to use my "'modern liberal' biased techniques" on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is unlikely to be productive, so it would be better not to write "ideology" on infobox. I think we can reach an agreement at this point.--Storm598 (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
No, RGG is still considered a 'liberal Republican'. An organization that is not conservative in general should not be described simply as conservative. It would be better not to write "ideology" at all on the infobox of the Republican Governance Group page as it is now. #, #--Storm598 (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is unlikely to be productive, so it would be better not to write "ideology" on infobox. I think we can reach an agreement at this point.--Storm598 (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of your opinion on the proper labels of these groups, what behavioral issue are you raising. Everything here is a content issue and this board does not determine who is right on content. It is not an appeals court or arbitrator or mediator. As far as I can tell, your only complaint is that BMK is telling you you are wrong on American political labels. That is an issue for the WP:DR process. The First law of holes also applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to add here that I do agree Beyond My Ken's edits in this area seem to display a basic ignorance of American politics. I was absolutely astonished to find that he did, in fact, add "right-wing" as a faction to the Blue Dog Coalition page; for reference, this is the most conservative faction of America's big-tent left-wing party. Right-wing is such a factually inaccurate label for this group that it boggles the mind - it's an astonishing factual error that is made even worse by the fact he did so without a citation and then edit-warred to try and force his change into the article. A similar situation is going on at Republican Governance Group, he straight-up removed several reliably sourced sections in the inbox, incorrectly claiming they were cited to a "Korean blog". This sort of editing has to stop. Toa Nidhiki05 19:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your assessment. Given BMK's great breadth of knowledge and long experience, I would argue that he displays not a basic ignorance of American politics as you claim, but rather a mastery of the topic area. The Blue Dog coalition is accurately characterized as the right-wing of the Democratic Party. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies described it as such in their publications, as only one example. This is like calling the old Rockefeller Republicans the left-wing of the Republican Party (according to the 1985 political science book Psychological Perspectives on Politics). The more important question here, is why anyone could possibly view this as erroneous or controversial. BMK appears to know the topic and is editing based on a plethora of good sources. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It's similar to the situation with the Strasserites. The Strassers were not leftists in any absolute sense, but they did represent the "left-wing" of the Nazi Party; that is, the left-most portion of an entirely far-right movement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The Republican Party is not on par with the Nazi Party. RSS, far from advocating totalitarianism, has a social and cultural liberal orientation. Strassism is basically against liberalism.--Storm598 (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
OMG!! That was an analogy about relative positions within political parties, not a comparison of the Republican Party (or the Democratic Party, which Viriditas also mentioned) with the Nazis. Do we have a CIR problem here?!
In any event, my mistake. I was fooled by Viridtas' comment into thinking that there might be some rational discussion breaking out. Outta here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I know exactly what you mean by bringing up the Nazi party. However, One Nation Conservatives (caucus) and Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia) pages mention "social liberalism" in addition to "conservative liberalism" or "liberal conservativeism" in the book Infobox. Similarly, what is the problem with referring to coservative "liberalism" in the infobox of RSS pages? Strassism is fascism, not socialism. However, RSS is a liberal organization. --Storm598 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hatting another discussion because it is partly unproductive, and partly irrelevant to the subject of the thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh man, it's getting deep in here... PackMecEng (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
That wasn't a terribly useful or helpful comment. Perhaps when you have nothing productive to say, you might actually consider occasionally saying nothing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
No, you miss the subtlety of my comment. It was basically disagreeing with Viriditas assessment. Mostly by comparing the situation to getting knee deep in bullshit. Does that clear it up for you? PackMecEng (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Your comment was as subtle as one of Lady Gaga's outfits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Conservative Democrats are part of the right-wing of the Democratic Party. What part of this is BS? Likewise, Progressive Democrats are part of the left-wing of the Democratic Party. How is this erroneous or controversial? Just because the modern Republican Party is a cult that has chosen to eject and banish anyone on the left-wing, liberal side of their party, doesn't mean the Democratic Party has done the same thing. Both parties used to have left, center, and right-wing members, but only the Republican Party has all but eliminated this distinction. For an example of how far out of touch the Republican Party is with reality, simply look at their categorization of Obama, Biden, and Harris as radical, left-wing Marxists. The vast majority of academic political scientists and historians categorize Obama, Biden, and Harris as center-right leaning, pro-capitalist Democrats. The Republican Party repeatedly brands right-leaning Democrats as radical leftists to promote the false idea that they alone can call themselves right-wing. This is a clearly false and transparent attempt to shift the Overton window and make center-right policy positions appear to be on the far left. Reasonable and rational people don't fall for this cultist propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Obama, Biden, and Harris are considered centrist or center-left social liberal. Living in a welfare state is what some Europeans perceive as a centre-right. If Obama, Biden, and Harris are center-rights, many culturally conservative Asian countries center-rights should be considered far-rights. Moderate liberals in the U.S. are center-left in the U.S. standard and cultural radical left-wing to center-left welfare policy in the East Asian standard. They are centre-right by Nordic or Canadian standards and in fact, it is not an objective analysis at all that they are centre-right. Social liberalism is often considered a center to center-left even by global standards. (Clearly, East Asia is culturally very conservative. American politics and culture are not as conservative as you might think.)--Storm598 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Only fringe, right-wing sources describe Obama, Biden, and Harris as center-left, social liberals. Obama's policies were often described as deeply conservative, with most academics describing him as a Rockefeller Republican, which makes Obama center-right as a Democrat. Enough has been written about Biden and Harris's extreme conservativism, that I feel you are either out of touch with the sources or are pushing a POV, such as the kind we find with the Unification Church or the Falun Gong. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
In South Korea, major center-right politicians such as Oh Se-hoon also oppose homosexuality. Donald Trump, the far-right in U.S. political standards, has practically implemented a discriminatory policy against LGBT, but he does not openly oppose homosexuality. Then should we consider South Korea's center-rightists as far-rightists? People like Obama and Hillary are never center-right by American standards, never center-right by non-Europe. Nordic standard should not work to judge American political standards. Social liberalism is generally a center-left ideology, even in Europe, except in Northern Europe or France. East Asian politics, without exaggeration, is really very far-right. I hate East Asian politics. I've been subjected to countless discrimination as an LGBT.--Storm598 (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Only fringe, right-wing sources Oh gzz, it's getting even deeper! PackMecEng (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
See The Washington Times and the The Epoch Times, both of which specialize in extremist, denialist rhetoric that falsely labels center-right Democratic policies and politicians as Marxist, radical left, and center-left. And both news sources are run and owned by religious cults, much like the Republican Party itself. If the shoe fits... Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The Washington Post, one of the leading "modern liberal" journalists in the U.S., also describes Joe Biden as a center-left. # They are by no means center-right.--Storm598 (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The WaPo makes no such claim. The writer you cited argues that the party as a whole may have had to move center-left to subsume progressive Democrats, but the writer also says that this a major change from Biden's more conservative role in the former Obama admin. You're now twisting sources to support your claims. Biden has never been center-left and that article makes no such claim about Biden, mostly because it would be absurd. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I never thought Obama or Biden was a Marxist. They're basically a centrist or center-left because they support social liberalism based on the third path. Not all center-left are socialist or Marxist. Liberal center-left can also be established. And while social liberalism is generally not socialist, BUT it is clear that it is a centre-left.--Storm598 (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Obama was center-right, not center-left. Go review his policy history and what political scientists say about him. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Neat, now you are ranting into BLP territory. I would advice against that!Face-wink.svg PackMecEng (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I literally cited their sourced Wikipedia pages. Explain how citing facts is "ranting" or a BLP violation? Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Weird I looked at their pages, Wikipedia is not a RS btw, and it does not mention that they are owned by cults(blp vio), that republican party is a cult(crazy talk), or anything about shoes(no idea what you are on about). Please do keep in mind the law of holes. PackMecEng (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Both media sources are owned by religious movements described as cults in their respective pages. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
American liberals like Obama and Biden are never Marxists. But they are not even center-right. They are basically center to center-left Keynesian. And they are never culturally conservative either.--Storm598 (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Biden isn't center-left, and that claim is just absurd. As for Obama, I'll quote myself from 2015: "Obama's policies were criticized as that of a center-right conservative who gave lip service to progressivism but rarely deviated from the conservative agenda set by his predecessor. His failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the zealous prosecution of more whistleblowers than any previous administration, the continuing use of controversial drone strikes, the promotion of warrantless wiretapping against public opinion, the denial of the importance of the Snowden revelations, and the failure to prosecute Wall Street for any malfeasance beyond large fines -- all of these things led critics to note that previous administrations were far more open, democratic, and liberal than the current one. Some liberals questioned whether they had actually elected a Democrat in the first place. Strangely, even though liberals strongly supported a single-payer health care solution, Obama's legacy instead hinged on the passing of the Affordable Care Act, a health care policy in part designed by a conservative think tank in the early 1990s, a policy which failed to address the very health insurance reforms (such as controlling the costs) reformers had lobbied so hard for in the first place." Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
It should be taken into account that US politics is much more conservative than Europe. South Korean social democrats and socialists often view Barack Obama as a person similar to Roh Moo-hyun. Roh did not repeal the National Security Act, a legacy of the far-right dictatorship. In addition, Roh Moo-hyun severely suppressed the labor movement. And he showed social conservative views, such as not agreeing with homosexuality. Although Roh Moo-hyun was not particularly progressive during his time in power, he is considered a liberal center-left by South Korean political standards. Likewise, Barack Obama is certainly hard to be seen as a center-right by US political standards.--Storm598 (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Especially culturally, Barack Obama has been active in pro-immigration, pro-LGBT and autistic rights issues. It's a center-left and I'm one of Obama's most respected politicians in this respect.--Storm598 (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
As noted below, this the administrators' noticeboard, it's not a place for general discussion of a topic, or the details of a content dispute. Please stop debating political science on this noticeboard. Please address Specifico's request for specifics about what you want to accomplish. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think BMK is ignorant of American politics. I just think BMK is making biased descriptions in 'some' pages, not 'all'.--Storm598 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Storm598 seems to be entering AP post-1932 TB territory. This is a timesink. Miniapolis 22:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Per my comments at the previous ANI discussion, I think it needs to be broader. The issues extend to East Asian politics. - Ryk72 talk 23:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ryk72: Pace Toa Nidhiki05's remark above‎, after 40 years of close observation, I'm pretty conversant with American politics, but I know little about the politics of East Asia. Can you describe Storm598's behavior in that subject area? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Well I think Storm is being a bit AP post-1932 TB, don't you think? SlightSmile 00:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Broadly the same issues that are evident in the AP2 area - engaging in OR, particularly with respect to categorisation & infobox contents. The addition of Cat:Identity politics in Japan is not necessarily harmful, just bizarre.[40] But there's also this, categorising a WW2 era Japanese politician as "fascist", when the article describes him in rather more moderate terms.[41] And this, adding "far-right" with neither source nor support in the article text.[42] The addition of a handful of cats, including "far-right" to a Thai political party here,[43], while also acknowledging that the sourcing doesn't exist.[44] Not isolated to "far-right", there's also additions and removals of "left-wing activist" here; again without sourcing or supporting text.[45][46][47] And these changes to a British Labour Party politicians are justified entirely by OR or personal viewpoint.[48][49] And these additions of "Anti-Zionism in South Korea", a new category created by Storm598, are just bewildering.[50][51] These additions to a Korean political party are unsourced OR.[52]; no justification is provided for this removal.[53]. This, to Kuomintang, is based on OR.[54] It's actually hard to find an edit in the broader politics topic which isn't pushing a personal POV or original research. - Ryk72 talk 07:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


Enough with the sniping and content arguments, please. Acroterion (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Now, can the discussion be reset?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it is helpful at this point. It really illustrates the issues at hand. No need to stifle reasonable discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not helpful, please stop adding to the bonfire. Acroterion (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It is helpful, we can agree to disagree though. PackMecEng (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It stopped being helpful a few thousand bytes ago. I'm not interested in whether you want to have a meta-debate now over "helpful." Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Suit yourself, then please stop disrupting dispute resolution with these off topic tangents. We are trying to get to the bottom of this issue and that will not happen with these silly arguments like this. PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This isn't a dispute resolution board - that's elsewhere. Are you now accusing me, an administrator who's trying to refocus this exceedingly painful wall of text, of disruption because I expect you to stop taking potshots at each other on this administrator's noticeboard? Acroterion (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Are you now accusing me, an administrator I mean yeah, that is what I said. So quit it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
PackMecEng, your contributions to this thread have been completely unhelpful. If you have a point that needs to be made, please reconsider your approach. – bradv🍁 00:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bradv: Perhaps you are just misunderstanding like BMK was. Which one is giving you trouble and I can help you out. PackMecEng (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm considering a partial block from AN for PackMecEng for disrupting AN - this is argument for argument's sake. Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, I mean using the tools to block someone for disagreeing with you does sound like a smart plan. PackMecEng (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Confronting disruptive behavior is what administrators do. I've taken no part in the discussion above, I am examining your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Well no. You made a general, and glaringly incorrect observation, I disagreed with your bad observation and then you threatened a block. Do not misrepresent the situation to play the uninvolved card. This is about our discussion here, not the one above my friend. PackMecEng (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Since I was considering the same thing when I left my warning above, I've gone ahead and blocked PackMecEng from this noticeboard for a week. Perhaps now the conversation can get back on track. – bradv🍁 00:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, let me try my hand at a reset. Here are what I think are the salient points:

  • Storm598 came here with complaints about me which seem to boil down to his perception that I am using "'modern liberal' biased techniques" in my editing, but -- at least as I see it, although I'm clearly not neutral -- what he means by that is pretty vague, and he hasn't really made a very strong case for it, nor has he said what outcome he wants from filing the report. If I'm wrong, and he has indeed made a compelling case against me, then I should be appropriately sanctioned -- whatever that would be -- but if I'm correct that his evidence is less than convincing, then as the accuser with the onus to prove his charge, his case against me should be dropped.
  • On the boomerang side, I see in Storm598's editing a fundamental lack of understanding of American politics, which manifests itself in mischaracterizations which are based on non-American political criteria inapplicable in an American context. On top of this he does not follow proper sourcing requirements, shoving in new information on top of existing citations which do not directly support the new descriptors as they are required to do. (See here) These are not new problems, they are continuations of the situation described in a discussion in March when Storm598 narrowly avoided an AP2 topic ban by voluntarily banning himself from the subject for three months, a ban he has broken twice since then. [55], [56], [57]

I think that is the core of this thread. Unfortunately, most of the bazillion other bytes of text are not directly relevant to these two points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason why I talked about AP2 topic ban for 3 months is because you bullied me. You've interrupted a number of legitimate edits that I have nothing to do with American politics. In addition, I said so emotionally because I was unable to participate in the debate because my mental health was seriously deteriorated at the time. But as I said above, the descriptions you made in some of the American political papers, including the Blue Dog, have not always been universal. When there was an editorial dispute on the page related to American politics, I always wanted to open a talk and solve it through dialogue. I have never made a major misstatement in American political documents. Do you think I don't know how the concept of 'liberal' is used in America? I just think that simply writing down RSS as 'moderate conservatism' can give political bias to those who read it. If RSS is not liberal, then BDC cannot be considered conservative. I certainly think that some of Beyond My Ken's political pages skills are biased.--Storm598 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems that only the same words will be repeated anyway, so I will stop the argument here any more. --Storm598 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
It's probably not very useful to you to make charges such as that I "bullied" you into doing something, when anyone can read the March discussion [58] and see that you were clearly heading toward a AP2 TB or worse, which is not something I can do by myself, but requires the Wikipedia community to enact. I never asked you to voluntarily do anything, I came to the community asking for action about your behavior, and the community was responding to that request. You may see that as "bullying", but it's how problem editors are dealt with here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


Because of a failure in WP:CIR, WP:TE and most especially WP:STICK, Storm598 (talk · contribs) is subject to an WP:ARBAP2 topic ban from all post-1992 politics in the United States. This thread should provide all the evidence needed for such a motion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

re: expanded politics topic ban. I proposed what seemed the minimum effective measure to address the current disruption. I think that this already represents a last chance for Storm598 and any further disruption in other politics topics should result in an indefinite complete block. I am not opposed to Ryk72's expanded proposal, however. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
for accuracy's sake, I also note that Storm has claimed to retire from enwiki. Given the lack of follow-through on previous claimed self-imposed restrictions, I think there is a need for a definitive sanction in case they unretire. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support "modern liberal biased techniques" pretty much says it all. Storm598 should find something else to edit. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support community-imposed topic ban from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed, notwithstanding any additional sanctions which may be considered in other subject areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Just noting that the starting point for DS AP2 was changed from 1932 to 1992 (here) so it would seem to make sense that a community-imposed AP2 TB would use the same starting point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Reyk72's expanded TB as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as part of a community imposed topic ban from Politics (broadly construed). - Ryk72 talk 07:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support at the minimum, and I also support Ryk72's broader ban, because I fear that the problematic editing will be transferred to the politics of other nations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the broader ban, per Ryk72's analysis. Quite a few simply odd edits, in addition to the ones that shouldn't be made without appropriate sourcing. I don't see evidence above that this need for sourcing is well-understood. CMD (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Abstain I'm not in favor of culling one or two members from the herd to sanction when there are a multitude of "bad actors" in a particular topic area. I'm not seeing any WP:NPA violations, or even WP:ASPERSIONS in Storm's posts. What I am seeing is a disagreement on the WP:POV end of political editing. I also don't assume that Storm598 is being deceptive in his intent to leave the topic area. So no, I can't support this as written at this time. — Ched (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ched The fact that Storm598 came out of his "retirement" three days after writing "I'm not coming back to Wikipedia again" in order to post the comments below is why it's appropriate to think that he has no intention of leaving the AP2 topic area. He did exactly the same thing the last time he was challenged, said he was giving up and going away, then came back to voluntarily take on a 3-month AP2 topic ban, only to break it well before the 3 months were over. I really do not believe anything that Storm598 says he is going to do, and would prefer to go by his actions in the past, and now again right here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • And in those comments below, Storm598 admits to sockpuppetry in order to avoid sanctions both in April and now, in June, with User:파란만장. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support American politics topic ban, Oppose broader ban. There's an awful lot of ABF going on assuming that editing issues with APOL will transfer to other countries; we should give Storm enough WP:ROPE to still edit politics of other countries.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I just want to note that, according to Reyk72, it's not a question of whether Storm598's disruptive editing will spread outside of the AP2 area, but that his editing there is as bad as it is in American politics; so there's no ABF involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support American politics topic ban, at minimum, on both competence and disruptive editing grounds. And no, despite what Ched says, there are not "multiple bad actors" here, there'S really only one. --Calton | Talk 13:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Abstain - per Ched. Blue Dogs might be "the right wing of the Democrats" but that doesn't mean it should be listed as "right wing" in the infobox, as in "the right wing of American politics." Blue Dogs are commonly described as fiscally conservative Democrats (eg see WaPo) and thus the right wing of that party, but not as "right wing" in the same way as, say, Donald Trump or Breitbart or something like that. The OP's report is valid: there was actual edit warring to include unsourced and incorrect information, and uncivil edit summaries to boot. I think the OP's complaint is valid and the boomerang is not. If there is some long term problem with Storm, let's see some diffs and a real report. Levivich 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Updated !vote. Levivich 01:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    Please keep comments on-point and do not attempt to litigate content issues. If you want a diff, look at the opening of Storm's statement here which is a clear personal attack. The rest of this thread should amply serve as needed evidence without bureaucratic contortions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    there was actual edit warring to include unsourced and incorrect information, and uncivil edit summaries to boot is about conduct, not content, and please don't imply I !voted without reading this thread. No, it does not serve as ample evidence supporting a sanction, not in my view. Levivich 18:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support one-way IBan; weakly oppose Topic Ban from WP:ARBAP2. I don't think there's much here for a broader topic ban extending to all of politics (certainly this thread doesn't really say anything about Roman Politics or the like, so a proposal along those lines is too broad). I also don't think that the editor is incapable of editing articles relating to American politics, though I certainly have serious concerns. If we choose to move forward with a topic ban, I believe that it should be limited in time (rather than indefinite), since this appears to be a case of an editor becoming extremely hot-headed while on WP:ANI rather than substantive issues with the edits themselves. As a result, I think the most narrowly tailored approach would be to impose a 1-way interaction band that would prohibit Storm598 from interacting with Beyond My Ken for a period of six months. If the editor violates the interaction ban with malice, or if their behavior continues after this thread is closed, I would move to support a topic ban. The user has had issues with this area in the past, incurring a one-day ban for edit warring on this topic, so my current opposition to a topic ban is only a weak one. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • An IBan is not under consideration since it's not responsive to the situation presented -- but, in any case, whom do you propose to ban and in what direction? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: My intent was to put forward an alternative (banning Storm598 from interacting with you; the ban should be placed on Storm 598). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for the explanation. I do not see that Storm598's interactions with me are the base problem here, instead the concern is about their editing to articles, specifically in the American politics subject area, but also in other areas as well. An interaction ban will not solve this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to point out that nothing Storm598 writes about his intentions concerning editing Wikipedia can be trusted. He "retired" three days ago, and now he posts it again, with the edit summary "Now it's really retired," [59] as if we're supposed to believe him now that he really, really means it. So when he writes "I'm not coming back to Wikipedia again. I won't even create another account", [60] we can be pretty sure that he'll be back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Originally, I didn't want to answer, but I'll answer this before I leave. The reason why I deleted "retired" is because it can cause regulatory problems. Because as you said last time, I remembered that I couldn't "retire". But I'm not editing Wikipedia any more this year. I don't want you to misunderstand me as a destructive editing. If you don't believe it, watch from now on.--Storm598 (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I never told you that you couldn't retire. Please provide the diff of where you think I said that. In point of fact, you have "retired" -- either with a template or otherwise, and twice now in the midst of sanctions being considered against you -- a number of times, and each time you return to editing within a short period of time. That's called WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support american politics topic ban. I say we wait to see how that goes before considering a one way IBan. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a reason why I am convinced that this is discrimination against new users.[edit]

One of the things I say when I doubt myself is that I'm a new user. To be honest, I have a reason to be sure that I am discriminated against because I am a new user.

I used to be active on another account for about 3 years.(User:삭은사과) Then, in September last year, I completely quit editing Wikipedia in October because I was on the verge of spreading my real name and personal information on other sites. And I created this account last December.

When I first started editing on Wikipedia in 2017, there were a few disputes, but since then, people haven't really taken issue with my editing. (Of course, at this time, I was more likely to source, and I didn't edit as many US political documents as I do now.)

Would my editing have been this suspicious if I had been on the 삭은사과 account since October last year? I was a 'verified user' back then. I have also received Barnstar from Korean Wikipedia.# Obviously, the atmosphere of 2017 or 2018 was not so exclusive to 'new users'. Am I wrong?

I would also like to refute some of the claims that I am doing OR.

  • Adding corporatism to Kuomintang's pages' infobox is a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. There is not enough evidence to suggest that current Kuomintang pursues corporatism.
  • Hideki Tojo and Fumimaro Konoe are representative leaders of the fascist-centered "Axis powers," and there is an academic controversy over whether totalitarianism in the Japanese Empire was fascism in the late 1930s and 1940s. I'm not the only one who put the fascist category in that page.
  • Some say that I made an OR in American political pages, but in that sense, there is a reason why I don't hold Beyond My Ken responsible for making an OR in Blue Dog and other U.S. political pages. That's because Beyond My Ken is a person who has been using Wikipedia for a long time, not a "new user". Also, I often used Talk on many pages.

Of course, the current situation was so unfair that I created a new account and edited Wikipedia. This is my fault because it is a clear attempt to evade sanctions. # I'm sorry.

But I honestly don't think there's been a big OR in American political documents. If I'm going to label BDC's ideology as conservatism because many of the disputes in Wikipedia are called Republican Governance Group as "liberal Republicans" and Blue Dog Coalition as "conservative Democrats", then I'm just at odds with Beyond My Ken over the view that RGG's ideology should be labeled liberal. To be honest, I think I'm being treated as an unfair bias because I'm a new user. This is not an OP, just a difference of opinion.

I'm really going to say something as I really leave now. A large number of English Wikipedia users has certainly become quite exclusive compared to the past. I doubt the new user Be bold first. At this rate, I'm sure there will be fewer users editing English Wikipedia in the future.I'm sick and tired of this form.--Storm598 (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry you feel this way, but you really have to approach English Wikipedia, at least, as a giant collaborative project, and that means with humility. People will disagree, and very few subjects are truly susceptible to logical proofs. If I could offer some advice, take a break and come back with the mindset to persuade. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Storm598: Your previous account, User:삭은사과 was active for 4 years and 4 months, with 3,389 edits. Your current account has been active for 5 months with 1,347 edits. Throw in the nine edits from your sockpuppet account User:파란만장, and in total you have edited for 4 years and 9 months with 4,745 edits. You are in no way, shape or form a "new editor".
    And, yes, to answer your question, if you had continued to edit with your first account, and you had made exactly the same edits you made as Storm598, my response would have been the same. Bad editing is bad editing, period. I would have said to 삭은사과 the same thing I wrote to you in my very first comment on your talk page: "I would suggest that you re-evaluate your editing," something that you still haven't done. [63] Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood what I said, so I'm going to say this for the last time. That's right. I'm not a new user. But the reason you treat me like this is because you recognized me as a new user. Today, I revealed for the first time that I used to work under the account of '삭은사과'. Now that it's already happened, you're just trying to keep going. But if I hadn't created an account called Storm598 at all, and had used the account I'd been using since the beginning, you'd be much less suspicious of my editing. Don't you understand what I'm trying to say? --Storm598 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't need to reveal that I had previously been on an account called 삭은사과 and I just said it, even though it was against me. The Wikipedia atmosphere has certainly become exclusive from a few years ago. I wanted to make this clear to you.--Storm598 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
In short, direct words: you are wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree. There is a huge leap from "Wah! I didn't get my way! Call Whine One One! I need a Wahmbulance!!" to "I am being discriminated against". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I admit that I was ignorant of American politics.[edit]

I couldn't even understand why Elizabeth Warren was called "liberal" instead of "social democratic".(Of course I've never edited Elizabeth Warren page at all.) In South Korea, Elizabeth Warren is perceived as a social democratic or "radical left-wing". In fact, in South Korea, center-left media also report Elizabeth Warren as a "radical left-wing".# Even major American liberal media have likened Elizabeth Warren to social democracy.# South Korea prefers state intervention more economically than the United States, but most political forces, including the center-left social democratic Justice Party, are negative about the dismantlement of Chaebol or financial reform.(Of course, South Korea's Justice Party is advocating chaebol reform.) Perhaps if a politician like Elizabeth Warren appeared in South Korea, he would be considered more leftist than the usual social democracy in South Korea.

I realized that the investigation "liberal" used in the United States was very American exceptional. In American politics, "liberal" is a very vague rhetoric, which is called "liberal" in the international sense of Barack Obama, but even progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren call it "liberal." Outside the United States, however, there are views that people close to social liberalism, such as Tony Blair, are "social democracat," which in many ways confuses me. (Tony Blair is not as radical as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, but rather compared to Bill Clinton. The third way.)

I have now somewhat understood why it is awkward to describe RGG as 'liberal' in the context of American politics. I still lack knowledge of American politics, and I need to study more. I now agree that I need a ban for at least a period of time on the American political page.

However, if so, I still have some questions about editing BMK. I still don't understand how RSS is described as a moderate conservative organisation. Similarly, the Blue Dog is not a right-wing in the general sense of American politics. (example: Rockefeller Republicans are left-wing in the Republican Party, but they are not left-wing by national political standards.) Some of the other users also took issue with editing BMK. Especially in the case of Blue Dog, there was a user who took issue with editing BMK even if it wasn't me. Did I misunderstand this part, too? I hope that the Administrators will also consider this when considering sanctions against me. As mentioned above, there was also a clear problem with BMK editing some pages.(Of course, I 'agree' with BMK's recent proposal to label the Republican Governance Group as "Political moderate".#)--Storm598 (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not to explain that I see Elizabeth Warren as a social democrat, but that some 'liberals' in the United States, such as Elizabeth Warren, are perceived differently from the general meaning of 'liberal' in other countries. I don't think Elizabeth Warren is a social democrat. In many countries, 'liberal' is often referred to as a centrist, unlike 'liberal' in the American context.--Storm598 (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not claiming to be an expert on US politics either, but I'm pretty sure that politics is not on the high school syllabus over there. That means that many don't even have the background knowledge to engage in such discussions. It also means that some will turn to Wikipedia for explanation. We need to be aware that where the political "centre" lies will differ greatly from country to country and should therefore be avoided where possible and carefully defined where not. We also need to use terms like "liberal" and "socialist" with great precision, even if it means that American readers are surprised that liberals are right of centre in many countries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Even ideologies that are not political positions may have different meanings. Liberals in South Korea will not be considered liberals in the United States. They are more of a center-right or right-wing in American political standards socially and culturally. For example, there are quite a few liberals in South Korea who oppose homosexuality(Example: #, #, #), not same-sex marriage, which in the United States would be considered simple conservatism, not moderate conservatism. South Koreans think American liberalism is different from their own. American liberalism is an American exceptional concept, which is not perfectly consistent with 'centrist liberal' in the international concept. In particular, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are "liberal" in the American political context, but there are social democratic elements beyond social liberalism on international standards. --Storm598 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Elizabeth Warren has some aspects that go against social democratic principles, but there is a point where Warren is hardly considered a "centrist liberal" in international terms. In particular, Warren's views on exchange rates or free trade are hardly considered "liberal" in the general international sense. The center-left media in South Korea mentioned above also reported that Warren has put forward radical left-wing policies, including a pledge to manipulate the exchange rate. This view is never called "liberal" or "social liberal" in South Korea. --Storm598 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned the major wiki of South Korea last time was only to inform that American politicians and political forces are actually classified differently in South Korea, not to base them on the major wiki of South Korea. In South Korea, Warren is actually seen as a social democrat. Warren is a CPC-linked figure in the first place, so it may not be just wrong to see Warren as a social democrat. Of course I don't think of Warren as a social democrat. What is certain is that "liberal" is used internationally in much the same sense as "centrist", so South Korea's social liberal is much more conservative than the US's "liberal". This is because the concepts themselves are completely different. As mentioned above, Warren is considered quite radical left-wing or similar to himself among the center-left (mainly social democrats) in South Korea. The American 'liberal' is certainly not a centrist 'liberal' in international sense.--Storm598 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
That's why I said I needed to study more about American politics. Internationally, some Rockefeller Republicans or moderate Republicans can be considered conservative liberals. (In particular, liberal conservatism, a sub-division of conservative liberalism, is used in many countries in a similar sense to moderate conservatism.) However, it is inappropriate to call the center-right conservative because the mainstream right is called conservative and the mainstream left is called "liberal" in American political standards. However, I did not see the RGG as a general conservative organization and did not see the BDC as a general right-wing, so I was only opposed to BMK's new editing.(This I think BMK has frankly done OR. I think administrators should consider this, even if they ban editing my American political page for a period of time.) However, applying the concept of 'liberal' outside the American to pages related to United States politics can cause a lot of confusion, and I think there is plenty of room for OR. I admit that I did OR on this part. My editing was mistaken in many ways because American liberalism means 'social liberalism' and 'progressivism', not general 'centrist' liberalism.--Storm598 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Slightly off topic, but politics is definitely required as part of the high school curriculum in most states - at least, we had a year of American history in 11th grade followed by a semester on American Government. Whether it is comprehensive enough is another question. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 05:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course, some of you may think that what I'm saying here is OR. However, I explained how 'liberal' in the United States is perceived outside the United States. Since the concept of "liberal" in the United States is an American exceptionalist concept, it is my OR that attempts to apply and edit the concept of "liberal" in the international sense in American political documents. I think it's my fault that I created something like "Category:Liberalism in the Republican Party (United States)". I'm going to log out of Wikipedia after this time, and I'm going to find out how American political are described. I'm sorry.--Storm598 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I was going to quit editing English Wikipedia for a long time, but I broke my promise last time, so you might not believe me easily, and I wrote this long article to explain my editing. Once again, I'm sorry. My mental health has deteriorated so I'm going to block access to English Wikipedia on my phone and computer (I didn't block access to English Wikipedia last February).--Storm598 (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I retract the word that I will block access to English Wikipedia. However, I will not edit the English Wikipedia for a while and just read it.--Storm598 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Call for close[edit]

  • I think that there more than sufficient evidence at this point -- much of it in their own words -- for an uninvolved admin to make a determination as to whether a sanction should be imposed on Storm598, either a community AP2 topic ban or a community ban against editing anything related to politics. Or no sanction at all, of course. I would recommend that the closer read closely everything from the #Reset section on down, and also look at the March discussion [64].
Obviously, if there's sufficient evidence and community support for a sanction against myself, that should be considered as well, but it's certainly time to wrap this up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If possible, I would like to have a ban with a fixed deadline rather than a permanent one. Please consider that I didn't cause such a big problem when I was working on another account(삭은사과) until last year, but rather made productive edits. (Examples: #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, #, enc.) I acknowledge that the edits I have made over the months on this account(Storm598) may not be productive or OR. It's because my mental health has deteriorated this year. I'll log out until my mental health is restored. I'll try not to cause this problem when I get back to Wikipedia next year.(When this is over, I won't edit Wikipedia pages this year, but I'll just read them.) --Storm598 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
If possible, please give me a topic ban with a fixed deadline. Or please block Wikipedia for about a 1 year(365 days) until I recover my mental health without topic ban. Please don't do a permanent topic ban.--Storm598 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Recently, my mental health has deteriorated a lot, and now I really feel that I shouldn't edit Wikipedia this year. But I want you to give me a 'chance'. I personally suffered a very terrible incident this year and had a problematic editing, but my mental health will be fully restored by the second half of next year. I'm sorry.--Storm598 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that you agree to a 1-year ban from editing English Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • That's right, but on the condition that administrators don't do AP2 ban on me. I'll continue reading Wikipedia, but I'd rather not edit it for my current mental health. The irrational behavior that I've been doing in English Wikipedia recently is related to my mental health problems.--Storm598 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm very shy to see what I said a few days ago today. I think I had a lot of positive prejudice against American politics and society because South Korean society is quite conservative in minority human rights issues and I suffered serious discrimination in South Korea as an LGBT. In this situation, I think I've lost my reason this year because I've been through something very bad. (however, when editing South Korean political pages, it did not reflect my OR view.) For many complex reasons, I have not been rational in many ways this year. I think I need to take a long break.--Storm598 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Are you going to stop editing or not? If your mental health is a concern, you should stop and disengage - period. Wikipedia cannot operate in that capacity on your behalf. WaltCip-(talk) 12:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
If you look at the edits in the accounts that I stopped using before I created this account, you will honestly feel that the edits in the current account are very poor in quality compared to those in the previous account. From the end of last year to the beginning of this year, I had a terrible experience that I could not say publicly. Including cyber stalking damage on SNS. My mental health condition is very poor now. It's worse than last year.--Storm598 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm opposed to this attempt by Storm598 to craft his own sanction under his conditions. If he had agreed to a straight one-year site ban, I thought that could be an OK compromise, but once he started making demands, I think that shows that his offer was not at all serious. His attempt to negotiate a sanction is what he did back in March -- and here we are again. My feeling is that if sanctions are placed on him, they should be indefinite, and he can request they be lifted after a year. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree with Beyond My Ken. I would also be OK with letting them request an unban after six months instead of a year but the chances of it succeeding are roughly 0% so IMO there is no real difference. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Summary - The proposal for sanctions against Storm598 has been open since May 31, or 12 days. Without dealing with strength of argument, just looking at the numbers, I see:
  • 7 supports for an AP2 ban, 1 weak oppose
  • 4 support for an all politics ban, 1 oppose
  • 2 abstentions
  • 1 one-way interaction ban for Storm529
  • Can an uninvolved admin please assess and close?
Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to create redirect page at Matplotlib version3.3.3,[edit]

Hello, I'm requesting the creation of an {{R from file metadata link}} redirect page at Matplotlib version3.3.3, that redirects to Matplotlib. This link showed up in the EXIF metadata of File:Ingenuity Helicopter 1st Flight Altimeter Data.png, but I guess since it has a url in the name I do not have permission to create the page. Thanks! --Yarnalgo talk 19:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it usual for such metadata to 1) not have a space after the word "version" and 2) include a url? If there are no controls over what is placed there should we really automatically create a redirect? I throw these questions out as food for thought, rather than necessarily a reason not to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Not done Nobody would search for that string, or enter it into the search box, so creating it as a redirect is useless. That it is in the metadata of some image is of negligible interest. Sandstein 21:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree, no one would use that as a search term.-- (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support creation. We allow file metadata redirects, do we not? So it seems to go against consensus to not create it as requested. Many file metadata redirects are long and completely unsearchable terms like this one. For example:
  1. /opt/imagemagick-7.0.5/share/doc/ImageMagick-7//index.html
  2. C150,D390
  3. C70Z,C7000Z
  4. C-1Z,D-150Z
  5. Darktable 2.5.0+481~g35ee32992
  6. DROIDX 66360001fff80000015d76040101d01f
  7. HandBrake 1.3.3 2020061300
  8. ImageMagick 6.6.9-7 2012-08-17 Q16
  9. ImageMagick 6.9.2-7 Q16 x86 64 2015-12-02
  10. FE360,X875,C570
  11. MicroStation by Bentley Systems, Incorporated
  12. Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis
  13. Leaf Aptus 22(LF7220 )/Hasselblad H1
  14. Sinarback 54 M, Sinar 4x5" view camera
  16. Pdftk 2.02 -
  17. R4CB020 prgCXC1250031 GENERIC E 4.6
  18. Xiph.Org libtheora 1.1 20090822 (Thusnelda)

etc. and more in Category:Redirects from file metadata links, and the redirects which aren't categorized. You can see that the bold ones contain URLs just like this one. By all means we can have a discussion if we want to deprecate redirects created only for the purpose of being a redirect from file metadata. I would also note that in Sandstein's "not done" comment, they say that "Nobody would search for that string", but that's not the point, they unbreak an incoming link. They also note that "That it is in the metadata of some image is of negligible interest", however they are a purpose of a redirect and can be categorized as such with {{R from file metadata link}}. They also appear to meet point 4 and 5 of WP:R#KEEP because deleting one will break incoming links, and they simply are helpful for some people because they can immediately go to the article about the software or hardware that helped create that file. Dylsss(talk contribs) 18:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I didn't realize that this type of redirect was not well known by administrators otherwise I would have offered more of an explanation. This type of redirect has been around since as early as 2005. As you say, the point is not that someone would search on Wikipedia for this. The point is that it exists as a link on the file page so this redirect fixes that broken link for anyone that clicks it there. And for a tool as common as Matplotlib, it's likely that this link exists on more file pages and will continue to get added to new files in the future. As you say, we can have a discussion about whether this type of redirect in general is worth keeping (although I struggle to find any reason why these helpful and harmless redirects should be removed), but until that discussion takes place denying my request because "no one would search for that string" makes no sense.
RandomCanadian, the reason I posted it here is because Wikipedia told me this was where I should post this request. When I tried to create the page it said "If this is the page you want to create, please make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." If there is somewhere better to post this request, please let me know. --Yarnalgo talk 22:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, but please delete all of these and use the solution already in place for the first file. At File:Ingenuity Helicopter 1st Flight Altimeter Data.png, you indeed get that strange Metadata link: but you only see that when you actually scroll to the bottom and open the metadata. On the other hand, in the file summary, in the "source" section, is a box which states "this plot was created with Matplotlib.", with a link there. So the need for the additional link, which won't be seen bby 99% of the people looking at the file anyway, is gone. Fram (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I understand why you see that box as a better solution, but can you explain to me why we can't have both? What harm does it do to have these redirects in place so that when someone does click that link they get taken to the correct page instead of a non-existent one? I hear you that that hidden link is unlikely to be clicked very often, but on the off-chance it does (I personally click these links all the time), why not have this redirect in place? These redirects are not getting in the way of anything and have a chance to help someone out, so why delete them? As Dylsss explained, they meet point 4 and 5 of WP:R#KEEP so on that grounds alone they should not be deleted. What is your reasoning for wanting to delete all of these ~1200 redirects that have existed for years, are harmless, and that some people find helpful besides the fact that it's possible to put a template with a link in the body of the file page? Putting that better-formatted link is great, but the broken link still exists on the file page regardless and will continue to get automatically added to the pages of any files made with the same software (while the Matplotlib template will not). I really did not think this would be a point of contention when I made this request. This seems like a no-brainer to me to make these redirects, and I am still struggling to see why there is such opposition to something so harmless and potentially helpful. There doesn't seem to be any downside to me to make these redirects, and there is a potential upside. Please help me understand what I'm missing here. Thanks. --Yarnalgo talk 17:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Because they are a never-ending series of redirects (1200 already? Yikes) from "somewhere" (impossible to see from enwiki, impossible to know if the source for the redirect even still exists or not) with very little use, which look like spam and pollute the genuine "what links here" human redirects. While it may look as if these redirects already existed in 2005, at that time they were things like DMC-FZ20, which are actually useful. The vast majority of these are either such bvious redirects, or at least in a somewhat readable form: not the ugly, extremely technical ones proposed here. Huawei P Smart, fine, why not? Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis?? Uh, please no, it isn't even clear what the target has to do with the source of the redirect as "libvorbis" isn't explained or mentioned there. Perhaps it should redirect to Vorbis instead, but not knowing where the redirect comes from, it is impossible to judge. And redirects where we can't even judge whether they point to the right page, are redirects we shoudn't have. Fram (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
You are failing to provide any reason that actually meets the criteria for deleting a redirect page, and you have not addressed the two provided reasons that they should be kept. The fact is that these redirects fix broken links (WP:R#K4) and are useful to some people (WP:R#K5). To quote WP:R#K5, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." Why does the fact that they are a never-ending series of redirects mean that they should be deleted? Wikipedia is a never-ending series of articles. Does that mean all articles should be deleted because there will just always be more to make? Of course not. The articles that exist are useful even if there is always more to be added just like these redirects are useful even though there will always be more that can be created. Your next points seem to be arguing something different (certain redirect pages should be deleted, not all of them). Why does it matter if there are some that are "ugly" and "extremely technical". Who cares? Again, they fix broken links and are helpful to some people so they meet the criteria to be kept. Being ugly, extremely technical, or "polluting" the what links here page are not valid reasons for deleting a redirect. Your third point about the connection between the redirect page and the page they point to not being clear is also not a reason for deleting a redirect, and it does not apply to the page I originally requested. It's obviously clear that "Matplotlib version3.3.3," is referring to Matplotlib and should link there. The example you provided (Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis) shows up in the metadata for files created with the ffmpeg tool, which is why it redirects there. Maybe it should link to Vorbis or libavcodec instead, but that is really a separate discussion pertaining to that one redirect and not a reason to delete these redirects en masse. --Yarnalgo talk 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Reason for deletion 8 (novel or very obscure), plus reasons 2 (e.g.the libvorbis one), arguably 4 (urls in redirects?). Reason to not delete them (4) is often ignored when an external site or tool creates "redlinks" automatically (like here, but this e.g. also happened when some tools (I think Listeria) created redlinks for "article name (Qnumber)" combinations, which some people then created as redirects to "article name". Such computer-generated redlinks are then not considered a good reason to have or keep these redirects. Which leaves us with reason 5, you find them useful. I don't believe this outweighs the reasons for deletion (or not creating them), you obviously disagree, fine. Fram (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Reason 8 states "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful". We've already established that these redirects are useful due to the fact that they fix broken links on file pages so this doesn't apply. Reason 2 may apply to that one example, but again that may mean that one redirect needs some discussion but is not a reason to delete these redirects en masse. As for reason 4, we've already discussed at length the purpose of these redirects. They are clearly not "self-promotion or spam". On your next point, calling Commons an external site or tool is a little disingenuous. The file pages (and the broken links) exist on Wikipedia as well. This isn't creating redirects for some random external site that has broken links, it's creating redirects for Wikipedia's sister project that is heavily used within Wikipedia itself. There are two broken metadata links on file pages that are currently on the Main Page, one click away from anyone visiting the front page of Wikipedia. There are also two metadata links there that have redirects made for them. Because we have those redirects in place, any readers clicking around from the Main Page will be brought to the correct articles about the software/hardware that created the images. That seems pretty useful to me. As you say, we disagree, but again you don't need to find it useful for it to be useful to others. --Yarnalgo talk 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Creation of new metadata redirects and nondeletion of existing metadata redirects. These are absolutely useful and allegations of “spam” seem to suggest that the English Wikipedia has no obligation toward integration with Wikimedia Commons. Sister projects need to work together.  Mysterymanblue  07:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban: J-Man11[edit]

In accordance with discussions at WT:MILHIST I now propose a Wikipedia:Topic Ban for J-Man11 from military and order of battle articles, widely construed, for any date after the year 1900. As has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Repeated massive, shoddy additions by J-Man11, this user has large-scale problems with proper use of primary and associated semi-primary sources (WP:SPS) which are widely referenced in his/her articles. S/he does not appear to have the competence to edit recent military articles, anything after maybe 1900. However, s/he has been recently editing articles about the Napoleonic Wars, which are now exclusively the province of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources. This presents the possibility that this user could gradually learn how to properly use sources while still being allowed to work on subjects of interest to him/her.

Comments welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Go for it. To quote Peacemaker67, what on earth did Arbcom think it was doing? There was an unofficial consensus to overturn the committee's decision—not that that can be done of course, but it suggests the strength of feeling. So here we are, having to do it all over again. ——Serial 15:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, reluctantly. While this editor appears to be acting in good faith, unfortunately their edits have caused a lot of aggravation due to not being written in line with community expectations. I hope that they will be able to improve their editing so that this topic ban can be lifted in the future. (t · c) buidhe 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
This will probably not come as a surprise to you, and everyone who is supportive of the ban, but I actually support it myself, at-least to an extent. I've seen now, and even before this whole palaver started that my edits are not only pissing you and others off, but are also really just plain annoying and pointless. I decided to take a step back and actually see that not only was I causing a ruckus, but my edits (with regard to WP:Primary were not improving and wasn't listening to the advise of yourself and others, including @-wolf. So, as I was saying I support the ban, and its because I need assistance because I most certainly want to improve, and lately I personally feel I've been expanding in the WP:Secondary area, especially with regard to the Pre-Napoleonic Wars era, and something which I know I can add a lot, but need to tread carefully there too. If I could recommend, I actually, though he and all of us have our downsides, wouldn't mind, and would in-fact like to have @Buckshot06 as either a mentor (though that's his personal choice) or a direct assistant. Per his advice I've removed my post-1900 structures/drafts, etc, and planning on working on JUST bases and pre-1900 French and Russian units, which themselves also need work which is why they remain in sandbox. I personally think, and I'm certain it is the right step to step back entirely from these for a minimum of a month, or even 2. This way I will be able to improve and hopefully be able to continue to work on this after improvement in the future. One of the things I feel I personally need a lot of help with and I'm sure @Buckshot06 would agree, is my use of primary sources and extensive lists which need more referencing as an overall list instead of just separated blocks. The third main issue, as again Buckshot you'll be aware of is my ADHD which has a considerable effect on myself. This because I feel there is always a rush to get articles done, post them, and fix them super quick without thinking. Now, I have both in real life, and here improved in this area considerably, but do need help too, in which @-wolf and @SmartyPants22 have both assisted in this area with editing assistance and advise me. Of course, as I stated way back when, assistance is always welcome of-course, as I WANT to improve, and I WANT to keep editing , help out, and provide a lot of information which I have and wanted to share. J-Man11 (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support My view has been that J-Man11 lacks the competence to edit in these areas. They continue to demonstrate the same editing behaviour despite being told many times that they are going about editing the wrong way, copying lists from unreliable sites (this is the information they want to share...) and then trying to source them (usually unsuccessfully, unsurprisingly), creating lists with no encyclopaedic basis/rationale or reasonable chance of being reliably sourced (a 2021 order of battle for any country is completely unworkable for obvious reasons). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment ftr, "@-wolf" is actaully me Thewolfchild, more simply known as "wolf" (as per my current sig). Big picture-wise I see where Buckshot is coming from, he has put A LOT of effort into addressing the problems with J-man's edits, and there has been many. He was banned, but given a rare second chance after an appeal. It's unfortunate that conditions weren't attached to the unbanning, such as mandatory mentoring. I, and others, have repeatedly encouraged J-man to get a mentor. It could be said that Buckshot has been a reluctant mentor, of sorts up to now. I also note that Nick-D offerred some "informal" assistance, but J-man needs a dedicated full-time mentor. There is a lengthy list of available adopters who also mentor, and one like Rosguill I think would be well-suited to this particular situation. I say this because I believe J-man means well, he's young and enthusiastic, wants to contribute and puts in A LOT of effort. He's also not a dick, he's not arrogant and doesn't have an attitude. But that said, there are problems. I believe a long term relationship with a mentor, overseeing all of J-man's edits, could pay off. The benefit being the project gets numerous, quality milhist articles. But, left on his own, I believe the problems would continue. J-man, may improve, but not fast enough.

    I would propose pausing this, with Buckshot06's approval of course, for say... 3 days, at most. If in that time J-man has a dedicated mentor willing to take on the responsibility of guiding him and overseeing all his edits, then perhaps any sanctions can be set aside for now. Otherwise, I would (unfortunately) have to support the sanctions that Buckshot proposes, and failing that, the re-banning that Peacemaker67 has mentioned. That's just my two cents, for whatever that's worth. - wolf 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. J-Man11 can easily get a mentor to oversee his work, but not, in my view, for anything after 1900 for at least a year to come. Honestly nobody has the time to keep up with everything he wants to do post-1900. He needs to take his post-1900 work offline and learn about the process of reliable sourcing. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: Well as it turns out, there was a brief discussion in the past few hours between J-Man and Rosguill about mentorship and it doesn't appear that he will be taking J-Man on full-time. Aside from that, I'm not even sure if J-Man is pursuing other adopters for mentoring. This was just a suggestion, I was hoping to give J-Man another shot before any sanctions, but ultimately he has to take responsibility for himself, and overall I do still agree with your concerns, and support your proposal. Cheers - wolf 21:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - as per comments directly above - wolf 21:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • SupportSeems necessary at this point, to prevent further disruption in the area.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Are there any more comments on this, or can the discussion now be closed? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Why 1900 and not 1914? Is there any disruption about military history betweeen those two dates? –LaundryPizza03 (d) 23:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe and I'm sure @Buckshot06 is in the view that it is easier just to do 1900 (and post) for reason of simplicity. J-Man11 (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Still would request closure and a decision on this. J-Man11 is currently creating yet another sandbox article which in this case demonstrates (1) a lack of understanding about how U.S. Navy Carrier Groups and Cruiser-Destroyer Groups were arranged in 1990-91, and what their higher command structures were; a misunderstanding of the coalition command structure in 1990-91; and awful unsupported opinions about why states might or might not have wished to place their naval forces under U.S. command, entirely unhinged from referenced facts. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


User:tgeorgescu forcefully editing 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist' to the lead of the Julius Evola article, if anyone tries to edit it he leaves this on your talk page: 'This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Julius Evola, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. See WP:NONAZIS. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)'

Again, I have said I am Jewish, so why is he linking me :WP:NONAZIS. This is trolling from an admin with an agenda.

Just look at his page: 'A note to conspiracy theorists: If you think that the world is controlled by some Satanic plot by the Communists, Jews, Illuminati, Freemasons, Catholic Church, lizard people, greys, or whatever, keep in mind Wikipedia would be a front for them if such a conspiracy exists. You're not gonna win here, it's no trouble to block you. Just walk away.

Nobody wants the edit, multiple people have stated this on the talk page. It's the agenda of a few admins that want to insert their leftist folk wisdom / political correctness onto every page. Very tiresome. I am only being called a vandal as a way to silence editors without power. I do not care for 'community points'. I don't even have an account. Everyone knows that Wikipedia mods are known for being unfair so I suspect even reporting this will get me silenced here and trolled as a 'vandal' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The talk page history clearly demonstrates that this request has no merit. Most of the above statements are incorrect (or, to say more explicitly, represent blatant lie).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Already dealt with here. This matter is finished, except for the outstanding question put to as to whether they are Editorofthegods. Not notifying tgeorgescu because that's OP's responsibility and because there's little point, as far as I can see. --Yamla (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Yamla, I found reason enough, in the various contributions and article histories, to run a quick check, which revealed one unused sock account and a serious amount of logged-in editing, which should come as no surprise to those who are in the know. The geolocation doesn't match up, but yeah, if it weren't for that I'd say it's the same person, yes. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
"It's the agenda of a few admins that want to insert their leftist folk wisdom / political correctness onto every page. Very tiresome." Yes, indeed, such cabal-based thinking is indeed very, very, tiresome. I would be in favor of a short time out for the IP, based on WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, and WP:STICK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
There Is No Cable! Levivich 23:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Closure for archived TBAN proposal[edit]

This topic ban proposal was prematurely archived without any closure. There seems to be a strong consensus to enact it, now also including outside editors. Can an (uninvolved) admin please formally enact the topic ban?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Restoring it here. I agree that there seems like strong support for the sanction. Without considering quality of arguments: 10 support, 1 partial support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuing disruptive editing from User:FleurDeOdile[edit]

I am here to address User:FleurDeOdile. Ever since the user's last block in November of 2020 for personal attacking there seems to have been little improvement since then. For one thing, the user is still attacking people (off-wiki now on a WikiProject discord) and has also been assuming bad faith and acting uncivil towards users who were new and or inexperienced with the image standards we have enlisted in our WikiProject (at WP:WPTC/IMG) for images of tropical cyclones, as well as edit warring.

Here the user changed this infobox image with an inconstructive comment, which was later reverted for being a lower quality image.

The edit here looks to have been made to just attack another user instead of explaining why this image was changed. Soon enough, the edit was reverted and instead of seeking consensus, the user edit warred between the user who reverted, as seen in diff 1 and diff 2, where he also made yet another comment.

Also during around the time of the edit war, the user reverted a WP:CIR edit, but assumed that the edit was in bad faith without linking the guideline which states that the source he was using was not reliable (the user in question was new around this time).

More recently, the user also unexplainedly changed the infobox image on 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, the image which was personally created by the user who originally put it, which was also later reverted for being rather inconstructive.

More recently, the user had attacked me off-wiki on a Discord server (which, if is even contributive to this? I'm not sure) and told that he 'would get into beef' with me as I disagreed that his Commons image was a higher quality, albeit respectfully. He changed the infobox image, as revealed by this diff and after another user changed it back explaining that the image change was un-warranted, he proceeded to change the image again as proven by this diff but tried to disguise the edit by saying he had "Fixed a typo".

Possibly unrelated, but I'd also recommend looking at the user's talk page which gives a better look at warnings and notices other users have given him recently, a majority of which were based off edit-warring or giving rude comments which were calmly responded to... which were completely ignored. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As part of the project I can confirm this and he has also attacked me off-wiki at times as well whenever we confront him about it, claiming that I do this as well (FWIW, I did have similar issues before but I stopped at one point not wanting to mess things up for myself further). I’d propose something like a Wikimedia block (not sure if that’d help) or some sort of sanctions/restrictions to curb this, but another block could be warranted should it come down to it. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
As someone who has seen Fleur's edits in the past, I have noticed that his edit summaries can be harsh. For example, this summary does not adequately explain why the original image is better, and reeks of WP:BITE. This one also does not explain why FDO has changed it. "original is better" is not valid. This also reveals that FDO is engaging in personal attacks, most recently this. I believe because of the evidence provided by Hurricaneboy and myself, FDO needs some sort of sanction or block, as this is turning into WP:IDHT after numerous warnings, blocks, and discussions about this user's disruptive behavior. codingcyclone advisories/damages 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Adding on, as for the blocks, all three of them were related in some way to WP:LISTEN, as the user refuses to heed warnings and blocks. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Fleur has continued to WP:OWN articles and toss out images from other users. [65] He tried to deceptively remove an image just the other day by claiming he was fixing a typo. He also continued to use uncivil insults, most recently in March [66]. I personally believe a topic ban from editing images and related aspects on Wikipedia is warranted. NoahTalk 01:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
While Fleur's most recent instance of attacking other editors on-wiki was in March, he has continued to do so regularly on a Wikipedia Discord server, as recently as just a few days ago. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 12:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget that just last month, there was a discussion about this exact topic that basically went nowhere at all. Just thought I should let you guys know. This is also the 4th discussion on either 3RR or on ANI regarding Fleur. However, I have had a few encounters in which the editor was rude to me, such as [67], and [68], when I was still a relatively new editor at the time. However, aside from those edits, I haven't had many issues with them, and though they have reverted me in the past on different pages, they were for valid reasons. However, If there is not enough evidence to support a block from any of the above users and the evidence they have provided, the least we could do on my watch at least would be to have them enter some sort of Mentor-ship program, maybe similar to how Chicdat (talk · contribs) and MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) are doing it? Maybe that way one could have more control over their actions on-wiki, and maybe they'd learn how to stop attacking and warring with people, as well as learn how to better use edit summaries and discussion. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense. Maybe instead of just leaving warnings and then reporting FDO, someone can try mentoring him. I'm not experienced enough, but maybe other users could be open to it. I do believe, however, that if, even after or during the mentorship, Fleur continues this disruptive pattern of behavior, that is grounds for a block or topic ban. codingcyclone advisories/damages 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
True. I am not experienced enough either, but I think it would still worth a shot for someone who has been around for a lot longer to try it out. I agree with CodingCyclone here though, if a mentorship weren't to work, and the editor were to go back to their old ways, then I think that it would be justified to enforce some more consequential actions. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I honestly disagree. After being blocked three times prior and STILL not learning your lesson on civility/disruptive editing, there is obviously a chronic problem going on here which has no excuse. There is no good in letting an injured bear continue in the wild. Thus, there is no good in letting a disruptive editor continue their unacceptable behavior which personally has made me want to quit making Commons images altogether. Whos to say he would even want a mentorship? Most friendly notices have been completely ignored and is just WP:IDHT. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I am just putting out alternative ideas to blocking the editor, so that there may be a wider range of choices when it comes to what the possible consequences are, and because they do occasionally make good edits. I am sorry to hear that you have considered quitting the Commons, I sincerely hope it does not come to that extreme. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
My idea is to propose a formal restriction from editing tropical cyclone images, broadly construed. However, I'm not going ahead if there's no further disruption from this editor. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

just mentor me already FleurDeOdile 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Is that request or a demand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Or a threat? — BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a request. But I'm not open for more adoption right now. They'll need another mentor for this. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
No. Before you get mentored you need a self-ban on changing tropical cyclone images. Either that or you need a block. This is ridiculous behavior which requires consequences. Why should he get off the hook for this? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe a mentor would be appropriate for this situation. Given the statement above, it is quite clear Fleur doesn't really care. A mentor is for newer editors who are making mistakes without knowing they are, not for established editors who simply don't care. I would rather see Fleur be topic blocked from editing mages on WP than blocked from editing period since images seems to be the only issue here. He should be able to upload his own work to commons, which is quite useful in many instances, but the behavior on WP in regards to images and changing them is quite appalling. NoahTalk 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm on board on the idea for a topic ban in editing tropical cyclone images. Though, there's no such thing as "topic block", instead it is a "topic ban". MarioJump83! 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Then let's ban them or block them. Either way, some kind of action is needed, and having now seen the comment they put, you're all right that they obviously don't care at this point, and they need to either be topic banned, or blocked. If they are also harassing users off-wiki on discord, then they need to be removed/banned from the server or servers in which they are involved at. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I doubt Fleur should get a mentorship in this situation. He clearly does not care at this point, and I doubt a mentorship will help anything. Most likely, after the mentorship, he's going to go straight back to his old ways. Plus, I doubt very many people will be willing to mentor him anyway. I think we should have a topic ban for him from editing related to tropical cyclone images, as that would solve most things. Off-wiki, we also suggested a self-ban from editing the "Image=" parameter on infoboxes. As for action off-wiki, I think Fleur should be removed from the WPTC Discord server. He is very uncivil, insulting, and rude with their comments on other people off-wiki. If you search for "garbage" or "trash" in his messages on Discord, he has sent over 50 texts in the past year insulting other users. He has been warned several times to be civil and kind to other members off-wiki, and never listens. His only response has been "Civility doesn't apply off-wiki.", which is clearly not valid. As some action, he could be removed from the Discord server. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban (FleurDeOdile)[edit]

Given the evidence linked above, concerns from several people about civility (in relation to image edits), and Fleur's lack of care regarding his behavior, I propose a topic ban be instituted. The ban would cover all image-related parameters on articles and discussions related to images on the English Wikipedia. NoahTalk 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support I agree with this. The user should still be able to upload to Commons, but may not be able to edit at all related to tropical cyclone images on enwiki. If disruption continues in other areas, or if the user violates the topic ban, the user should be indefinitely blocked. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 17:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Partial Support Per the reasons provided above. I would also support a wider range within the topic ban, including tropical cyclone articles in general, however the original proposal might suffice regardless. And, per HurricaneCovid, I might support completely blocking the user if the Topic Ban does not work, but that would have to be worst case scenario. However, I would primarily support someone mentoring FDO per my original comment and idea above.🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per the above. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Netural - While I feel like and know that some of Fleur's actions are out of order, I think the general lack of involvement from admins or editors outside the project is very telling.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I'll agree. A topic ban is fine, since he only seems to get mad about editing infobox images, but if he violates the topic ban, it will be a more valid excuse for blocking. Also, perhaps unrelated, he should be banned off the Discord server ASAP. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
As for the ban from the Discord server, I 100% agree. The user has been warned multiple times to be civil and refuses to listen. More of his texts are insulting rather than constructive. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 01:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support since FleurDeOdile is unwilling or unable to follow WP:BRD or actually use edit summaries when changing images.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – per above. FDO's continued disruptive behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia. As for the off-wiki personal attacks, he should be removed from any place where he is doing such a thing. codingcyclone advisories/damages 02:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per the above here. HurricaneEdgar 02:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support of course. But like Jason there's a need for some involvement outside of this WikiProject about FleurDeOdile, that's why I'm little hesitant on taking actions against Fleur. It is possible that with some mentorship, especially with more experienced editors in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters (nearly all of them are outside this WikiProject), can help make FleurDeOdile change hopefully. MarioJump83! 03:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Taking myself off from this. Neutral. MarioJump83! 08:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support – Per above. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Are we just going to let this grow stale or are we going to so something about this editor? Considering that there is plenty of consensus to at least topic ban FDO, could an admin please review this and do the needed actions? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Someone should do it at this point. MarioJump83! 08:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment @LindsayH: As an outside user previously involved, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this latest ANI discussion.Jason Rees (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the ping, Jason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayH (talkcontribs) 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I looked at his contributions since the previous ANI outing in which i also commented, and at this time i oppose a topic ban for FDO. First, there is a smallish number of edits, about three dozen, which does mean that (even if it's unbelievably frustrating) any disruption he is causing is quite limited and easy to correct. Second, i am pointing no fingers, but i am concerned at what reads to me as piling on by those i assume are members of the WikiProject; i would very much like to see some outside opinions (which is why i'm delighted that i was pinged here; as a complete outsider, i hope to offer an unbiased opinion). This does not mean, however, that i see no issues; i do. FleurDeOdile, i am very disappointed to see that you do not appear to have read or digested the opinions and advice in the previous ANI outing; in particular, your use of misleading, rude, and straight-out inaccurate edit summaries is not collegial, and is liable to lead to a worse result than a topic ban if you don't change. I also see an issue with the way you are changing images which appears to be contrary to consensus; i have no idea which images are better ~ to me a typhoon is a typhoon is a hurricane ~ but your colleagues have opinions which you really need to take into account. I do not, as i say, think a topic ban is currently appropriate, but clearly some action is necessary; i would suggest some kind of mentoring, if it were possible. I did note that above someone said that they're not available to do so; is anyone? I would offer myself, in some form, but i may well not be acceptable, as i really know nothing about the WikiProject which is FDO's interest, so any support i could offer would be purely on behaviour, nothing to do with content. I hope this offers a helpful outside view; happy days, LindsayHello 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This AN3 report from November 2020 administered a partial block for edit-warring over an image in Hurricane Eta.
    On a furhter note, I don't think this is limited to images, though their conduct in that area is unacceptable in its own right. For instance, I notice that this diff form May 2020 is in the same topic area where this incident happened, but that it is about redirecting, not images. There are more recent warnings, such as one from August 2020 about this diff and one in January 2021 about edits like these at 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season, which are also about content or data removal. Since FDO edits exclusively on hurricane-related articles, I'm hesitant to propose a hurricane TBAN as well, but wouldn't oppose it if other users deem one necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Per all above. Although I would not support a tropical cyclone topic ban.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 12:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – After one week with this proposal open, there seems to be clear consensus to institute a topic ban or other action against the user. Can an admin please take the necessary actions to institute this? Thanks, ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 15:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Should it really be closed when most of the editors in the "consensus" are inside the wikiproject? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
As much as I want this to be closed, most of the proposal's consensus here comes from the WikiProject Tropical cyclones, with voices from outside the WikiProject is lacking. I smell WP:CANVASSING here... MarioJump83! 01:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Support - I wasn't even going to weigh in, given how clear the consensus appears. However, since there's some concern I'll chime in as an uninvolved party. I agree with comments previously that FDO's behavior has been disruptive and incivil. A topic ban seems like the best way to move forward, and they can appeal at a later date after working on other topics. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose sanctions...for now with the caveat that FleurDeOdile gets a mentor. The idea of blocks and topic-bans are to be preventative, so I don't see the point in taking such an extreme action when the less dramatic option of a mentor exists and can also be preventative. If that doesn't work, a topic ban is merited. versacespaceleave a message! 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Mentorship requires someone to volunteer. No one has stepped forward in a week. So that's not a realistic option at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@VersaceSpace: Also worth noting that I have contacted them off-wiki multiple times urging them to use edit summaries and not edit war. The usual result is simply WP:IDHT. If they can't listen to such mundane suggestions, mentorship isn't going to work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Support ban - Fleur's conduct around changing image names amounts to disruption as his image editing mostly revolves around changing timestamps for no apparent reason - such as in his most recent edit to 2021 Atlantic hurricane season, which led to an editor to revert his edits. Since no-one is willing to take Fleur on with regards to mentoring, I would support a ban here. Hx7 18:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose action at this time until you all get some more input from editors and admins outside the Wikiproject.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Recommend closure w/no action due to the stealth canvassing that took place in the discord room where a couple people mentioned the idea of creating an ANI thread. Other than the people who provided their own evidence, it appears everyone else was just pile on support that got canvassed by that initial discussion of creating a thread. While Enterprisey determined that none of the posts really crossed any lines, it is still stealth canvassing by even mentioning a discussion or its creation off-wiki in a project chat. This discussion should have been left in its grave instead of being dug back up. NoahTalk 18:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Hurricane Noah and WaltCip: Getting external input is precisely why the conversation should be resurrected, and there have already been external opinions. Even those alone have a consensus for enacting the topic ban. The policy-based reasoning for doing so, namely a WP:IDHT situation (so mentoring is ruled out), is sound. This filibustering is not in respect of WP:CON.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
      • It honestly doesn't matter what Fleur did if the people making the thread canvassed it. The whole thing was tainted from the start and everyone piling on from WPTC should be disregarded. I think the lack of outside involvement and the bot archival w/o closure shows that most people and admins believe this is a non-issue. NoahTalk 01:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Since Canvassing was mentioned here, thought I would link this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Canvassing within the WikiProject 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose action currently Due to allegations of stealth canvassing and little outside input.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose action for now Per Jackattack1597, and I want to point out that the consensus in-WikiProject is for support while outside input is mostly split on this, leaning towards oppose. MarioJump83! 23:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Request of partial block removal for jacobmcpherson[edit]

I'm writing to appeal my partial block to make edits in the article space. I've been going through the Articles for Creation process, and fully disclosing pages I am paid to edit. The reason I'm requesting my account to be unblocked is I've been asked directly by clients to remove/adapt potentially libelous content, per Wikipedia:Libel. It seems my involvement in this capacity could help Wikipedia (as the copyright holder). I know to go through an article's talk page to request these changes, but sometimes the Wikipedia community isn't responsive on these matters. Also, whenever making an edit in the future, I know to add a rationale for each, and go line by line (rather than a complete bulk edit).

--Jacobmcpherson (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, since your previous appeal in March you have not had one AfC page accepted so far, and you have only used the talk page of one article. Nothing here gives any confidence that you can be trusted to edit pages neutrally and factually, or that there really is such an unadressed need for you to remove libelous content. Fram (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
So you want the partial block removed so you can do something you know you aren't supposed to do? Hut 8.5 11:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd be interested to hear more about this libellous material we're currently hosting? (As opposed to, say, material which those who pay paid editors would wish to whitewash away...) ——Serial 13:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I would as well, since I haven't seen any sort of communication with OSPOL-related emails... Primefac (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to Justlettersandnumbers and Xeno (who, respectively, originally blocked jacobmcpherson and modified the block to a partial). For my part, I am utterly uninterested in lifting the block - per Fram, only one talk page has been edited, and per Primefac, no suppression requests have been made to remove the "libelous" material, which makes me think that this is the definition of "libelous" that companies and paid editors use ("properly-sourced but makes us look bad"). "You keep using that word..." and all that. If a company hired you to edit Wikipedia, and you can't carry out the job, that's your problem, not ours. Show us you can play by the rules and make some useful edit requests on behalf of your clients instead of demanding an unblock. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock based on the above discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, GeneralNotability. I indeffed this account for the reasons given here. The block was – with my agreement – later modified by Xeno, but I do not see that any benefit has accrued to the project from that modification. The user appears still to be here for the sole purpose of promotion for his own personal gain. I not only oppose lifting the partial block, but propose that the original indefinite block be restored, to be lifted when, if, and only if, the user shows willingness to comply in full with all aspects of our paid-editing policy, and can convince us that he genuinely intends to start contributing to Wikipedia on topics in which he has no vested interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Largely per General Notability. Truly libellous (not just undesired) content can be emailed to oversight. Hog Farm Talk 20:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would argue this article isn't properly sourced - Jacob Sartorius. I don't believe (for example) meets Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I also did try to e-mail the oversight team who didn't respond, and you can see requests I made on the article's talk page. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I would be exceptionally surprised - in fact I would be astounded - if Oversight did not process your message. If they didn’t respond I can only assume they thought the content was not worth suppressing (although in my experience they will usually reply and say as such). How did you contact them exactly? Using the EmailUser function on User:Oversight? firefly ( t · c ) 21:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
      I sent an e-mail to the oversight-en-wp address in April, and didn't hear back about that article Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
      Did a little digging. An email was sent to ArbCom regarding a content issue, so Jacob was directed to email VRT (formerly OTRS), which was done (see ticket:2021033110007032). Oversight itself was not contacted (as far as I can tell) nor do I see any indication the ticket was ever in any queue other than info-en. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
      Thanks, I did find the e-mail I sent. I believe Jacob Sartorius' team also tried contacting Wikipedia oversight, as they're exploring all options. I see the link in question is now removed from his article. I might also look into the second paragraph of the intro text (with reference #2), and the other cited "controversies," (with references 16, 17, and 18), as they appear to be based on tweets / other forms of social media. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
      He had a point about the controversies section and I've edited that part (not directly at his request). Most of it was based on random unverified tweets that even the sources that reported them called BS on. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fram and GeneralNotability. I suspect that a paid SPA is unlikely to gather my sympathy after editing in a fashion that gets them blocked. — Ched (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose partial unblock and support Justlettersandnumbers's suggestion that the original indef block be restored. We can live without this guy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose partial unblock and support indef. Most definitely WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I oppose a mainspace unblock at this time (it's clear based on the pattern of editing behaviour that this user has had a long time to learn how to edit and isn't ready to do stuff directly in mainspace) but I would like to see a clearer pathway to getting this restrictions removed. While this editor does have an old account; looking at the edit history it's a bunch of edits in 2009 then a little over 500 edits in the past few years. While they're not a new editor they're also not an experienced one either. I would like to see some specific guidance on how this editor can re-establish trust from the community. None of these expectations to have an AfC draft accepted or use the request edit functionality properly were outlined at the last appeal discussion so I don't get how this editor would've been able to fulfill them, especially the requirement to have an AfC draft accepted since the AfC backlog is 4+ months long and the last request was 3 months ago. That's an unreasonable expectation to have.
In terms of making expectations clearer, I'd like to see this editor demonstrate an understanding of how to use the talk page to have edits made to an article and/or at least some AfC submissions accepted before an unblock from articlespace. I'd also like to see a significantly better understanding of avoiding promotional language (in drafts, rejected or otherwise, I'd like to see compliance with WP:PROMO to show an understanding of writing neutrally). For what it's worth, he's right that he's not inherently banned from editing articles directly as a paid editor and he's also not inherently obligated to go through the AfC process as a paid editor. This isn't a correct interpretation of policy and the original COIN discussion that said so is wrong. But I do believe these are privileges that shouldn't be given back at this time (and were right to have been taken away) because this editor demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of WP:PROMO in their editing history. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Chess, I do respond to supportive guidance, and have been seeking that. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock because the reasoning is implausible: if we were truly taking about libel, there is no way that the community would be "unresponsive". So presumably what we're actually talking about is sourced, negative material that Jacob's clients want to bury. And support restoring the indef block as a spam-only account, which were it not for xeno's bizarre intervention in March would have saved a lot of volunteer time since. – Joe (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    One thing to consider @Joe Roe is the discussions I have with clients, and the amount of articles I don't agree to take on (which could also save volunteer time). It's not like just because someone wants to pay me to edit, I say yes. There's often a lot of e-mailing back and forth, and explaining expectations (which includes the consensus based model that Wikipedia operates). In this sense, I would argue that volunteer time is saved from telling people to hold off or they don't have enough noteworthy sources to start an article draft. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Sure, but it would be even less time wasted if you just didn't edit for pay. The proposal here is that you are not here to improve the encyclopaedia, only to promote your clients. So the pertinent question is not what you say to your clients, but when was the last time you made an edit you weren't paid for? – Joe (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Joe Roe: I'd have to disagree with that. Reading the Jacob Sartorius article and the "controversies" section the stuff I just removed was poorly sourced weasel-worded bullshit. One of the sources surfaced allegations of bad behaviour on Sartorius' part based solely on tweets which the source actually took a negative stance on: [69] "I've watched this video clip like it's the Zapruder film, and I'll be perfectly honest: I don't totally see where he looks disgusted. Awkward, perhaps." The source itself called the accusation that Jacob Sartorius was "disgusted" bullshit basically but the article included the accusation without any context whatsoever. I wouldn't call it libel but he's kind of right. The community clearly didn't give a shit about the content of that article that's why it took several weeks to get the lede changed from describing him as "an American social media personality, often regarded by many as being "famous for nothing"". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    I wouldn't call it libel – so what are we disagreeing about? There's a big difference between libel, which Jacob could plausibly claim he needs to act immediately to remove, and poorly sourced information, which can wait for an edit request. If somebody commissions a Wikipedia article about themselves (as it appears Sartorius did), they can't complain too loudly that it attracts negative material. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Article subjects may complain as loudly as they want if their Wikipedia article contains material in violation of our WP:BLP policy. Seeking to be written about is not the same as granting permission for improperly sourced negative material to be published about oneself. I also wonder how your suggestion to wait for an edit request is compatible with your position that the editor should be blocked from creating same. –xenotalk 13:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Maintain current state per Chess: the editor should be permitted to make requests on article talk pages, especially to address BLP violations like the example noted. I haven't yet seen the improvements I was looking for in this editor to support a return to mainspace, but the editor is properly disclosing their conflicts and making requests in the prescribed way. Blocking someone for asking questions seems counter-productive and capricious: paid editing is permitted by policy. –xenotalk 11:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Problematic image additions, probable socking[edit]

For context: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive331#Five_thousand_images_added_by_RogerNiceEyes Back in March, RogerNiceEyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) added thousands of images to articles in rapid succession, and was indefinitely blocked for not communicating.

The account Allknowingroger was first registered in 2018 and made a few dozen edits prior to the 7th of June 2021, when they started engaging in the same behaviour as RogerNiceEyes, adding images to articles in rapid succession. The fact that both account have "Roger" in their name and have the exact same modus operandi makes me suspect that they are the same user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This may be relevant: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allknowingroger/ArchiveJackattack1597 (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
It's definitely relevant, it confirms that it's block evasion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Nice find. I think we found a sock, or at least a meatpuppet. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 03:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Addendum -- since I have rollback, does anyone have a problem with me undoing these? No need to keep an indefinitely blocked user's changes around. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 03:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe that it's permissible to use rollback to undo an indef-blocked editors contributions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Only if they're blocked for socking; just a normal indef is misuse off the tool. ——Serial 09:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Rockstone35: I do object to these being undone by rollback, which doesn't leave an edit summary. Both RogerNiceEyes and Allknowingroger made some bad image additions to articles but also some good ones. When the addition was a good one, I want to see why it was undone – I almost reverted several of your changes before I saw this thread. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: -- Alright then -- sorry for the disruption. I won't use rollback and make sure to add a summary explaining my changes. It is just annoying since Roger is not wanted here. --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 15:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Rockstone35: sure, I agree re the socking, and re undoing their edits, but if there's an edit summary like "reverted sockpuppet edit", other editors know what is going on. I think rollback is best reserved for obvious vandalism , easily seen from a dif, which isn't the case here. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: -- sounds good, I'll switch to using rollback without marking it as vandalism (where it prompts you for an edit summary). I'll spend time doing that tonight, if someone doesn't get to it first. Thanks! -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 20:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
There's a slightly bigger problem that needs attention here - since the 20th of may (as in 3 weeks ago) they've made ~ 185,000 edits to wikidata, most of which seem to have been adding images to wikidata entries. I Given the sheer volume of edits there's no way that these could have been performed with any kind of oversight. I'm not sure if we have any infoboxes or the like that populate images from wikidata, but if we do this could represent a massive problem. (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
There's actually allready a complaint on their wikidata talk page that they added an image of a completely different painting to a wikidata entry, so yes, it looks like their wikidata edits are just as problematic as their edits here. (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
But at least they responded on their talkpage. They are mute over here. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 06:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Unban request of Jshpinar[edit]


Jshpinar (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked in 2019 by EvergreenFir for Disruptive editing - WP:GENREWARRIOR and socking, and subsequently de facto community banned for repeated block evasion. A checkuser, Yamla, confirmed no recent evidence of further ban evasion in discussion with this editor and they have requested to lift the ban. While I'm copying their request here for community discussion, I am not offering an opinion as to whether it should or should not be granted. Request follows: Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Today is May 25, the day @Rosguill: said he will be willing to consider giving me a standard offer. Since my last request was denied, I avoided making any edits on Wikipedia. I admit that in the final days before Coronavirus, I have made dozens of accounts in the past to edit pages for my own will, but I did it out of sheer boredom and was very wrong in doing so. I have now learned that I need to either properly source any material I wish to add, or discuss any uncertainty on my targeted article's talk page before editing. I would be willing to stay away from modifying genres and REM pages at first to prove I could be an efficient user. I also wouldn't mind if someone proctors me at the start or gives me a step-by-step approach to be fully allowed back on Wikipedia, or whatever it would take for the moderators to gain trust in me. Once more, I am very sorry for causing so much disruption last year and promise to never act like that again. I kindly wish to be unblocked this time so I can move on to making good productive changes to Wikipedia.

Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jshpinar/Archive, I think it would be a mistake to unblock them without a topic ban. I'm not immediately sure how to draft that. Perhaps, a topic ban around music, broadly construed; this would cover genres, obviously, but would also require they build up a history of constructive edits in another subject area entirely. And a limit to only a single account, and no logged-out edits. That said, I'm not currently supporting an unblock here because this unblock request isn't convincing to me. This appears to have been a case of deliberate disruption rather than confusion on our policies, and they created a significant number of accounts. Nothing here really indicates to me they'd be beneficial to the project, but I withhold my vote hoping for further clarification from the user. --Yamla (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Topic ban sounds like a good start given that they understand what they did wrong and are OK with whatever measures (including a t-ban from all music related articles broadly construed) would have to be taken to build up trust again. I don't understand why we can't give this person some WP:ROPE (in a loose sense) here. They've waited a year without socking and they haven't screwed up a second chance before. This person is hardly even community banned and doesn't have a very long history of disruption (although their disruption was pretty significant at the time they did it). I'd say unban and see what happens. People can change over a year. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 12:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I would support an unblock to give WP:ROPE, preferably with a topic ban.Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I propose unblocking with a six-month ban from music articles, broadly construed. The user has already agreed to a total ban from music "at first". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for a batch G5 deletion of 230 redirects and talk pages[edit]


Could someone please nuke these pages? The SPI case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeshan Mahmood/Archive#07 June 2021. – Uanfala (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala, all nuked. Maxim(talk) 11:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

IP Masking Update[edit]

Duplicate post from WP:VPWMF

The IP Masking team have provided an update on IP Masking that can be seen here.

Given this will affect many editor's workflows, and will inherently affect various AN-related functions, as well as a fairly significant WP:PERM change, please take the time to look and comment Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEAT puppetry via Twitter[edit]

Hi there, someone on Twitter has decreed that a cartoon character "Rolf" is from Romania, and is encouraging social media users to "vandalize" Wikis netwide to put the information in articles (including ours.) Tweet here. I don't know if this dude is a creator or just some rando. Elizium23 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Any Italian, Polish or Turkish speaking editors able to flag this up at those Wikis admin boards? Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible paid editing[edit]

Seems like User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) is using Wikipedia for his/her paid editing/promotional activities. As can be seen in this AfD discussion, as User:Pathawi indicated, he or she just insists on keeping non-notable articles, looking for other Azerbaijani editors' support in those type of discussions. Same activities were observed in the Turkish Wikipedia as well, some articles were deleted and the user blocked indefinetely. Uploading promotional images on Commons to use in his/her promotional non-notable articles, still trying to promote his non-notable articles, keep sending messages to various user and preventing them to focus on their contributions (1, 2, 3, even canvassing in here, here and here) are all disruptive activities. I also gotta mention that in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, they keep the article if it exists in another language edition, therefore they try to create them in the English, the Russian and/or the Turkish Wikipedia.--Nanahuatl (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Hello, you have chosen me as a target, you are deleting my articles and pictures. My activity on Wikipedia is to contribute to the development of articles by celebrities across the country in other languages.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I've never posted on the Administrators' noticeboard before, so please excuse me if I've got protocol wrong. From the conversation that I was tagged for, it's clear that Elşad İman has a conflict of interest in the case of Dr Günay Əliyeva, as he knows her personally & has been her patient. This is not, however, necessarily a case of paid editing. I agree that there is a problem of Elşad's drowning these pages on Azerbaijani figures with sources that contain no significant content to back up biographical details that are not present in the sources, & to create the impression of notability. These sources are overwhelmingly in Azerbaijani, which shouldn't be a problem—there's no requirement that sources be in English—but this generally restricts the number of people who can validate the sources. I have called the conflict of interest to Elşad's attention, but it has not changed his behaviour, as he is still working directly on the article. COIs have been a problem elsewhere as well: Elşad has a relationship with the Azerbaijani pomegranate-exporters' association——& has been involved with contentious editing in the related article Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association of Azerbaijan; another COI was addressed in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damed Imanov—the subject of the article was Elşad's employer (tho does not appear to have been so at the time of editing). Some of Elşad's Azerbaijan-related editing has been real additions to articles on notable subjects. However, the editor does not seem to be paying attention to issues of conflicts of interest, source significance, or coverage notability, is extraordinarily unreliable in citation practices, & has engaged deletion discussions in the difficult ways described by Nanahuatl. Pathawi (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot not updating the unblock request table.[edit]

For the past 24 hrs User:DeltaQuadBot hasn't been updating User:AmandaNP/unblock table. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lavalizard101: Per User:DeltaQuadBot, the bot's operator can be reached at User talk:AmandaNP. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 20:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but AmandaNP hasn't been active for a few days and its not the first time this has happened (although the last time was several months back). Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Couldn't hurt to at least try. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 21:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Just posted on her talk page. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a toolforge grid engine error. Nothing I can really do about it unless someone pings me, but I expect it to run 24/7. It will be back momentarily. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism at article György Bognár[edit]

Hi! Many anon has vandalised the article hu:Bognár György (labdarúgó) on huwiki, so we have protected it. Now they continue their activity here, they are vandalizing the György Bognár article. Could you protect it? – balint36 passenger complaints 20:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Balint36, semi-protected for 3 days by The Earwig. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 22:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC about title started while move review is in progress[edit]

A move review regarding 2021 storming of the United States Capitol is in progress, but now someone started an RfC about the title. I don't know if there a specific rules pertaining to such a parallel RfC, but I think it goes against the idea of our RM/MR processes. What do you think? Should the RfC be stopped? By an admin? — Chrisahn (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The move review is choosing between two options. It's natural for people to discuss potential other future options on talk; It's a fluid topic and we can expect general discussions of titles to persist for some time. Not a problem to be talking and brainstorming about it. Feoffer (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The RfC has been closed by Amakuru. I think this section can be closed / archived / deleted. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This should be undone and perhaps labeled a "straw poll" or just a "discussion". It's not appropriate to brainstorm and discuss the merits of titles at the MoveReview. Feoffer (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Certainly, but it's also not a good idea to hold straw polls outside of RM requests, because people have a habit of regarding them as binding. From experience, I'm also sceptical whether ranking systems really work in resolving title disputes. Everyone has their own order of preference and you mostly just get more noise than information from that. The best route (depending on the outcome of the MRV, which should be concluded first) would be to have a proper targeted RM with proper evidence presented.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
The process of choosing a title for that article has been an onerous mess. Trying every combination of RM until one seems to gain consensus is not feasible -- it's just tiring. Some kind of straw poll or other informal means of deciding the article title is hence a good idea to narrow down the choices and help build consensus before a formal RM. I think that RfC was in process, although so many choices would've made it probably fail. Really it can be said that only ~5 options are viable, and a straw poll asking people to choose their top 2/3 would narrow things down I think and help focus energy towards one or two RMs. Adding options like "rampage", "raid", "takeover", "occupation", "breach" is just unhelpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


Persistent disruption on articles about roads in New Jersey, violating multiple MOS guidelines.

Needforspeed888 (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Needforspeed888: This is an "incident" so next time please report at WP:ANI. Another admin has blocked (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for two weeks. Let them or me know if it resumes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible block evasion?[edit]

Please see --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Nothing possible about it. Blocked for block evasion. The fact they continued to post promotional edits as well is enough for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Unresolved ANI thread[edit]

The discussion "WP:NOTHERE by AzərbaycanTürküAze" has not been commented on by anyone except the reporter, despite continuing disruption. See link for details. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that the user in question has made zero unreverted mainspace edits as far as I can tell. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Call for Candidates[edit]

Submit your candidacy for the 2021 Board of Trustees election.

The 2021 Board of Trustees election is coming soon. Candidates from the community are needed to fill the available seats.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. Community trustees and appointed trustees make up the Board of Trustees. Each trustee serves a three year term. The Wikimedia community has the opportunity to vote for community trustees.

Wikimedia contributors will vote to fill four seats on the Board in 2021. This is an opportunity to improve the representation, diversity, and expertise of the Board as a team.

Who are potential candidates? Are you a potential candidate? Find out more on the Call for Candidates announcement.

Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Cross-posted from WP:VPM, as electoral news needs a slightly broader reach Nosebagbear (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

IP masking update[edit]

Just a heads-up: over at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#IP Masking Update, an update is posted about the WMF IP masking project, which may have a serious impact on the work of admins in general, and things like AN/ANI, AIV, SPI, ... in particular (just look at the amount of discussions on AN and ANI right now which revolve around IP adresses!). Discussion happens both at the Village Pump and at the Meta pages about it, so please don't start a third discussion here but join the existing ones instead. Fram (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there actually a new update since 3 days ago or is this going to be reposted every 3 days? (#IP Masking Update) Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Neither, just an OP who didn't look at the remainder of this page carefully enough. Fram (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you delete this file for me pls[edit]

Nothing else to do here. — xaosflux Talk 15:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:SS pennant.png this thing is a nightmare that should be obliterated Monkleonmars (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Not done @Monkleonmars: this file is not on the English Wikipedia, there is nothing our admins can do about it for deletion. It is already nominated for deletion on commonswiki here: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:SS pennant.png. If it is actually being used abusively here on the English Wikipedia, show some diffs and we might be able to blacklist it via MediaWiki:Bad image list (nominate it with said diffs at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list). — xaosflux Talk 13:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: we're being played here. It's Monkleonmars who uploaded the image to commons, then nominated his own upload for deletion there. Not to mention a bunch of other Nazi imagery. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Block Monkleonmars already for trolling. Here and there, FWIW. ——Serial 14:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely. El_C 15:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
1-2-3 (admins only).☻ El_C 15:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uhooep unblocked[edit]

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Uhooep (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. Maxim(talk) 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Uhooep unblocked

RfC closure request[edit]

Could an uninvolved editor or administrator please close Talk:Ilhan Omar#RFC per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. I posted a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests, but there is a backlog. TFD (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done SNOWBALL indeed applies. Clear, convincing, and overwhelming consensus against the proposed changes. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

VPN unblock needed[edit]

I have an overseas student in a live university class whose VPN is blocked; User:Hongming Shu; can someone please unblock this, or do I need an IP address? I will be overseeing their edits all week. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

OK,  Done (IPBE) for one month. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: Many thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge request complicated by IBAN[edit]

I would like to create Public image of Donald Trump using User:Kolya Butternut/Public image of Donald Trump, which I created due to an IBAN, discussed here. Draft:Public image of Donald Trump has not been edited by a human in six months (except for just now due to an apparent miscommunication[70]), so one option may be to delete the original draft. Ideally we would preserve the editing history of the original, so perhaps someone might be able to just copy my draft into the original draft and create the article? Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut I hope you don't mind that I'm fielding this request, but I'm already going to invoke IAR for a lot of stuff so hopefully we can work through our personal history.
With that out of the way, I'm going to explain and justify how I fulfilled the request. I've looked into this and it seems Kolya made two valid WP:G13 requests to administrators: the first went unanswered and the second resulted in a misunderstanding that (technically) made it ineligible. On top of that, I could restore the continuity of the page history through a history merge, but I can't because an admin accidentally stopped deletion when Kolya actually asked them to perform a deletion. Given that combo, I think there's reason to ignore the minutiae and G13 the page. With the draft deleted, I moved Kolya's page to the draft title, selectively restored the revisions prior to Kolya's copy-paste split, and then moved the page to article space. This all seems reasonable to me, but if anyone wants to disagree we're already at AN. Wug·a·po·des 01:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Wugapodes! Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hundreds of Ancestry Information Sections removed by single editor[edit]

I had first noticed last week that the ancestry information section for Louis I, Duke of Bourbon had been removed by an editor (User:Surtsicna) among the articles for his son and father's article pages. After reverts and dimissive behavior by that editor, repeatedly citing the "irrelevant" nature of the immediate ancestors of the first Duke of Bourbon, I brought in a third opinion for that which I linked to those several pages. Later that day I had found that around a hundred, with up to several hundred biography articles' sections of ancestry information had been removed by this individual within the past 10 months or so in a similar fashion, with explanations in nearly all of the details in the revision history for these edits that I find frankly confusing going into seemingly hostile towards the subject matter. I left a notice stopping the third opinion for that before it was given anyway, citing that many more pages were affected than thought, and that this would be reported instead. Frankly I had not seen this type of thing in the articles I have created and contributed to since I've come over to here from the French Wikipedia several years ago, and did not know what to do nor was I familiar with the specific terminology and jargon used on this website. If this was the first place that I should have come to, again, I admittedly was not aware of how to do deal with such an eventuality as I have not encountered anything of this sort on here before, and googled and searched within this website as well and could not find anywhere except the report page for edit wars and vandalism, so wrongly put it in the vandal project, as cited by that administrator's response. I had eventually found the neutrality notice board, and tried to argue towards the bias in these edits to the editor and make it more widely known. The efforts to do so and reach out to this individual have failed, and with continued resistance to stop the restoration of these dozens to hundreds of sections of ancestry information removed on biography pages by them with these confusing reasons continuing to cited, after googling a bit more have found this specific noticeboard that I had not had to go to before and was unaware of until this afternoon. This can all be explained in more detail at the posting on the neutrality noticeboard (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Hundreds of Ancestry Trees for Royal Articles Removed by Single Editor​), so I won't get into all of the details here. A list of several examples of the ancestry information sections on pages removed by this editor's edits, but not nearly all of them include (one would have to go back in this person's contribution list to even try to count all of them):

Thomas I, Count of SavoyRupert, King of the RomansLouis IV of FranceAmadeus III, Count of SavoyWilliam II, Duke of BavariaLouis VII, Duke of BavariaPhilip III, Duke of BurgundyLouis I, Duke of BoubonPhilip II, Duke of BurgundyLouis VII of France

and many, many, more...

Thank you,

--JLavigne508 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You first posted this on Talk:Louis I, Duke of Bourbon and Talk:Capetian dynasty. You were dissatisfied with the answer you got from the major contributor and from the "third" (actually fourth) opinion you had requested. Then you went to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and was told by an administrator that there was no vandalism. Then you went to the administrator's talk page to complain some more and was told... off. Then you took it to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, going on about a bias that nobody else sees. All the while you have been refusing to accept or even acknowledge the months-long discussion involving a dozen editors at Template talk:Ahnentafel. And now you are here, apparently taking this all over Wikipedia. I do not even wonder what it is anymore when I see a notification. Surtsicna (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, that discussion at the template talk page is irrelevant and reached no actual project wide consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
That is not quite so fair. A dozen editors did not discuss for months just for all their effort to be called irrelevant. During that discussion, no consensus was reached to enshrine Template:Ahnentafel as exempt from WP:V, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and WP:PROPORTION policies. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd say put the limit at great-grandparents. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I think we should put the limit where reliable sources put it. Surtsicna (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
We have a very important Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that describes the general principle that "Wikipedia is not a directory" and then goes into detail about genealogy, mentioning as content to be avoided, Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. I fail to see how listing somebody's great-great-grandparents without context meets our goal of providing encyclopedic content, since that type of direct ancestry "family tree" excludes cousins and uncles who may have influenced the person's life much more than their distant and mostly forgotten ancestors. Our biographies should include well-referenced content on influential recent relatives not distant ancestors. So, stick to policy. Wikipedia is not a comprehensive directory of royalty and aristocracy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I will be the first one to remove the ancestry information sections if it is cited as "genealogy", although royal parentage up to great grand parentage has been understood as dynastic unions between nations and territories, and academically not looked at as personal genealogy (why they are added here). The neutrality policy is very important also, so for one person to go through arbitrarily saying that hundreds of these sections that have been up for over 10-20 plus years understood as such are suddenly irrelevant, not giving any explanation and removing them, while leaving others up, I would strongly argue is a very widespread violation of that policy. Could someone please explain to me how the parentage and great grand parentage of Philip II of Burgundy are "irrelevant", and "pointless", and "useless", while the same for Henry of Grosmont aren't? If so I am sorry for wasting everyones time.--JLavigne508 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocking and suppress[edit]

This user and all him edits please. Valdemar2018 (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely. Talk page deleted (egregious). El_C 07:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


Alireza265435gawa (talk · contribs)

Account created for sabotage --GodNey (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely Destroyer escort! El_C 13:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)