I'm seeing more and more complaints at ANI involving editors who are editing strictly via mobile and have never edited a talk page including their own. I suspect most of these editors don't know talk pages exist. These people look like they're simply ignoring warnings on their user talk and refusing to discuss, but most of them may be very well-intentioned and just have so far had zero opportunity to learn policy because they don't even know it's there. Notifying them of a discussion about them at ANI is pretty useless when they haven't even realized they've got a user talk.

But I'm thinking we need to come up with strategies for trying to get their attention when they're brought to AN/I.

• Obviously if they've got email enabled, consider emailing them a link to their user talk/the ANI section if you feel comfortable doing that.
• If they're using edit summaries, recommend the complainant open a discussion section at article talk and put a link to it in the edit summary when reverting a mobile editor.
• Try p-blocking from article space? I've been doing this when it's a mobile-only editor who has never edited a talk or their own user talk. No idea if it's been at all effective in helping them discover talk pages, I should start keeping track.

I just feel like this is an issue that is only going to increase in frequency. —valereee (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across this recently; apparently mobile users don't get a notification saying they have a talk page message. A few years ago there was a discussion about introducing a 'soft block' forcing an editor to review their talk page; another option would be more technical, changing the code so that mobile editors receive the same 'you have a new message' notification as those on desktop. GiantSnowman 12:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman, a soft block helps them discover their talk? Or do you mean the same way a p-block from article space would -- by encouraging them to try to find help somewhere? —valereee (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me clarify - IIRC there was a proposal a few years ago to introduce a new type of block/blocking mechanism which basically forced editors to review their talk page before they were unblocked. Does that make sense? GiantSnowman 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes sense -- but it doesn't actually help them find it if they don't even know it exists? —valereee (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee See Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach). Nthep (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nthep, I'll just collapse the extraneous stuff here, probably shouldn't have even brought it up. I really just more wanted to discuss what we should do here at ANI when these come up. —valereee (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone know if a blocked mobile editor will see the block log message? That could be a way to communicate: we create something like {{Blocked proxy}} that tells them about talk pages. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, mentioning the talk page in the edit summary is the most efficient way to deal with the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 

  Joe Roe, for the mobile site, yes. Can't speak for the app. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Joe Roe: Since June, custom block messages are also shown in the Android app (see screenshot). That's just the block summary message, though, so I don't think templates would work.

  

  – Rummskartoffel 17:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I wrote an edit filter to communicate with iOS app users. See 1139. It 'exploits' a bug in the iOS app that allows edit filter disallow message pagenames to be visible to the end user. I believe a similar approach with Android app users is now possible but I haven't gotten around to testing it yet (mainly because I've lost my Android device I used for testing). Articlespace blocks do not help, because the editors cannot see the block log messages (they will see "You have been blocked from editing" if on iOS; or "You have been blocked for vandalism ..." on Android, regardless of the block reason). As of the time I wrote the edit filter, that was the only possible way to deliver a message to the app users onwiki; that may have changed since, as I believe the WMF is working on some of the WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU bugs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me try putting it a bit less technical... The effect of the filter is that, to a named editor, they will see this whenever they try to edit outside user talk. If there's a willing Android user we can test whether this concept works on Android, too. In theory a similar approach should since phab:T276139 is resolved. If both these work, admins should have an interim solution to communicate with app editors while the WMF works on proper fixes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ProcrastinatingReader: lets follow up at WP:EFN - but 1139 has bad ideas for production use. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ProcrastinatingReader, "They will see ... "You have been blocked for vandalism ..." on Android, regardless of the block reason" - WTF? Obviously an app can't violate policy (in this case, calling good faith edits vandalism without evidence is a personal attack) but that's completely unacceptable. I have already commented at the WMF village pump, and fully endorse Cullen328's view that the standard desktop site is perfectly usable on a smartphone or tablet and there is no requirement for these broken apps to exist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is possible there's been a fix recently (phab:T276139 and phab:T276147 are now marked as "Resolved") but I'm not sure if the version has been deployed to the Play Store yet. But the Wikipedia app has been in the iOS app store for 3 years now, and in the Android one for much longer. So probably this has went on undetected for years. God knows why the app team thought these were good assumptions to make, and it is one example of where better communication between development teams and community members would've led to better results. Perhaps these Movement Charter initiatives will be a step in that direction? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ugh, I've been using article space blocks, hoping it would at least make them more likely to investigate. Damn. —valereee (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  

  

  ProcrastinatingReader, the mobile site isn't much better in this regard. You have to press "see more" to even see the block reason. The "take me to another page" suggestion that just points to Special:Random is borderline trolling. (task filed: phab:T289416) Yes, I want to edit some random page, that's a proper substitute.. Never mind that Special:Random will never take you to a talk page, so it's futile if you've been blocked from article space.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have & always will be hardcore when it comes to editors not having or refusing to create an account. As for mobile editors? IMHO they should be barred from editing Wikipedia, until the create an account. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoodDay: this is not about unregistered editors; it's about registered editors using the mobile app, not getting notifications for new talk page messages. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I say if technically possible that we block clients that don't get talk page notifications from editing with an apology(Sorry your client is not supported for editing on Wikipedia, you are welcome to edit using a browser). Talk page usage is mandatory. The devs of these clients need a wake up call that this is core and mandatory functionality, not an optional feature. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This idea makes a lot of sense - if it can be done. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is an edit filter to tag edits as "mobile", and edit filters can block editing. So I think it is possible to have edit filters react to useragents. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a tradeoff to automatically blocking in anticipation that they might cause problems that need a talk page. Potentially productive editors, e.g. gnomes, won't get to edit. However, we pre-emptively avoid good-faith but problematic editors having a bad experience. Pick your poison. I don't think we have user data to objectively know which is worse.—Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Something similar to what GiantSnowman mentioned above already exists for AWB bots. Whenever the talk page of an actively running AWB bot is edited, it automatically shutsdown the bot. The operator then has to login from the bot account and visit the talk page, only then can the bot be run again. This does not add anything to the block log. Perhaps something similar can be done for mobile users? Like whenever there is a new message in their talk page, an edit filter prevents them from making any edits until they have seen it. The table at WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU shows custom edit filter message is the better communication medium available for now. Users can then be directed to the desktop site to view messages and continue editing. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If technically feasible then that would be a superior solution to my idea. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had issues with/warned (multiple times) a user with this exact ongoing problem- AFAIK, nothing concrete was decided, other than that the user wouldn't be blocked as they don't receive any warnings/messages. Seems a bit dumb to me personally, as the use is still continuing with their minor edits and is persistently adding unsourced content/information. But basically, due to this issue, it seems like they won't be sanctioned/blocked from their disruptive minor edits/unsourced edits.

Either way, I'm mainly mentioning this because one of the threads regarding this user, this particular discussion from February/March 2021, might have some useful information regarding the issue. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1061#Editor refuses to communicate, adds unverifiable information, falsely marks all edits as minor. Magitroopa (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the benefits in a technical solution but we do need to be careful not to dissuade good faith edits as far as possible; in many parts of the world mobile access is the only way that people can and do access the internet, you risk breaking 'anyone can edit Wikipedia' if you try to 'pro-actively' solve this problem by restricting edits from one particular type of device, and soft-blocking when they have an unread template could be abused to block an editor from the site without due process. I would also explicitly exclude at least Extended Confirmed users from any restrictions on editing, possibly autoconfirmed too, depending on how draconian the restrictions are. But surely the rule against editing disruptively applies regardless of whether they see the notifications? One could be blocked without warning anyway, then this seems like a strange excuse not to block someone JeffUK (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably not the best example. Skimming the case, it seems the OP (since blocked for socking) was complaining that a user was not providing citations, but another user vouched that the edits were verifiable and correct, even if not cited. It would be a different case if the user was adding incorrect statements that also were not cited. Per WP:BLOCK: Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Unfortunately, given the bug/feature involving talk notifications for some mobile users, the community needs to decide in the interim when a block is needed to protect the project, even if it might be a good-faith editor who didn't know any better.—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Stefan2 has tagged probably ~200 files just today for CSD F5 (orphaned) or CSD F6 (no fair use rationale). Many taggings seem correct, but especially among the CSD F6 tagged files it's often just a matter of not having the de facto default fair use template as an album cover for an article about said album is generally accepted to fall within the scope of fair use on Wikipedia.

Because of the sheer number it's difficult to check everything here. Some of the images tagged CSD F5 might be caused by a broken template, typo or vandal. The CSD F6 images that could be fixed by adding a fair use template should just be fixed, not deleted, but the volume and deadline are a problem. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered that the bot which tags files for F5 deletion for some reason didn't tag files with redirects. I happened to have some free time today, so I tagged those. If some of the files weren't supposed to be orphaned, then presumably the uploader sees this and adds it back to the article. The earlier the file is tagged, the earlier someone is likely to spot the error. I think that orphaned files usually are orphaned because they are supposed to be orphaned. The bot seems to tag maybe 500 files per week so an extra 100 or so manually tagged files probably doesn't make a big difference.

Category:Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 August 2021 only contains 32 files and there is a week left. If it is such a big burden to check 32 files in a week, then I don't mind if someone edits the template to extend the deadline by a week or two. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2, if the uploader isn't around anymore, on vacation or just not checking their watchlist regularly they won't notice. When the bot tags something it's usually immediately after some change, so somewhat more likely to be noticed. I'll try to fix some of the descriptions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Just going to make a couple of comments on this.

1. Non-free content use and fair use aren't really the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia as explained in WP:NFC#Background and it's probably best to avoid mixing up the two terms when discussing the this type of image use on Wikipedia; in other words, there isn't really a scope of fair use on Wikipedia since pretty much any image could be used without any real restrictions on Wikipedia if relevant policy was identical to fair use.
2. There are also really no "de-facto" types of non-free content use when in comes to Wikipedia. There are types of uses that are generally considered acceptable per WP:NFCI, but even these aren't necessarily automatically considered WP:NFCC compliant. A non-free file needs to meet all ten of the WP:NFCCP and failing even one means the file can be removed. One of the requirements (or, more specifically, one part of one of the requirements) is WP:NFCC#10c which states that a separate specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use of a non-free file. So, if a file is missing such a rationale, then the particular use isn't policy compliant.
3. It's the responsibility of the editor adding a non-free file to an article to add a corresponding non-free use rationale for said use to the file's page as explained in WP:NFCCE. For sure, lots of well-meaning editors just add non-free files without rationales to articles for whatever reason (many probably just assume all images are the same and aren't aware of the NFCC), but the responsibility is still theirs. If another editor comes across such a file and notices it's missing a non-free use rationale, then they can for sure add the rationale if they feel the use is justified. They can, however, also tag the file with {{nrd}} or {{di-missing article links}} to give someone else the opportunity to do so if they're not so sure, or they can simply remove the file if they feel the particular use is pretty much impossible to justify. Each human editor is different and some may spend more time looking a particular file than others, but bots (unlike humans) are pretty much all the same and are just going to tag and remove files and then leave only a boilerplate notification template on the uploader's user talk page when they do. Since files can only be deleted by administrators, one can hope that the reviewing administrator will take more than a casual look at the file before deleting it and prehaps catch any obvious mistakes. Once again though, it's not the administrator's responsibility to provide a missing rationale; so, if the reviewing administrator feels the use can't be justified, then they will delete the file. FWIW, both F5 and F6 deletion have a seven-day window from when a file is tagged to when it's eligible for deletion and both should end up with the uploader being notified on their user talk page. If, however, the uploader is not around for some reason and they don't see the notification, then Wikipedia isn't going to stop and wait for them.
4. WP:F5 and WP:F6 deletions are pretty common and mostly considered non-controversial WP:SOFTDELETEs. In most cases, files deleted for such reasons can be quickly restored without much fuss via WP:REFUND or by contacting the deleting admininistrator. So, if the uploader or another editor wants a file deleted for F5 of F6 reasons restored, all they bascially need to do is ask and address the reason for deletion. It's still, however, the responsibility of that person to justify the non-free use and provide the required rationale (if missing) for that use.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a file is tagged with WP:F5 and no one notices, then no one will add it back to an article (if it was supposed to be added back). However, no one would notice if it wasn't tagged, so it's not going to be added back faster if it's not tagged. If someone discovers that the image is missing from an article in a month or a year, this person could either go to WP:REFUND or re-upload the image. That said, most images are probably unused because they are supposed to be unused.

If a file is deleted for having no fair use rationale but the file satisfies the other criteria, then anyone could write a FUR and request undeletion at WP:REFUND or re-upload the file. However, the file should not be used in the article while the FUR is missing as that's not compatible with policy.

Both F5 and F6 give people a week to fix any problems which can be fixed, so files aren't instantly deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like Stefan2 is tagging things that need tagging. That said, it is usually a really good idea to limit the rate of doing so to a reasonable pace so if a handful of people would like to fix/audit/whatever your work they can successfully do so. For something like this, it would probably be ideal to spread these 200 into groups of 20 or so a day. It looks like a lot of these have been around for a long time--being around for an extra week isn't the end of the world. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the problem is that files are tagged when someone has the time to tag files, which often means that files are tagged in large batches at the same time. That said, I don't think that the number of files was big. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefan2 has just done the same thing with eight NFC images (each with fair use rationale) in the U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps article, with orphan tags for images that were not orphans to begin with. These questionable edits need to be discussed first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) It's not really the same thing at all Gwillhickers, at least not in my opinion. Stefan2 seems to have removed those files because he felt they didn't comply with WP:NFCC; this was a WP:BOLD edit that you subsequently WP:REVERTed. Just having a non-free use rationale doesn't automatically make a non-free use compliant as explained here and an editor may boldly remove such a file if they feel it clearly violates policy. If another disagrees and re-adds the file, then that is when some type of discussion is expected to take place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Am quite aware of why the images were removed, and hence orphaned. As pointed out, the policy allowed for "exceptions", per gallery use, and in this case, is warranted, as their is no other images here at WP of a complete block of eight of the eight separate images in question. Being bold usually refers to making an edit or two. It doesn't justify a mass tagging crusade. In any case, I am not seeking to have any disciplinary measures resorted to here, but only that this activity be checked more carefully. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Stefan2 removed the files, but he didn't tag them for speedy deletion; they were tagged by B-bot. Boldly removing a file is not really any different from boldly adding a file in that prior discussion isn't automatically necessary. What's appears to be being discussed above is Stefan2's tagging of files either lacking non-free use rationales (WP:F6) or which are orphaned non-free use (WP:F5), neither of which seems related to the eight files you've mentioned above and which both are clear violations of WP:NFCCP. In the case of the orphaned non-free use files, it doesn't appear that Stefan2 was mass removing files and then immediately mass tagging them for F5 deletion, which is something that would certainly be cause for concern; it appears that he was only adding F5 CSD tags to files which were already orphaned for some reason (perhaps being removed or replaced by another editor). These files most likely would've end up being tagged for F5 deletion by a bot in most cases (like what happened with the eight you found), but maybe Stefan2 was only tagging ones that he believed that the bots had missed. As to whether the non-free use of the eight stamp files is justified per WP:NFG, such a thing is more of a discussion suitable for WP:FFD than here; however, at least one other editor raised similar concerns at Talk:US space exploration history on US stamps#NFC issue back in 2016 that nobody seems to have addressed. I've got no idea as to whether Stefan2 was aware of that post, but that's probably a good place to continue discussing these files for those who want to now that you've re-added them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps#Space Achievement Issue, the problem is that there is a blatant violation of WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#3, which says that you should use as little non-free content as possible. Since you brought up rationales, note that WP:NFCC#10c requires a rationale which is relevant to the use of the image. The rationales for these stamps are not relevant to their use in the article. For the purposes of WP:NFCC#10c compliance, having a rationale which is not relevant to the use is the same as not having a rationale at all. Please keep further discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 19#U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps#Space Achievement Issue. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NFC policy compliance is not something that should be metered slowly, given it is one of our legal-based policies like BLP. We do want to make sure the initial tagging is being done with human review (as to avoid the BetaCommand issue) and Stefan's rate seems well within that, but we need to make sure non-free meet our policy as per the WMF's resolution on this matter. --Masem (t) 01:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. If it's been there for years, letting the process take an extra week to get them all isn't unreasonable. I mean we have a week process built in on that philosophy when doing a single one. Not unreasonable to ask people to keep to a pace a person could reasonable check in an hour/day. Hobit (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As was explained to Stefan twice, there is no "blatant" violation of NFC, which acknowledges and allows for "exceptions", per gallery display of the NFC images in question. There is also no violation of NFCCP #3: "Minimal usage: a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." (emphasis added) Again, there is no "one item", or single image, here at WP that displays all eight stamps in block form, that I know of. Regarding NFCC #10 c, and NFC rationale regarding relevancy to the article -- this really should be obvious. The article is about space themes on US stamps, and the stamps in question, quite simply, display this theme. But let's maintain focus. This forum is about whether the mass tagging effort going on, usually without prior or any discussion, is at issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining something to someone (even twice) doesn't make the explanation automatically correct; it could just as easily mean the explanation is faulty in some way. Anyway, the non-free uses of those particular eight files will be resolved through consensus at FFD; so, there's not really any value in discussing them here any further. As for the "mass tagging", whether there's an issue with the pace of the tagging seems to be open to discussion, but nobody (at least so far) seems to be stating that any files were incorrectly tagged by Stefan2. If that's what you're claiming, then perhaps you can provide some examples of specific files in which you feel Stefan seems to have been trying to game the system in some way and tagging files incorrectly per WP:F5 or WP:F6. Just for reference, F5 and F6 deletions are reviewed by an administrator before any files end up deleted. If a file is tagged for either and the relevant issue is subsequently resolved; an administrator almost certainly isn't going to delete the file. I also believe (but am not totally sure) there are bots which go around checking F5 tags and they remove the tag if they can see the file is no longer orphaned. So, there are seemingly checks in place to catch any mistakes are made. "Mass tagging" doesn't really require pre-discussion per se, and there is probably lots of project-wide mass tagging going on each and every day by bots and other editors simply doing clean up or other things; it's only when the mass tagging is reckless and incorrect that problems develop like say WP:MEATBOT. So, if your concerns expressed above are related to any files other than the eight now being discussed at FFD, then please clarify which ones to allow further assessment. I'm assuming that you looked at some of the other files before commenting here and didn't show up because you saw User talk:Stefan2#Notice of noticeboard discussion as an opportunity to start a discussion about eight unrelated files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that someone may well be able to fix the underlying issue given time. But taking the time to figure out what can and should be fixed takes much longer than it takes to tag things. As such, it's generally a good idea to let these things run at "human speed" so that the "relevant issues" can be addressed before it gets to an admin. That's my only point. Hobit (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In the end I managed to check everything just before the deadline, but I had to uncomfortably push myself to get it done before the deadline. Various other editors appear to have reviewed files as well, that helped. Managed to save various files, e.g. some were PD-textlogo and some were replaced in articles by copyvios on Commons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Alexis Jazz and Hobit. Marchjuly, no one said anything about Stefan "gaming the system". Citing guidelines about what's allowed regarding mass tagging also evades and misses the point, that the mass tagging often results in orphaned files which are subsequently purged from WP before the uploader, even when notified, has a chance to find about the matter. Again, I seek no disciplinary actions here, only that a word of caution be extended in light of the fact that there have been a number of questionable edits made involving various iamges, in a hurried and continuous fashion, with concerns expressed by several editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to @Alexis Jazz: and others who helped address the issues. Thanks also to @Stefan2: for finding the problems, though again, it would be helpful if in the future you either help fix things where they can be fixed or take the process slower so others can address things in a reasonable way. Hobit (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me why I am not seeing a drop down list of uses of the {{AIV}} templated messages at the top of the page when I edit Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism? It's always been there before. JBW (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the "AIV notation templates" collapsible? I still see it there, and I don't see any recent changes to {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism}}. What do you see when you go directly to that editnotice page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now found that the problem occurs only if I am editing on my phone, not on a computer, and only if I am in MonoBook, not if I switch to Vector. Presumably, therefore, it is all part of a very irritating change which happened a while ago, which again applies only in MonoBook on a phone. The normal interface has been replaced by a very different one, with silly little icons at the top of the page instead of the normal links, both those which belong at the top and those that belong at the left hand side of the screen. It is a nuisance, partly because some things are more awkward to do in the changed interface, and in a few cases as far as I can see impossible, and partly because even when things aren't any more awkward, they are just different, and I don't want to have to fiddle around finding how to do them, instead of just continuing in the way that I already know. Does anyone know if there's any way I can return to the proper MonoBook interface, and turn off these annoying changes that someone has decided to impose on me without giving me the option? I can avoid the problem by switching to Vector, but I don't see why I should: I was happier with MonoBook. (Perhaps I should say that I use the so-called "desktop" setting on my phone, not the stupid "Mobile" version.) If anyone can offer any help I shall be grateful. JBW (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's of any interest to anyone, I've now found the answer. I just had to untick the "Enable responsive mode" option in my preferences. The description given is "Adapt skin to available viewport area", which explains why the problem occurred only on my phone. The change did actually make some things a little easier on a small screen, but unfortunately it made some other things significantly more difficult, and some actually impossible (such as viewing the collapsible AIV template list). At the most 3/10 for the implementers of the feature, I'm afraid. JBW (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Monarchy of Pakistan was moved by an admin in 2016 to Dominion of Pakistan, without a consensus or any proper discussion. The reason they gave was that the monarchy article was "an unsourced duplicate" of the dominion article, and thus they moved the page.

I have now gathered sourced content regarding the same, enough for a stand-alone article. Please tell me what to do. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 15:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) The merge was not made using administrative powers, so it's just an editorial matter. If you go to this version of the page you can click the edit button as normal and overwrite the redirect with your new fully sourced article. If you've written the article in draft space or your user space and anybody else other than you has edited it as well, you'll need to move the draft to the old title (to preserve the edit history). An administrator can help you with that - see the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ◦ Trey Maturin 15:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've written it all by myself. Do I need to move it then? Peter Ormond 💬 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the draft of this? GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Peter Ormond/P. Peter Ormond 💬 15:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have no fear. I've completed the task, for you. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Peter Ormond 💬 15:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I owe it all to cut, copy & paste :) GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: You forgot to provide proper attribution when copying & pasting, but Peter Ormond took care of that in their edit summary here. Just sayin'. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with it. He built the ship (draft page), I launched it (cut & past, replacing re-direct) & now it's a float, for anyone to (edit) sail :) GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator please suppress recent edits by 2600:1700:de80:d40:79d2:467d:4e80:45a8 on Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done them all, please check. I also semi-protected the article for six months. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The page is getting vandalised by IPs although the first result of the fight was overturned and I brought sources. I request 30 days of protection! Thank you .karellian-24 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.karellian-24, this isn't what this noticeboard is for. These requests should be submitted to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase. Anyway, I protected for a day, with a recommendation for the IP to use the article talk page (currently a blank page). El_C 15:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Secret for people that know/knew him who want to pass on best wishes, prayers or support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to request revision delete at List of flags of Vietnam, as 27.68.139.221's edit summary contains nothing but pure personal attack. Thanks in advance. UnnamedUser 12:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the edit summary. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the edits to User talk:Lệ Xuân by the IP, a block and further revdel are probably appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've solicited assistance from WT:WikiProject Vietnam. I don't trust Google Translate on this kind of stuff. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mxn: Can you help with an opinion on whether revision deletion is warranted? Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: The revision linked above is a content deletion, if I'm not mistaken. The edit summary has already been removed, and the deleted content has been restored, so I don't know what else of that particular revision there is to delete, unless a different revision is under consideration. The translation in the reference appears to be an accurate translation of the cited source, following the edits in Special:Diff/1039766219/1039956873. I can't comment on the veracity or reliability of the previously deleted content or the cited source, since I haven't had a chance to look deeply into the matter. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 02:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and sorry to waste your time. The edit summary had not been removed when I pinged you and we were wondering if the language (in Vietnamese) warranted revision deletion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that @KosomPolskii: is a sock of recently blocked IP 59.92.227.87. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 week due to clear behavioral evidence of block evasion. Warned that further evasion will result in an indefinite block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am challenging the close by Chetsford at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Government bio infoboxes, should they be decapitalized or not. Chetsford writes in their close: In the absence of a consensus, the status quo (capitalized titles) should be observed. I disagree that that was the status quo. To justify this, Chetsford writes: I believe the status quo is that job titles are capitalized. I base this on the construction of the RfC proposal. No editors objected to the formulation of the proposal ("keep the titles capitalized") which I construe to mean all editors agree that capitalized titles are the status quo. This is based on a non-neutral wording of the RfC, which I did, in fact, dispute during the RfC ([12], [13], [14]). The MoS is quite clear that job titles should be lowercase when modified by ordinals (MOS:JOBTITLE), and that sentence case is used in infoboxes (MOS:CAPS). There is nothing in the MoS that allows for the use of title case in infoboxes. Chetsford acknowledges that this is the case in their close: The second problem that will emerge with this close is a lack of clarity as to the status quo. The "pro de-capping" camp seems to be arguing that lowercase job titles are the statutory status quo, just not one we follow in practice. What we follow in practice is not relevant. There are a lot of users who try to force title case into articles because they don't understand that Wikipedia uses sentence case. What this close has done is create a glaring exception to Wikipedia's widespread, established use of sentence case. When a discussion is closed as WP:NOCONSENSUS, then that close must refer back to the established MoS, not override it with something completely new. Link to discussion with Chetsford prior to this challenge: User talk:Chetsford#Recent close. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No consensus means we continue with the practice of capitalising in the bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thus seems like a somewhat silly proposed ground to overturn a carefully considered close. For one thing, the challenge assumes that the question should have been "is title case or sentence case to be used in infoboxes", but, like all other style guides, Wikipedia capitalizes proper nouns so, if a proper noun is included in an infobox entry, it should be capitalized whether the infobox entry itself is in title case or in sentence case. Therefore, Wikipedia's wiseapread, established use of sentence case is not endangered by the close.

What is more, the argument that the status quo should be "titles in lower case in infoboxes", when this is neither empirically true nor based on any explicit statement on policy, seems like an attempt to assume the thing to be proven. The question of the RfC was, should certain titles be capitalized in infoboxes, that is, does the community agree that the policy that some have argued should prohibit capitalization of these titles actually apply to those cases. There was no policy-based consensus on this question, but the fact that two-thirds of editors argued in one way or other than the interpretation of policy that would prevent capitalization was applying that policy outside its appropriate scope, should not simply be ignored. In fact, if anything I would think that the argument for limited scope is well-grounded in WP:CONSENSUS policy. Newimpartial (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, Wikipedia capitalizes proper nouns so, if a proper noun is included in an infobox entry, it should be capitalized whether the infobox entry itself is in title case or in sentence case. Yes, but it is an established guideline (MOS:JOBTITLE) that job titles are not proper nouns and should be lowercase when modified. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, The argument that the status quo should be "titles in lower case in infoboxes", when this is neither empirically true nor based on any explicit statement on policy. The closer themselves disagrees with you on this. From the close: The first problem that will emerge with this close is that the opposition to no caps consisted largely of WP:VAGUEWAVEs or non-policy arguments like "looks weird" while supporters of no caps consistently argued a guideline, MOS:JOBTITLE, and offered efficient surrebuttals to each rebuttal advanced. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Chetsford's RfC close is decent, and he is correct in stating that In this case we have one-thirds of editors arguing that MOS:JOBTITLE is controlling and... two-thirds... [arguing] that JOBTITLE is not controlling. Arguing the non-applicability of a policy is, in my opinion, equivalent to arguing for an alternate policy. A 'no consensus' close in this case means the titles should stay capitalized in the infoboxes (see the infoboxes for Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, Boris Johnson etc. for example). (Note: I participated in the RfC.) Some1 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think this is a GF request for review by Tartan357 and support uninvolved editors carefully reviewing the close and considering the points Tartan357 has made here. While I stand by the close, this was a difficult RfC and it's well within the realm of possibility I read it incorrectly. Chetsford (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Chestford, could you help us understand what tipped you over into 'no consensus'? Much of your closing statement uplifts the JOBTITLES argument and challenges the capitalization crew's points. Which pro-capitalization policy arguments were convincing to you? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless editors feel strongly otherwise, I'd prefer to let the closing statement stand on its own so that the review isn't muddied with what could be construed as after-the-fact rationalizations by me. I'm not sure it would be fair to Tartan357 if I started offering advanced explanations here and it's probably best if the close is reviewed as written, otherwise it's not really a review of the close. Again, though, if several editors feel strongly otherwise, I'll revisit this. Chetsford (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not ultra-familiar with the procedure here, having only read WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Is it frowned upon to explain the closing statement?

  If so, I suppose an alternate framing of my question is: do you stand by a statement that summarizes the discussion by saying

  "opposition to no caps consisted largely of WP:VAGUEWAVEs or non-policy arguments like "looks weird" while supporters of no caps consistently argued a guideline, MOS:JOBTITLE, and offered efficient surrebuttals to each rebuttal advanced."

  but then decides on no consensus? It is difficult for uninvolved editors to understand what led to the tie when all the points are awarded to one side. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC) - partial strike 02:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing is written in stone, however, I read the precept that close review is to review "the outcome stated by the closing editor" as meaning the purpose here is to review the outcome as stated in the close, which precludes after-the-fact corollaries or supplements. "It is difficult for uninvolved editors to understand what led to the tie when all the points are awarded to one side." In this case, I would think an uninvolved editor would want to !vote to overturn the close and relist. I will say one thing, however, which is that I think a "tie" is fundamentally different than "no consensus". A tie implies all things are equal while "no consensus", in my mind, recognizes that objections which are both widespread and legitimate will remain unaddressed if a definitive conclusion is applied. Chetsford (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC); edited 02:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I find that position to be rational, though personally frustrating. Thank you for your guidance. I'll think on it, and I hope to see some opinions from uninvolved editors/admins. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Responding to your point about my "tie" comment: I've struck that portion. I was using the language as a flippant analogy, and don't think it represents your close, or my own points, very well. Apologies. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the RFC question was quite clear. I'm no fortune teller, but I know of a lot of articles where local editors will fight against lowercasing in the infoboxes' of their respective country's political offices. Take a look around, the status quo in the infoboxes are clearly uppercasing with or without ordinals. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a discretionary element to closing a discussion, when deciding: adherence to policy through the strength of arguments and, more tabouli, also numbers (shh, don't tell). Sometime, the situation calls for explaining one's reasoning for their close when challenged. Other times, simply letting the close stand in its own right in the course of a review, is a perfectly valid (and smart) thing to do. BTW, I tried reading the discussion, but my eyes glazed over. Couldn't really understand a lick of it. But I'm slow, so... El_C 03:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can sum it up: some like BIG letters and some like small, but everyone likes painting the bikeshed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like. El_C 12:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My take: I have a very particular perspective here. Although I did not participate in the RFC, I am, on the one hand, a staunch defender of MOS:JOBTITLES (see my edit history) and think it is obvious that it requires infoboxes to be rendered in sentence case. In response to Chetsford's observation that In this case we have one-thirds of editors arguing that MOS:JOBTITLE is controlling and... two-thirds... [arguing] that JOBTITLE is not controlling, I would point out first, that in determining consensus, [t]he quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view, and second, that there is no cognizable argument that JOBTITLES permits infoboxes to be rendered in title case. All the arguments offered for that position in the RFC were in fact policy arguments. Tartan357 is therefore correct that the RFC ought to have been closed in favor of sentence casing infoboxes.

On the other hand, in spite of my unwavering allegiance to JOBTITLES, I think, as a matter of policy, that it is a bad idea to render infoboxes in sentence case. In other words, I agree with the policy arguments advanced by the pro-cap camp, even though I believe the anti-cap camp's arguments are actually controlling here. Because I believe the most desirable outcome is actually prohibited by JOBTITLES, I would suggest that an exception to JOBTITLES be established for infoboxes. Of course, any proposal for a modification to JOBTITLES is likely to be met with substantial resistance by editors who, like myself, feel that that guideline is constantly under attack and that without it, Wikipedia would read somewhat like a government press release or a corporate brochure. Editors seeking such an exception should therefore take care to define it narrowly to avoid setting off any slippery-slope alarm bells. Wallnot (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Months ago (can't remember where) as a warning, I predicted that (with WP:JOBTITLES as their excuse) an editor would start pushing for lowercasing in the infoboxes of political offices in bios. But few to none would believe me. At that time already, political offices in bio intros & bio sections & subsection, had been lower-cased. So now it's come to pass, with Tartan357 kicking it off at Joe Biden's article, where I reverted him, we had a little dispute on the talkpage, which led to my opening up the very RFC, that he's now challenging the closure & ruling of. If Chetsford's ruling is overturned? The article titles will be the next target for the lower-case pushers. We'll be seeing Prime Minister of Australia changed to Prime minister of Australia (for example). AFAIK, it's currently not possible to change it to prime minister of Australia, fortunately. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, because JOBTITLES explicitly makes a distinction between "President of the United States" and "9th president of the United States", so those defending the application of JOBTITLES in infoboxes wouldn't suggest that change as their next target. No one has suggested lowercasing the first letter of article titles either. That slippery slope is not at all likely to happen, at least not from the same editors. —El Millo (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Write it down on a paper & save it. You'll see, I'm proven right. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further proof, concerning article titles. See unilateral move of Deputy Prime Minister of Canada to Deputy prime minister of Canada, as an example. Indeed, it's already happening. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The requested move about changing it back to Deputy Prime Minister of Canada already has four Supports specifically citing JOBTITLES, while the only one that cited JOBTITLES to Oppose said he may have to rethink this and is suddenly not so sure. So your prediction is incorrect. If editors start moving these articles to lowercase it'll be against JOBTITLES, not in accordance with it. This is an RM you have participated it, so you must've noticed it. —El Millo (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That unilateral move, is a sign of things to come. If you get this RFC closure overturned in your favour. What are you going to do, when editors in their local political areas start fighting against lowercasing in the infoboxes? Report them all to ANI? All some of you are doing, is stirring up a hornet's nest, merely to get your own way. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how they're "fighting". If they argue with policy-based arguments and logic, then great. That's all being asked here. If they argue with "looks weird", "I don't like it", etc., then they'll just not succeed. —El Millo (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to lowercase the political offices in the infoboxes, with or without ordinals. Thus RFC closure should stand. You few are only gonna cause a lot of disruption across hundreds of bios. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE as "the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion". Specifically, the close identified that one side had no policy argument, but then equated non-policy points with "arguing for an alternate policy". I find this to be ill-advised by guideline and best practice.
  In my view, Chetsford accurately analyzed the PAG arguments at play, saying:

  "opposition to no caps consisted largely of WP:VAGUEWAVEs or non-policy arguments like "looks weird" while supporters of no caps consistently argued a guideline, MOS:JOBTITLE, and offered efficient surrebuttals to each rebuttal advanced."

  Chetsford later describes the former group as making "no policy based argument at all." WP:DISCARD is clear about how to deal with the non-policy points: by "discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only...". Instead, Chetsford offers that "Arguing the non-applicability of a policy is, in my opinion, equivalent to arguing for an alternate policy."
  Why is that the case? On this one point rests the entirety of the no consensus close. If generalized, such a position would be damaging to the project. Can any well-reasoned policy argument be defeated by enough "I don't like it"s, simply because they will be construed by the closer as equivalent to policy arguments? This non-explanation of the heart of the close means that the discussion has been unreasonably summarized, and that we therefore have good reason to overturn. I also second Tartan357's points about 'no consensus' pointing in the wrong direction. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold closure - The RFC's closure is quite accurate & correctly judged. The status quo among bios infoboxes of politicians, is capitalisation with or without ordinals. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the fact that there's disagreement over the closure, is itself proof of there being no consensus & thus we maintain the status-quo, -capitalisation-. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, why wasn't Template:Infobox office holder notified of the RFC-in-question's challenge? GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, echoing Firefangledfeathers. Contrary to what GoodDay says, the "status quo" is what the guideline tells us to do, and the guidelines are clear, despite longstanding practice: first, JOBTITLES is clear that a title preceded by an ordinal is rendered lowercase unless before a name, and headings in an infobox are sentence case, not title case. This is a clear case of if a then b plus if b then c leading to if a then c. Again, I say all this in spite of the fact that I think another RFC should take place in order to establish an exception to JOBTITLES for precisely this purpose. But as the guidelines currently stand, there can be no question that they require the lowercasing of these headings in infoboxes. Wallnot (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo is capitalisation in those infoboxes. Must I present hundreds of political bios, to prove it? GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Must I repeat myself? [T]he "status quo" is what the guideline tells us to do, and the guidelines are clear, despite longstanding practice.}

• Comment – I think the question to answer here is: what exactly is the status quo? Is it what the guideline says should be done, or is it what's usually done? —El Millo (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many question whether or not the guideline calls for lower casing in the political infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cite Wallnot above: JOBTITLES is clear that a title preceded by an ordinal is rendered lowercase unless before a name, and headings in an infobox are sentence case, not title case. This is a clear case of if a then b plus if b then c leading to if a then c. This is all included in the guidelines. There's no need for it to be explicitly stated that it applies to political infoboxes. It should be explicitly stated if political infoboxes were an exception to the rule. If you want for that to be explicitly stated, argue for it. —El Millo (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You (and a small number of editors) can't force the community to accept what you think is right. Drop the challenge to the RFC closure & move on. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop treating this as some kind of war. Just argue in favor of your position instead of trying to paint the other side as if they were "forcing" others to abide by their wishes. I still haven't made up my mind about whether the close was correct or not. The guideline says one thing, common practice in these articles isn't in line with the guideline. Which of these is the status quo, I'm not sure yet, until either side convinces me. —El Millo (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted seven high profile bios, directing them to this discussion. It's best that some editors out there, know what could potentially happen to the bios they frequent, without their input. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Facu-el Millo: My attempt to convince you: the status quo must be what the guideline says to do, not what is commonly done despite what the guidelines say, because to do otherwise would be to make the guidelines meaningless. If the status quo were based on what is commonly done, then any editor who wants to avoid a guideline's application to a specific article could simply contest it and, when the parties failed to reach a consensus, the false "status quo" would remain in place. This is, incidentally, exactly what DuncanHill tried to do to me with an even more straightforward application of JOBTITLES to the Home Secretary article, apparently hoping that I'd go away or back down before a much more experienced editor. I raised that procedural point there, and I raise it again here, because to do otherwise allows small groups of editors to sabotage the application of clearly established guidelines simply by refusing to agree, even where (as here) they offer no real arguments in favor of their position.

Just as a side note, I believe the guidelines should actually be changed to reflect GoodDay's wishes, because a) it looks better and b) (and this is the dispositive factor, because so many argue (a) in favor of eliminating JOBTITLES altogether) contrary to the application of JOBTITLES elsewhere, capitalizing the headings in an infobox is not contrary to established practice in academia and journalism (capitalizing titles when they do not precede a title is contrary to that practice). I argue in favor of overturning the RFC result nonetheless because it is a bad idea to put in place a consensus that expressly contradicts a guideline without bothering to change that guideline. Wallnot (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It's a bikeshed, as Johnuniq points out above, so we will almost never have true consensus on aesthetic choices. This is why MOS is a guideline. There was overwhelming support for capitalization, that simply cannot be ignored, and if this were a discussion on creating a new policy we would be on the verge of consensus. That said we already have a guideline stating the opposite, and participants in opposition point to it. While it is a prior consensus, consensus can change and a 28 to 14 margin is pretty good evidence that sentiments have shifted (this is what I understand Chetsford as meaning by "arguing for an alternate policy"). For various reason's it's not a good idea to rewrite guidelines based on a tangential discussion, and so given the combination of numerical support vs guideline-base opposition, no consensus was a good call. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Wugapodes, did you read my complaint? I didn't contest the no consensus close, I contested that no consensus close creating something new rather than referring back to the existing guideline. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What they wrote seems to agree with you apart from that. Wallnot (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If anything I think Chetsford was too conservative, as I see consensus that MOS:JOBTITLE doesn't apply in this case. I assumed you don't want the outcome of this discussion to be "overturn to consensus to capitalize", so I was willing to accept the close as-is and let everyone fight it out another day. I still think that, and even if I were to buy into "no consensus" I still think the close is fine. "No consensus" means "no consensus", it doesn't mean the minority wins. You can't just ignore that editors disagree with your interpretation of policy by a 2:1 margin. It's a manual of style, not WP:V, so it's hard to believe that we should just ignore a supermajority of editors so that we can uphold a guideline that the same supermajority of editors don't think applies. Consensus is not a vote, but neither is it minority tyranny. Editors use capitals, many editors want to keep using capitals, the RfC was literally asking whether we should "keep using" capitals, it makes sense for the close to say we can keep using capitals. We shouldn't go rewriting policy based on the discussion, but clearly it's within reason for a closer to say "keep doing what the RfC presupposes you are already doing". — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Wugapodes, I objected to the "keep using" framing of the RfC question, upon which Chetsford based their close. I thought I made that clear in my complaint here. The status quo in the MoS is lowercase, and a no consensus close must default back to that. Otherwise, the whole consensus process is undermined. Wallnot put it well: If the status quo were based on what is commonly done, then any editor who wants to avoid a guideline's application to a specific article could simply contest it and, when the parties failed to reach a consensus, the false "status quo" would remain in place. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm aware. I suggest you read our policy on consensus particularly the sections on WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, WP:CCC, and WP:NOCONSENSUS. Note that despite you saying we must do what you want, the actual policy on consensus only says "commonly", so even if I believed you were right (I don't) nothing says we have to do whatever the minority position wants in a no consensus discussion. Anyway, I'm not particularly worried about undermining the consensus process; I believe it is robust enough to withstand the repurcussions of wrongly capitalizing the word "president". — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You can disagree with my conclusion, but please don't mischaracterize my position as we have to do whatever the minority position wants in a no consensus discussion. I'm saying that in this difficult choice between the de facto and MoS status quos, we should go with the MoS. Which Chetsford has agreed is a reasonable position to take, and one worthy of discussion, even though they chose not to take it themselves. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I would add that the stakes here are not wrongly capitalizing the word "president"; unlike in other JOBTITLES contexts, here there is not really a right or wrong answer. The stakes are allowing a no-consensus RFC to revert to a status quo plainly contradicted by existing guidelines, rather than requiring the consensus for capitalizing infoboxes to go through the proper channel, i.e., amend the guideline. You yourself acknowledged the procedural issue here: For various reason's it's not a good idea to rewrite guidelines based on a tangential discussion[.] Wallnot (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to point out that a crux of this problem is that the {{Infobox officeholder}} is setup in a manner specifically to conflate the JOBTITLE problem - the |office= is a standalone parameter (lacking the ordinal number) indicating the office title and thus per JOBTITLE would be capitalized, but when |order= is added, that parameter value is added before the office title, and subsequently transforms (in the context of JOBTITLE) that title into just the office, and would be uncapitalized. It would be better if in the presentation of the infobox that the order param was placed after the office param (eg "President of the United States (42nd)") which would resolve nearly all of the issues raised in the RFC. But as it stands, given that the infobox documentation represents the practice, that is the status quo, and the close seems proper. I just think that there's a far simpler way of making everyone happy that could be done in exactly one edit. --Masem (t) 00:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have to agree with Tartan that MoS represents the status quo here. Personally, I have never been a fan of MOS:JOBTITLES, but it remains the community endorsed consensus here. Therefore, MOS:JOBTITLES should be controlling in this instance of a no-consensus close. Counterintuitively though, I think that if Chetsford simply said there was consensus for Option A, and that MOS:JOBTITLES would be amended to reflect that consensus, then there would probably be less of a problem. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you go through all the political bios infoboxes with ordinals, you'll see that JOBTITLES definitely 'does not' represent the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, GoodDay, but this remains a non-point. The fact that we do something different from what the MOS says to do on one/some/many/most pages does not negate what the status quo of the MOS is. Chetsford found no consensus to change the MOS, so we should revert to the status quo of the MOS. That means: no exception for infoboxes, our Manual of Style applies everywhere (in article space), ergo modified jobs/titles should be lower case. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell, both 'here' & at the closed-RFC. There's obviously no consensus on whether or not infoboxes are exempted by the MoS-in-question. Thus the status quo remains - capitalized. Otherwise, why is the closure of the RFC being challenged? GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: I don't disagree with that. Just spot checking Ned Lamont shows that this is true. However, there is a difference between current practice and the policy status quo. When there is a conflict, the latter takes precedence even if we disagree with it. Mind you, I'm not going to go out of my way to enforce a consensus I disagree with, but I'm not going to stop someone else from doing it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold, or change to consensus in favour. The status quo is clearly that capital letters are used, a situation where tens of thousands of articles have to be changed is not a status quo. I also strongly disagree with the closer's comments, restated by some here, that expressing a stylistic preference is an invalid comment in an RfC about how to interpret the manual of style. There was a 2-1 weight against OP's position, enforcing it against the wishes of the community would simply result in a differently worded RfC with the same outcome. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Chetsford: What I'm getting out of the whole challenge thing, is that your closure message was 'confusing'. Are you stating that we lower case political offices with ordinals, in the infobox or are you saying that we keep them capitalized? GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm saying there is no consensus, therefore, we continue with the status quo. In this case, it is unclear what the status quo is: a status quo of custom (capitalized) or a status quo of code (uncapitalized). Because the construction of the RfC ("keep" capitalized) was not widely objected by either side in the RfC, all sides effectively signaled their agreement that — regardless of outcome — the status quo was capitalization. Therefore, we should keep political offices with ordinals in infoboxes capitalized. Chetsford (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that this entire topic is still being debated, reveals a disconnect in WP:JOBTITLES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDay (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is contentious enough that I have no problem with a long debate. I think this review is particularly well formulated as it generally agrees there is no consensus and hinges, instead, on what exactly the status quo is: code or custom. This was a question it took me about five minutes of staring at the screen to answer when I originally closed it and it was only the invocation of the word "keep" in the proposal, and the lack of widespread objection to that word's presence, that resulted in a finding of 'no consensus - capitalize' versus what was very nearly 'no consensus - don't capitalize'. That said, I am not enthusiastic about this close, though I don't think there's any possible close I would have been happy about. Chetsford (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please create an article for Zhu Mingxin. He is a young Chinese footballer who has 25 appearances in the second division of Chinese football.^[1] Thank you. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidlofgren1996: I'll create a stub now, you can then expand. GiantSnowman 11:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In December 2020 (Link to whole conversation), ClemRutter was indefinitely blocked by Diannaa for copyright violations per established practice, after having previously received five copyright warnings. Mike Peel objected to this at the time, calling it excessive and claimed it happened "without even a warning", despite indefinite blocks of those with several copyright warnings over a long period of time being longstanding practice. Two hours later, Mike Peel accepted Clemrutter's unblock request and unblocked them with the rationale "Unblocking based on the past trend of amicably resolving the issues, which I trust will also happen here, and than an indef block seems really excessive in this situation. Let's see what happens at CCI for the longer term issue." I saw this at the time and believed it was an WP:INVOLVED action that he should not have done, given his interactions and apparent friendship with Clemrutter. I didn't do anything at the time as I didn't want to step on Diannaa's toes and thought that things might blow over and be fine, despite most previous experiences suggesting otherwise. A Contributor copyright investigation was filed at the time and Mike Peel commented "Just to note that I have unblocked ClemRutter. The specific issue here seems to be with Thinking School, but I haven't checked past edits by the user. Thanks.", which worried me given the specific issue was not with Thinking School, and that he had not checked the user's past edits when unblocking. I opened the investigation (now at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210111) and me and Diannaa have found several more violations. Given the several book sources cited, many of which are offline and cannot be easily accessed for text comparison, the CCI will be very difficult to complete.

In July 2021 Clemrutter received another warning for copyright violations, this time on Integrated education. This was labeled as a final warning, and Clemrutter was again indefinitely blocked by Diannaa on 4 August 2021 for copyright violations on Northern Ireland Curriculum. The ~2000 edits since the December 2020 unblock have been added to the CCI and will also need to be reviewed for issues. Discussion is currently ongoing on how to appeal this block on their talk. Had they not been unblocked, the issue could have been resolved at the time, and the current situation and block would not have happened- the unblock set ClemRutter up to be blocked again.

After the block, I questioned Mike Peel on his talk with slightly altered version of what I wrote above. The resulting discussion can be seen here; I encourage any reading this to go and read it all. I was concerned with the involved unblock given his board candidacy, and I found his responses to me and later Diannaa and Ponyo to be very lacking, and repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding. Mike Peel repeatedly claimed that Diannaa should have not done the indef herself and she should have taken it to ANI or Arbcom- "My point is that Clem *shouldn't* be a special case - indef blocking is a big thing that should get ANI or arbcom support, unless it's clearly WP:SNOW and/or an intractable user problem.", which I thought was a problematic and incorrect interpretation of the blocking/reporting policy. Ponyo also noted issues as well, saying "Reading through this thread gives me the strong impression that you unblocked Clem because Diannaa didn't handle the blocking as you personally would have, not because there was anything procedurally incorrect with her block according to policy. There are many statements that you've made above that also lead me to believe that you are out of touch with how and when many active administrators on this project choose to use an indefinite block." Mike Peel responded to this with "Look at it another way: I believe my unblock following the unblock request was per policy. We're talking about the general issue in more detail in this discussion, and I'll happily admit that I'm expressing my opinions here rather than quoting policy. Thanks", and after a response from Diannaa, there have been no updates to the discussion for a week, even though there are still unaddressed concerns. I have pondered on whether or not I should bring this here, since I'm unsure what actions to take or if any action is needed, but I think this is something the community should know about given the current board elections and to have more eyes on the CCI and ClemRutter's situation. And as a reminder for other admins, please be careful when unblocking users for copyright violations. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 18:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my actions and my comments (but please read them in full and in context, which doesn't seem to be the case with the quotes here.). I'm interested to see what other admins think to this situation, and my actions. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a review of the (in full) talk page discussions linked above, I'd say Diannaa is essentially completely correct, and Mike is mostly wrong. Diannaa's first indef block was fine. Mike's unblock was technically within policy, but outside accepted practice (unilaterally, against the desire of the blocking admin, based on an incorrect assumption of a lack of warnings). Diannaa's second indef block is fine. Mike does not seem to have a good understanding of how blocking works, and shouldn't be telling other people what is required for blocking/unblocking until he re-educates himself. In particular, he is wrong that an admin should go to ANI or ArbCom before indef blocking someone. He is also wrong that Diannaa should have tried shorter blocks first. He is also wrong that Diannaa should have stepped aside and have some other admin take over. He is also wrong that CR was blocked without warnings. I will say that bringing up Mike's WMF board candidacy is probably a red herring. Finally, if Mike thinks Moneytrees' summary is inaccurate ("but please read them in full and in context, which doesn't seem to be the case with the quotes here"), he should say where. If it actually is in context, then claiming without evidence that it is inaccurate is unethical. As for what to do about it, I don't know, it depends on whether they take feedback here at AN onboard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Thanks for the review. I'm listening. Some points in response: with ANI or ArbCom, my point with that comment was that admins shouldn't feel like they are going at it alone - if they're coming across problems like this, then it's worth getting other admins to have a look as well, both with the specific issue (to get more opinions on the case), and also generally (to get more admins involved in copyvio patrolling). Note the use of the word 'should', not 'must' - but on hindsight, using 'could' would have been better. With the quotes above, it was specifically with the last quote, where "... was per policy" and "... rather than quoting policy" both appear but were about separate things (first about the unblock; second about the extended comments), and I think quoting them together confuses the issue. thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was a terrible unblock. Not only was it based on an incorrect understanding (that CR had not been sufficiently warned), but MP clearly misunderstood the reasons for the block (it wasn't about the Thinking School article) and even admitted that he "hadn't checked the user's other edits". Simply, like BLP issues, we don't mess about with copyright blocks after a user has been repeatedly warned, regardless of how prolific a contributor they are - they should be indefinite. I doubt if there's anything we can do about the original unblock eight months later, but what is very clear is that MP should certainly not be taking further administrative action regarding Clem Rutter, and probably needs to read up more clearly on the more complex areas (i.e. not simple vandalism etc.) of blocking and unblocking before taking any more actions. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees and Black Kite: You keep saying 'it wasn't about the Thinking School article', but Diannaa specifically said the block was caused by that article. There's a wider issue, sure, but the first block was clearly linked to that article. I've already said that I don't plan to unblock Clem again as things stand, and have already been doing more background reading. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't it surprise me that this editor has been an administrator for 14 years? Isn't it time we took a bit more seriously suggestions of term limits for admins? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of veteran admins who use their tools regularly and are very familiar with how to use them. The problem mostly comes with veteran admins who don't use the tools very often (Mike, for example, has used block/unblock precisely four times in the last ten years). We would be better off with an activity limit, rather than a term limit, but this has been rejected in the past as it's too easy to game. Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BK. Mike Peel has been very active, very productive, and very useful. This is not a case of legacy admins clinging to the bit. It's not about lack of activity overall, and not a case of someone being an admin too long. It's not even a matter of someone not using block/unblock much. It's a case of someone not using the block/unblock button much, and then using it in a situation where they didn't research the situation, and then lecturing an admin who is familiar with blocking/unblocking. It's not important that an admin be active in all areas, but it is important that an admin know what they don't know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger, Black Kite, and Floquenbeam: Just to point out that I regularly use the admin tools for things that aren't logged (e.g., I have a bot that creates Wikidata items for articles, and it's useful to go back and look at deleted articles to see what happened to help debug the bot), for editing protected pages (particularly in the template domain), and for deletion (although not as much as I would have liked, since I've mostly been working in other areas and have limited time/energy). I'm not too active with blocking/unblocking, I'm familiar with the technical tools but - clearly - not all aspects of the social side of it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at the blocks/unblocks, and do not have time to do it right now, but if we managed to solve a similar problem with Elisa.rolle, may be we can solve the problem here without indefinite blocks? The user has 40+K edits, which are hopefully not all represent copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see by his talk page that ClemRutter cannot yet be unblocked even as of today, because as far as I can tell from his remarks there, he still doesn't understand why he was blocked or what he did wrong, and has an inadequate understanding of how copyright law applies to Wikipedia editing.— Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since that editor was indefinitely blocked for an extended period of time, it may not be a good example of how to deal with the situation without an indefinite block. isaacl (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Ymblanter is referring to is User:Valereee/ER, the mentoring program headed by several experienced users that helped get Elisa unblocked. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 22:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it could provide a path to end an indefinite block. Since there is already an indefinite block in place, though, the connotation of solving the problem without indefinite blocks is to lift it summarily, and it's a bit tricky to draw that conclusion from the example, which also had a failed appeal. I agree that it's always good to see editors willing to participate in learning initiatives, from both the teaching and learning sides. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been aware of ClemRutter's latest block, and deeply saddened by it. I hadn't been aware of the earlier block, but reading through it, I can't fault either of the blocks, and I don't understand the December unblock. FWIW, I was lucky enough to 'meet' Clem last year, at an on-line London meetup on Zoom, and I don't for a second doubt his good faith, or his commitment to our project. He taught me a few things, and I was inspired by his passion. I can understand why MP might want to see CR unblocked (I do too), but that has to come on the back of some serious undertakings from CR to take the copyright policy seriously, and to take on board the feedback he's been given in the last few months. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, ClemRutter is clearly in good faith and does not strike me as someone who has intentionally done wrong, I would like to see them unblocked and not having issues with copyright for sure. What I would like to happen is: Mike Peel acknowledges the erroneous unblock and apologizes to Diannaa, ClemRutter is able to understand the copyright issues and gets unblocked, and the CCI gets all nice and cleaned up. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 22:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the moment I feel able to offer a limited (but not full - see below) apology to @Diannaa: I apologise for interfering in your workflow when dealing with CCI cases by making the unblock in this case.
      That said, I am generally disappointed that the conversation that I explicitly expected to see after the unblock did not happen. This is to both sides: I was expecting Clem to be much more proactive in figuring out what the problems were, and active in fixing them. I was also expecting Diannaa to follow up with the issues on Clem's talk page or at CCI. That seems to be happening now, after the second block, which is good to see (and this is part of why I don't personally plan to unblock them again). However, I still think this should have been able to happen without one party being blocked and having to have their answers copy-pasted to other pages when necessary. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Diannaa Would there be a problem changing the block to a partial block from article space? That would allow CR to participate in discussions easily, without (I think?) any risk of his introducing more copyvios. Just a thought. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Copyright violations on talk pages, drafts etc are still copyright violations. Hut 8.5 12:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Oh, yes, totally - I'd like to hope though that CR would have the sense not to start putting copyvios on talk pages. At the moment people are having to copy/paste his comments into discussions, which seems unnecessary - it's not like he's a vandal who's going around abusing people on talk. Perhaps keep blocked from article/draft/file spaces, but allow engagement on talk until he's shown that he understands the concerns? Girth Summit _(blether) 12:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Given that CR has already been indeffed once for copyright violations, and carried on anyway, I don't think that being blocked is going to get the message across by itself. Hut 8.5 12:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Mentoring sounds like a good idea on paper, but so far I have not been getting through to him as to what he needs to do differently, so I may be the wrong person to do the mentoring? Or perhaps he believes he was right and I am wrong, and will suddenly see the light and unblock? See for example this post of August 20, where he misinterprets how much copying is allowed, states that the patrolling admin must get consensus on the talk page before removing violations of the copyright policy, and states that the violation that got him blocked was "so minor that it is beneath the threshold of concern". He has not yet posted an unblock request either. So there's no clear path forward at this point. I haven't formed an opinion of the usefulness of a partial unblock; so far I have copied two posts to file talk pages for two files I have nominated for deletion, that's not a big inconvenience (at this point, anyways). — Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Diannaa, OK, understood, it was just a thought. I feel very warmly about Clem following our face-to-face discussion last year, he is passionate about education and is very much aligned with our mission of disseminating information. His failure to take on board what you have been telling him about copyright violations is baffling to me however, and I can entirely understand your frustration with the situation - I think you have been very professional in how you are interacting with him, given the situation. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Mike Peel, it doesn't seem realistic for you to expect that I would take over the task of mentoring after you unblocked after two hours without consulting me or even notifying me. I was angry and I walked away. I guess that was a mistake on my part; I didn't think it through that I would likely be the person who would end up cleaning up the resulting mess. I am still angry, too. Fact: Clem won't figure out what the problems were or be responsive to teaching until he admits there is a problem. That still hasn't happened. — Diannaa (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      @Diannaa: You already seemed to have taken on that job (not quite mentoring, but the role of correction) by warning + blocking them. My unblock shouldn't have changed that IMO - or at least that's what I expected. A clear message saying that you were walking away from it would have been useful. Sorry that you're angry - but that also isn't helpful here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Mike Peel, If you step into a situation and overrule somebody by doing things your way, you should be prepared to own the issue from then on. If you don't believe me, try cleaning the company fridge wherever you work and see who ends up doing it next time. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly that unblock is a slap in the face to editors who deal with copyright issues. Nobody should be unblocking someone with a history of copyright problems without first making very sure that there aren't going to be any problems in the future. The unblock happened after a mere two hours with no attempt to discuss with the blocking admin or anyone else apart from this, which erroneously claimed the user hadn't been warned (they'd been warned five times) and criticised the block for being indefinite (which is standard for copyright blocks). Now there are another 2,000 edits which need to be checked for copyright problems, which is probably one of the most tedious tasks on Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 12:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously a bad unblock, and reading Mike, who has used the block button five times in the last 14 years, trying to lecture Dianaa (6301 blocks) and Moneytrees (278 blocks in 18 months) on the blocking policy and CCI is embarrassing. But the elephant in the room is why Mike decided to step in and make this, as far as I can tell, the first unblock request he has ever processed. There has recently been some discussion of whether there's a 'generational' difference in how strict admins are about WP:INVOLVED, but the idea that Mike is a purely disinterested party here just isn't credible. I wouldn't have thought that we'd have to have an explicit policy saying "don't use your admin tools to protect your wiki-friends", but maybe we do. – Joe (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• One concerning part of this, if my understanding is correct, is that there is an admin whose only unblock in 14 years was, by their own admission, of someone who they met at a wikimeetup and consider a wikifriend, without first investigating all the facts and based on a misapprehension of those facts, over the opposition of the blocking admin, and without consulting the community or any other admin (for a third opinion) first. But what is even more concerning than that is that 8 months later, MP still stands by his actions and comments. Levivich 14:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we should normalize that, if you find out someone's blocked because you're watching their talk page, it shouldn't be you pushing the unblock button. —Cryptic 15:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It would make sense to me, though it is probably impossible to enforce.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not my only unblock, see my block log. It's rare, but I do unblock sometimes. (I actually thought I'd unblocked more than is on my unblock log here, but maybe that was on other wikis.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mike Peel: Your first time responding to an unblock request, though? Your other two unblocks were of bots without an explicit appeal and, since you bring it up, both were re-blocked shortly afterwards. But anyway, no response to my actual point, that you were obviously intervening in an area of admin work you normally have zero interest in, because you're friendly with ClemRutter? – Joe (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to the apparent bias, lack of pre-unblock research, and post unblock follow-up by Mike Peel (if you as an administrator think there needs to be follow up, don't blame others that it might not have occurred to your satisfaction, you do it). Mike Peel should understand that any "injury" runs not just to Diannaa, it runs to community, the copyright holders, and to the unblocked user, as copyright infringement has both ethical and legal dimensions. Administrators may not be able to stop a user from committing infringement elsewhere, but they can prevent a user from getting into that quagmire, here. Thus, the present limited apology to Diannaa (which even to a fellow administrator, seems decidedly weak, and goes on to blame) seems most unsatisfactory, and lacking in understanding. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My follow-up has included following discussion on his talk page, and a few off-wiki chats. I can do more if needed, but right now it seems that would do more harm than good. In general, the time to discuss this was back in December when the unblocking was done - not 8 months later - but I guess the timing was to make a political point. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't think the timing has anything to do with the recent re-block? You're confident that you're just a victim of political machinations here? Ugh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not confident, it just seems odd timing. The unblock was 8 months ago, new block was 22 days ago now, the discussion on my talk page had run its course, and then this new conversation was started out of the blue yesterday. Happy if it's just a coincidence though - but since the poster specifically says "I think this is something the community should know about given the current board elections" ... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wait a minute. The second block, which more or less proved that your unblock was wrong, occurred on August 4. The discussion on your talk page started a week later on August 12 and continued through August 18. This thread was started a week later on August 25. Nothing was "out of the blue". You continue to stand by your actions, taking none of your colleagues' feedback on board. There are literally zero editors who have said they agree with your actions. You may yet become the subject of an arbcom case request asking for your administrator permissions to be reviewed. This is all definitely relevant to your candidacy for WMF trustee. I advise you to do or say something to fix this immediately; it will not go away on its own, it will only escalate unless you address it to the satisfaction of the community. Levivich 16:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          Levivich basically has the timeline down, I'll add that I was on vacation when the second block happened and once I got home I tried getting to it as soon as I could. I should've been more clear about my concerns; one of the outgoing community elected board members faced COI allegations from the community that they helped get a user who had been targeting someone they were in a relationship with blocked (not that I necessarily believe those allegations but it was a community concern), and another one was sanctioned by Arbcom and later created a copyright-violating mirror to the disapproval of the community. So I think it should be more widely known going forward, because this is something the community cares quite a bit about. I don't really know Mike Peel outside of this, I haven't seen anything to suggest that he is a controversial editor outside of his admin actions. Discussion had ceased after a week and no one aside from Mike Peel seemed satisfied, which was one of the main reasons I brought this here. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 18:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is beyond absurd, admins have to do blocks as necessary and Diannaa's original block is per long standing practice. That one admin feels that it should instead be discussed at ANI or by ARBCOM indicates that Mike Peel needs to familiarize himself with our policies and practices first. And finally, an admin who unblocks unilaterally should take some ownership of the problem that follows rather than wash it away with a "had a conversation over tea and crumpets and didn't expect it to continue." —SpacemanSpiff 16:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have some wishes. I wish Mike would stop telling Diannaa how to act. What really did he think would be accomplished by this piece of (what I find to be patronizing) advice he wrote after his limited apology to her? I wish Mike would accept responsibility for failing to follow policy around unblocks in 2 of his 3 uses of the tool ever [15] [16]. I wish Mike would realize that failing to follow written policy - namely Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. - means that he does not know how to use the tool on enwiki. Especially because I have confidence Mike does understand the nuances of "should" judging by his explanation above of what he meant by saying someone should have gone to ANI/ARBCOM. Further, not consulting with the blocking admin isn't a social convention he violated - an example of a social convention violated would be his unblocking of a bloke he liked from a wikimeetup. I wish Mike would realize that this is coming up now because the reblock happened now. Finally I wish Mike the best of luck in his board candidacy - he would bring a lot of skills and experience to the position. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Barkeep49: Thanks, that's useful. I'm happy to stop Diannaa how to act (which was meant more to explain my thinking/viewpoint - but regardless). I'm happy to accept responsibility for my unblocks and any failings with policy that they have. I'm happy to commit to not unblocking users, if that would be helpful (perhaps to only unblock in the future *after* training/getting approval from an experienced unblocker). I'm also happy to acknowledge the perceived conflict of interest, and that I should have backed off this sooner (or ideally not started with it!). I'm happy to write off the timing as coincidence/due to the reblock. I'd also appreciate any other suggestions of things I can do now to make this right. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this @Mike Peel. It feels like the kind of message that could allow this issue to resolve and which I hadn't seen to date. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I reverted this close by Ched- while this is here I would like to see if any further assistance with ClemRutter and the CCI could be offered. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 19:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moneytrees - then you should have started a thread about ClemRutter. — Ched (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ched, "another bad admin action" - Really? Me and Diannaa have not communicated if we were satisfied (I am still thinking on it and doing other things right now), and I really think keeping it open longer might end up helping someone. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 20:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ched, reopening a discussion you think was closed too early isn't an admin action. MP's depth of misunderstanding of the seriousness of copyright issues, of what constitutes admin involvement, and of the value of indefinite blocks per the discussion on their talk is concernng, and while like Barkeep49 I think their final post yesterday is at least acknowledging that, it took forever to get us there. I don't think the closing was bad, but if the editors most affected by this issue think there's still productive discussion to be had, I think we should listen to them. @Moneytrees, what assistance w/ClemRutter and the CCI are you hoping someone might offer, and what kind of continuing discussion are you thinking might be helpful here? —valereee (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ClemRutter has asked that the following statement be copied here from his talk page:

Copied here by Diannaa.— Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC) I have posted a response to Clem's message at his talk page, as it contains some incorrect information and misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy.— Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's rather sad that we have an indefblocked user (whether or not he's figured it out and can mend his ways is a matter for another day) and I'm much more concerned about the one doing the unblock. The replies above amounts to a pretty clear non-apology, and that's highly concerning to someone working in copyright. We do the best we can with (very) limited manpower and if people are just going to unblock because they feel bad and like someone then we won't get anywhere. Someone like that running for Trustee is, frankly, scary. Wizardman 20:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a newcomer, you should start your own account, not take over one that has existed since 2008! I've already "bitten" you on a couple of articles because of that. WQUlrich (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A user has posted a strange message on my talk page.Tzim78 (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On your userpage you responded to a templated warning with a comment that contained the link Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers[17]. I think that comment may have been a tongue in cheek response to a 12 year user claiming the privilege of a newcomer. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first time trying to edit an infobox and using the comment system for voting. The WQUlric is also chaotically changing some of my Wikipedia edits without proper references.Tzim78 (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I assumed they were being facetious but it seems they are serious. Not really sure how to react to this one. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is odd that someone with 4000 edits and an account since 2008 would describe themselves as a "newcomer", but on the other hand, the majority of their edits have come since April of this year - before that they were very sporadic. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the relevant comment, it's worth pointing out that they've made only a handful of edits - ever - outside the main namespace, and obviously none regarding an RfC. Though I'd agree that pointing to WP:AGF would have been a better response, I'm not seeing any significant discontinuities in editing here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, after 4000 edits and 50 pages created, no one has said thank you. I appreciate badges.Tzim78 (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put on my good faith cap, and left you some cookies as a very belated welcome. FWIW I do not see evidence of an account switch, and your additions appear consistent since 2020 (when your uptick of contributions started and you first created new aricles). Now, I may be missing something here, as I only spent some time here, I would suggest that WQUlrich pony up evidence of what they are claiming or alternatively assume good faith.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into this. I was serious, and not just because of that one comment. As for my "chaotic" changes, they mostly involve restoring information he deleted, deleting irrelevant information, correcting grammar, and making his sentences follow one another in a logical order (not to mention correcting some plain old mistakes). In short, his edits do not strike me as having come from someone who has been editing since 2008 and claims to be a native speaker of English. He actually admits it's his first time editing an infobox. Anyway, whether I'm right or wrong is moot at this point, really. I hope he lets my present edits stand (and be changed by someone else, if they really need to be). I will assiduously avoid making any more to articles I didn't create, and be hesitant about the ones I did. WQUlrich (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm not questioning the "good faith" of his edits...they simply seem very much like the work of a newcomer who is not what he claims to be on his User page. And I want to assure you, I'm not the sort of person who deletes or changes edits "just because". I'm seriously concerned about whether something is an improvement or not. WQUlrich (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: We both seem to be creating articles based on the red links in Heptanese School. After completing the one I'm working on, I shall defer. WQUlrich (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am confused, but I think that User:WQUlrich is confused. WQU posted a multi-part message to my user talk page, resulting in a large number of email notifications, but I looked to my talk page and saw nothing, and then found that they had deleted it (which would have resulted in the last of the email notices). It isn't clear what they are saying, except that they seem to think that User:Tzim78 has taken over someone else's account. It appears to me and to Pawnkingthree that what Tz has done is to increase the regularity of their editing. They are also citing BITE in their own defense, which is undesirable, but does not seem as undesirable as panicking because an editor has started editing more often. Maybe someone should explain something, but maybe WQU should exhale and stop running in circles. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I just spent some time in their edit history, and though I do see a bit of a topic switch from music to art and greek-related topics among other things. I found edits which make me think this is likely the same person.

However, what I also found, causes possible concerns about socking.

User:Demetri music - Check out the edits in that page history. Then look at this- the first edit to User:Tzim78.

This could be totally benign. But we don't know what we don't know. Are there possibly other socks? - jc37 10:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Demetri music's only contributions were four edits to their user page nearly ten years ago. Tzim78's user page created in 2009 claims to be a person with the same pseudonym as Demetri Music - that's fine, editors who aren't under sanctions are allowed to abandon an account and start a new one. Tzim78 also updated their user page in 2011, 2014-2015, and 2020, adding and updating a list of topics they were working on which included music, art, and Greek topics. In 2021 they removed their info about Demetri Music from the user page but maintained the list of topics, and those are the same topics they've been editing since. I don't see any evidence here of an account takeover and plenty of evidence that one person has been using this account since at least 2009. There is no reason to continue casting aspersions about this user under the guise of an "investigation", and especially no reason to accuse them of sockpuppetry because they had a pretty clearly disclosed and perfectly legitimate alternate account a decade ago. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I indicated pretty much the same thing above, as far as their edits. My concern at this point is about potential socking. As I said above, "...This could be totally benign. But we don't know what we don't know..." - An explanation from the editor could be helpful. - jc37 20:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to further investigate the possibility of socking based on the benign use of another account 10+ years ago for 4 edits to their userspace, which only got brought to our attention thru a good-faith-but-weird accusation they hijacked an account, which appears to be groundless. This all must feel fairly Kafkaesque to Tzim. Instead of asking them more questions, I think this needs to be closed, with a "sorry" to Tzim, and a "that's too serious an accusation to make without a reasonable amount of evidence, and you owe Tzim an apology" to WQUlrich. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if this should go here, or WP:ANI. Can't indef IPs, but this is a clear legal threat.

• Charlesmm2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one in a series of throwaway accounts editing Lime (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which has a complicated and bizarre history. Others:
• 67.49.64.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2607:FA49:CB3E:3900:E836:5F26:964C:913C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robb Cooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robfromlime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Denyse Le Page (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Skyguyfla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DUDES FLL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robbcoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheRealLime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LIME MANAGER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I tried to clean it up and (correctly) predicted I'd regret it. Apparently the only thing all editors agree on is the founders, but who may or may not have succeeded them as band members and reliable sourcing as to the "impostors" is non existent although one edit claims a trademark. I protected it to stop the BLP issues, which led to the above legal threat, but any longterm solutions? Star Mississippi 18:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy @CaptainEek: who protected this a year ago almost exactly. Star Mississippi 18:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the IP a week-long "break from editing" for the legal threat and doxxing threat. Hog Farm _Talk 19:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In terms of long-term solutions - AfD looks like a possibility. I skimmed the sources in the article, and all the ones I looked at give the subject negligible coverage - the better ones are about other artists covering their work. I'm not an expert on notability in pop bands, but from a non-expert perspective it's looking quite ropey, and deletion would stop the disruption... Girth Summit _(blether) 22:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be kept. They had a gold record which reached #1 on the Billboard dance charts, so they meet WP:NBAND. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pawnkingthree, again, I'm very out of my comfort zone with pop bands, but that assertion has a 'citation needed' tag, and I'm not seeing it supported in any of the sources in the article. The article has long been subject to dubious editing - are we confident that assertion is verifiable? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately much of Billboard's website is subscriber only. This source seems to support the claim. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. Pawnkingthree since you're more well versed in music, what do you think about stubbing it even further than I did to incorporate the dance #1 with your citation and then strip everything else out. While notability is not temporary, it didn't appear anything subsequent to that merits inclusion in an article about BLPs and since the membership doesn't appear to have attracted reliable source coverage, I don't think it's something we need to include. Tempted for long term EC protection but would love to be sure any problematic content is gone first. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added that source and trimmed some other stuff. I can't really evaluate the quality of the offline sources though. It does look like long-term EC protection may be necessary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really must insist that this doesn't become another thread of discussion on the situation, but I'd just like to note for transparency that I have fully protected Johnpacklambert's talk page. I've done this as further discussion by other editors is not going to help. I have set the full protection to expire in 5 days (31st August), so it'll be clear before any TPA is restored. I would respectably ask that although an administrator could edit the page, that they do not. If anyone objects to my decision, a simple note here will suffice and I'll revert it. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheresNoTime, I do not object to your decision, I think it's probably a good one. I commented there myself a couple of times today after JPL pinged me, and I wish I'd taken the time to read through everything before I did that. Good call. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely involved, but support this decision as I did Floq's removing TPA. Blocks aren't for time out, but this situation needed one. Star Mississippi 00:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's your "simple note" then. I object. Wikipedia is not an internet forum, and admins are not forum moderators; you have absolutely no authority to just randomly decide "no need for continued conversation here" and fully protect someone's talk page based on that decision, period. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict × 2) @Iaritmioawp: Thank you for your message - I fully agree that my unilateral action could well be described as "misuse of page protection" (as nothing in policy allows this), and I'm aware that this stretches the concept of WP:IAR a fair amount. Because I have relied entirely on the concept of being "allowed" to ignore rules to "improve things", and this has now been challenged, I have reverted my application of full protection. I remain convinced that there is no need for continued conversation by other editors at that user talk page. If you would like to discuss this further (i.e. to report abuse of admin privileges), could I suggest we move discussion to a more appropriate venue? I am keen to not (re)hash any potential discussions i.r.t the user in question. Many thanks ~TNT (she/they • talk) 02:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• With all due respect, they do if the community supports that decision. Dumuzid (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I generally support this for the 5 days. From my uninvolved view, a bit of a cool down period was needed if the situation was going to stabilize. I really think it needed to happen to let all of the heads cool so that JPL can get to where a calm unblocking request can be made in a week. Hog Farm _Talk 02:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I support TNT's action as in the best interests of the encyclopedia and likely best for the editor. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a common practice when a user has their talk page access revoked and other users keep the discussion going on their page. It is not appropriate to carry on a discussion in the user's absence on their own talk page. I have been an admin since 2006 and I have seen this done many times since then. The talk page was revoked to reduce the heat for this user, there are many other places to carry on such discussions. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I also support the protection; I was not far from full-protecting the page myself after seeing this edit (now admin-only). An eminently good move, even if it was IAR. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• TNT, I've reinstated your protection. Happy to take the absolutely no authority to just randomly decide heat for ya. This is a sensitive matter and it warrants erring on the side of compassion. El_C 03:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Without rehashing things, support both TNT's original protection and El C's reprotection as being in the best interest of both the editor and the encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse protection—thanks TNT and next time don't be so polite because there will always be someone who objects that their right to piss about should not be infringed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnuniq (talk • contribs) 03:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I support the protection as an IAR protection, and I also think self-reversing it following a complaint, and having another admin re-instate it, were both good actions, an example of our system of checks and balances working in a notburo way. This is a situation where cold water needed to be poured all over everything to let it cool off, so that everyone can return to it later, calmer, and focused on solutions. Levivich 04:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I fully support this protection. JPL needs to take three steps back and many deep breaths, and neither his continued ability to edit his talk page, nor anybody else posting there, is going to help more at this time; he's already been given the advice he needs. I genuinely think this is the most humane thing to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I support the protection per Wikipedia:Protection policy#User talk pages. Our protection policy states that protection may be applied if there is severe vandalism or abuse and I trust TNT's evaluation (and those of others here) that the community discussion on that page (which the blocked user could not even reply to) was harmful and bordering on abusive given the editor's obvious distress. The subsection on talk pages of blocked users also supports TNT's decision. Not only does it presuppose protection of blocked user talk pages is necessary, it recommends a duration identical to the one TNT chose: When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block. If we want to go the IAR route, that's fine too, but this seems well within the protection policy as written. I will say, it's written badly and important information is scattered all over the place. Maybe one day I'll get around to separating out the advice from the descriptions of each protection level. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This was the right call. Good job TNT in doing it, and bringing it here to cover your bases. Also, thank you to El_C for the reprotection of the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse protection and the handling of the situation once challenged. Yes it might be paternalistic from a certain angle but in context I feel it warranted and I am sure that TNT and El C acted with the best interests of both the community and talk page owner in mind. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I hope this query isn't too out of place; I stopped by WP:HD and WP:RD, and both seemed more wrong than this page. And this is more of a query, because I just don't understand it, than a problem report. I also have not notified the IP users involved.

Someone adds a few links to a page, then immediately reverts themself. To what end?

At Backpack, "different" IPs (all resolving to Hong Kong) add 5 YouTube links to the EL section (20 June 2021 [w/ 7 links], 1 July 2021, 6 July 2021, 7 August 2021, 26 August 2021) then, a minute later, revert. The YouTube links appear to never repeat themselves. None of these IPs have made any other edits. Is this some sort of Google-gaming? Who knows what it is? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've sometimes seen people doing this so they can show others the permalink, but I don't think that's the case here. If you look closely at the range contribs for the past year,(eg) you can see them doing this elsewhere, eg, Special:Contributions/219.73.14.6. Looking at the target articles as well as the channels being linked, my guess is that it's a very young human being. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I successfully appealed for unblock via arbcom, which was effective as of 1 January 2021. As part of the unblock, I was given a temporary ban on the topic of the European Schools, which I could appeal after 6 months. I am now filing for a request to lift that topic ban. Recent contributions I have made, have included the creation of the Palais de la Cour de Justice article, which I plan to improve to at least GA status as a long-term project. I am committed to clean slate and second chance that arbcom has given me, and hope that is reflected by my on wiki behaviour. Luxofluxo (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin opinion): Through a long series of sockpuppets over a span of nearly four years the user behind this account has engaged in a great deal of disruption to this topic. Once an editor accumulates such a record, even if ArbCom lets them back into the fold, we are not constrained to simply "let bygones be bygones" lest they become "heregones". If they truly wish to work on this project constructively and collaboratively, there are literally millions of topics which they have access to edit and for which where is no record of disruption. I am extremely skeptical they could be trusted to edit within guidelines on this topic with little more than a simple expression that they hope that they can do better. I would want to at least see (1) an explicit acknowledgement that they were disruptive (2) they were wrong (3) they won't do such again, and (4) a concrete plan of why and how they wish to edit on the topic in the future. this arrogant, entitled request declined. WP:PACT is highly relevant here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Edited per requester's followup posts Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I would want to at least see (1) an explicit acknowledgement that they were disruptive (2) they were wrong (3) they won't do such again, and (4) a concrete plan of why and how they wish to edit on the topic in the future." - This process already occurred via arbcom, but happy to do so again. Luxofluxo (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, when something besides a full ban can be appealed after 6 months there's an expectation that you'll show a reasonable amount of constructive contributions in that 6 month period if you're going to appeal that soon. Okay it may be nearly 9 months but it seems you didn't edit at all until July (which I do hope had nothing to do with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime/Archive#08 January 2021), and until now you have a sum total of 173 undeleted contributions since you were unblocked. Even if you really have done brilliant work at Palais de la Cour de Justice, it's just not enough IMO. Even bringing it to GA wouldn't be enough IMO. As Eggishorn has said, there are a lot of articles you can edit. You should take another 6 months or frankly more and demonstrate your commitment with these articles. If you only want to edit European Schools articles, sorry but I think you're still not a good fit here. BTW, please don't ask for a minimum number of contributions or something. You shouldn't be worrying about that. You should just be working as much as you're willing and able to improve Wikipedia in the areas you can edit. Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the amount of evidence we'll need also depends on the level of previous disruption. As Eggishorn mentioned, yours was very high, so reasonably we would expect more evidence of sufficient reform and the ability to edit constructively. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I will keep contributing and building up trust. Luxofluxo (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. You were socking two days before your unblock and subsequent sockpuppet investigation. You then proceeded to wait several months before returning so that the CU data of your most recent sock would be too stale to be useful. Sro23 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zealot#Noun Luxofluxo (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly that you think this post will increase the likelihood that your topic ban will be removed? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_truth_to_power Luxofluxo (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're not nearly as clever as you think. I guess I would oppose this topic ban from ever being rescinded, no matter how much time has passed. Still blaming others for their own unethical behavior in the middle of a request to have a sanction removed, while apparently believing they've been wronged and can be righteously indignant? I'd suggest an uninvolved admin close this now, it is not going to be successful. Neutral on reinstating the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think trying to reinstate a block because you took affront to the URL of a wikipedia page (which perhaps had a little more grain of truth to it than you would like to admit) says more about you, this process, and some admins, than it does about me. But that's long been the argument of many stuck in limbo. I am far wiser to know that will never change, "no matter how much time has passed". It is, as much as I admire this encyclopaedia and am happy to contribute to it constructively where I can, unfortunately endemic. But I'm not going to grovel. Luxofluxo (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. You repeatedly, flagrantly, deceptively, and knowingly abused the good faith of this community for four years and yet you think you're the wronged party? Points for arrogant lack of self-awareness, I suppose. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh do stop moralising. There are certain zealots on this site, who no matter how much time has passed since the original infraction, how much in ignorance that infraction was made (do you think for a moment that I would have sockpuppeted on voting for a non-free image - the original infraction - to remain as logo on franchises of an organisation if I had understood how serious it was to this community) or what contributions have been made, or the multitude of convoluted processes, or how much personal information I had to divulge (that I still haven't been able to rescind), will never accept an apology or be willing to grant a tabula rasa - as I originally sought. And to criticise them can always be dismissed as arrogance - but I assure you it is anything but. I'm certainly not proud of what I did in anyway. I regret it and would take it back in a heartbeat. Anyway, I'm prepared for the pile on of moralising that such criticisms of this community, even though they are well documented outside this site bring. Luxofluxo (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose lifting the topic ban per their general attitude. Letting them back into a place they've had issues in the past is a recipe for disruption and wasted time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? What disruption would I bring to those articles at this stage? Luxofluxo (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In just your request for removal of the topic ban you've engaged in personal attacks by calling an editor a zealot and accused another of moralizing while referring to more unnamed editors as zealots. You're being disruptive here, and this would be where I would assume I'd see your best behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive seems to be a very flexible word. Luxofluxo (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(transitive) To interrupt or impede[18] It certainly seems you're impeding your own topic ban appeal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very witty. If the tables were reversed, I could of course have said that such quick wit constituted a great offence and that you should be immediately re-banned, as no one in particular just did. Luxofluxo (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading through the above discussion, I'd rather see Luxofluxo re-blocked entirely, with an explicit request to ArbCom not to unblock without consultation of the community, than unbanned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically do you take issue with? Luxofluxo (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning, for starters. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I don't follow. Luxofluxo (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

−

• Support reblock, as per ToBeFree. Reluctantly, but I'm stunned at how Luxofluxo is handling this discussion. A completely different approach might have me change my vote (seriously, it's not too late, Luxofluxo, really honestly not too late; WP:STICK has some pointers). --Yamla (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and perhaps it took your blunt comment for me to see it. I misjudged both the timing of this appeal, and my tone. In my defence (for what it's worth) I've had quite the week and quite the day. I apologise profusely to all above, and to Sro23, who I acknowledge has a vital role to play in protecting this encylopaedia, and is not, as I inferred, a zealot. Please do ignore my above comments, and close the above discussion. I will strive to re-earn the trust of the community within the spirit of the community before I appeal again. Luxofluxo (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, take note of the ongoing issue at my talk page regarding a recent, already expired 48-hours account block which I contested (twice during the block) and remain unexplained. I consider some administrators' actions contrary to some basic conduct rules and responsibilities (issues related to accountability, poor judgement, disruption of rules, administration tools misuse, unsatisfactory communication, etc.) and ask you to please intervene.

Administrators involved in my talk are JBW, Daniel Case, Yamla and HighInBC.

Beyond the contested pertinence of the account block and its compliance with WP rules, I consider a very serious problem the repeated lack of any explanation of the actions taken.

Apart from the specific problem this user is experiencing, it appears to be an issue requiring the attention of the administrators' community in general, mainly as to how applying and justifying account blocks, which leads me to post it here rather than in WP:ANI. Thank you very much in advance.--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PLUS ULTRA CARLOS From looking at the edit history, you were indeed edit warring. Go and read WP:EW again - you'll see that 3RR isn't some sort of entitlement, it's a bright line that you will be blocked for breaching. Administrators may use their discretion to prevent disruption even if edit warring doesn't cross that line. From looking at the article's talk page, I see a worrying level of incivility and hostility on your part, which would have certainly been a contributing factor if I was considering whether or not the block your account - I actually think that the duration of the initial block was very lenient, in the circumstances. You subsequent appeal was extremely combative and aggressive, and it didn't properly address the reason for your block - I don't think anyone would have accepted it. Rather than telling everyone that they are doing things wrong, what you should do is ask how you can do things better. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post a response, and see that Girth Summit has put it better than I was going to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PLUS ULTRA CARLOS, I reviewed your unblock request but didn't get to it until after your block had expired. Not a huge surprise; by the time you posted your unblock request, there was less than half an hour left in your block if I'm doing the math correctly. I said "Block has already expired". It looks like you expected me to explain your block, even though I didn't place your block? Are you claiming it was abusive of me to fail to do so? Are you claiming it was abusive of me to close your unblock request, even though your block had already expired? If so, mind elaborating why? --Yamla (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest people look at this post to my talk page where it is claimed my revert is in violation of WP:COPO,WP:VANDAL, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:DISRUPT, WP:HARASS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:UNSOURCED, WP:CHALLENGE, WP:AOBF, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:NOTCSD, WP:PRESERVE. PLUS ULTRA CARLOS appears keep on quoting alphabet soups in perceived support of their case, but seems oblivious to problems with their own editing. FDW777 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of those in a single revert? You must be the chosen one, whose coming was prophesied. Grandpallama (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PUC, I'm not sure I understand your repeated accusations that the blocking admin didn't "justify" their block. The block notice says You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent edit-warring, which you have continued to do despite having been informed of the relevant policy ten months ago. That's a pretty clear explanation, and it's a valid application of blocking policy. You were edit-warring to add material against clear consensus on the talk.

As an aside, when you're arguing with multiple editors who are much, much more experienced than you are, it's a good idea to consider whether you might be the one who is misunderstanding policy. If you'd like an easy way to give yourself a reality check on that, enable Preferences>Gadgets>Browsing>Navigation popups, which allows you to hover over a username and see how experienced that editor is. —valereee (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PLUS ULTRA CARLOS:Here are a few comments which I offer because if you read them and consider them in a constructive spirit, they may help you better to understand the issues surrounding your block, and thereby help you to avoid further problems. I can't tell whether you will consider my comments in a constructive spirit, but I offer them to give you a chance to do so if you choose to.

You were blocked for edit-warring. However, as Girth Summit has said above, there were also other matters which were contributing factors, and for that reason when I blocked you I also warned you to be careful about other matters. Girth Summit also says that the block was "very lenient, in the circumstances", and indeed at the time when I placed the block I thought that many other administrators would have blocked for longer. Also, most administrators would probably have just given you a standard templated block notice that would have taken them a few seconds to post, whereas I took the trouble to write a bit more, specifically mentioning that you were already aware of the policy on edit-warring, and advising you to be careful also about other editing problems, to avoid further blocks. I therefore gave you more, not less, explanation of the block than is typical. I don't know what you may guess was my reason for doing that, but it was an attempt to help you to avoid future blocks.

A significant part of your first unblock request was nothing to do with the reason for the block, but just an ad hominem attack on me. That approach is more likely to turn others against you than to win support, so I suggest thinking carefully how you express yourself in future. Bear in mind that Wikipedia administrators are volunteers, giving up their own time in order to do their best to help the encyclopaedia. Of course you will sometimes disagree with administrators' decisions, just as I do, but when you do so it will be more helpful if you can explain to them in a friendly way why you think they have made a mistake, rather than coming across as angry and belligerent. Editors who won't or can't deal with disagreements in a friendly spirit tend not to last long, unfortunately, even if they have made useful contributions to articles.

I have spent some time writing these comments. I hope that some or all of them may be helpful to you. JBW (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I have some useful explanations, specially from my WP first account block decision-maker JBW to whom I assure to take it all in a positive way while always recognizing the editors' volunteer contribution, as it is mine too. I thus try to reply to all the issues you have raised, some alien to the questions I put, and also ask you people to take it positively.

Having said that, my appeal displays some relevant facts for a decision to be taken, apart from other criteria the appealing administrator may use. In this context, if an account block considers the editor's history, as many here recall, the record of the editor blocking the former matters too as it is the case regarding my legitimate doubts about the appropriateness of the block. This is precisely the practice for administrators being admonished, blocked or banned as some dispute resolution awards confirm. Regardless the outcome of the present discussion, my legitimate complaint is hereby duly recorded as it is my account block. In principle, and presuming good faith, everybody here contributes trying to get a nice Encyclopedia. I do my part too, whether I might be right or wrong and regardless my experience and credits. Some comments above seem to neglect that.

In any case, all the people's nice comments above forget to address that the edit war was indeed ended well before as a warning was addressed to me the day before and pursue the discussion at the talk and even proposing several solutions. Thus, the block was certainly unnecessary in my viewpoint. Nobody here agrees or has doubts? The warning was effective indeed and I got the message. At least, this was my spirit of mind and my clear attitude from said warning. That's why I got surprised to see my account blocked by a decision taken the day after, kind of 24 hours later. That's why I considered the block unjustified and then no real explanation given for I brought the issue here.

Since some of you say explanations were given, I quote the administrator's decision on appeal:

"Decline reason: First, see WP:NOTTHEM. Second, you'll be out of this in a few hours so at this point I don't consider an unblock to really be worth it. Third, also consider WP:TLDR in the future when formulating unblock requests, which of course we all hope you will not have to do. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)"

Anybody here detects any explanation about the appropriateness of the block, which obviously is the subject of the appeal? Please anybody helps here for I find none. Maybe the wanted Ferris Bueller pops up if we continue reading the decline reason until the ring bell or till the world's end. Great movie by the way. In other words: Is the decline reason in compliance with WP:ADMINACCT?. Honestly, I do believe it is not and nobody here is addressing this very key point yet, but deviating from it and diverting the attention to other questions, my actions included but not the administrator's clearly unjustified action. I must comply with WP rules as you are and feel some corporatism to avoid dealing with the accountability issue. Anyone here dares to be the hero for the cause? Come on, you are engaged administrators of WP and this is a perfect moment to step forward and talk!

I fully understand account block decisions are not based on mathematics or are even applied with varying flexibility depending on each administrator...though the main question for you to answer yourselves or, if you allow me, for me to know, is, given the case of an editor has stopped an (short) edit-war pursuant to a warning and even thoroughly engaged in a discussion to reach consensus, is an account block still justified the day after?. I'm sure you understand my point.

In addition, a new editor being warned about a year ago is an additional justification? Since nobody here contest that, it must be the case. I take good note. Thanks a lot. Or it isn't?

Besides, qualifying as extremely aggressive or incivility for an unblock request or for legitimate explanations due by administrators, or for providing the good reasons supporting my position in the talk sometimes with some irony or even in a sarcastic manner...seems to be an extremely aggressive statement. My tone in the talk is not in line with or more acceptable than the Grandpallama's, for saying something, hilarious comment above about my edits AND my person? Good example then of respect and civility at this high venue.

I take good note anyway of your comments and thank you very much from your teachings.

Regarding the “clear consensus on the talk” comment...this is simply false, unless I do not get what a consensus is. There is no consensus and the discussion remains open and I am still waiting for other participants' positions to counter mine to find a solution, whether by consensus or dispute resolution. Moreover, my edits were mass removed in the middle of the discussion by two users participating in it. If you are interested in that article current discussion, you are most welcome to join it. My points there are well explained starting with the article title and the content of it. Many thanks.

I finally refer to FDW777's comment above which gives a hint of the controversy and actions I complain against. As I took the time to analyse what's going on with that article, the so-called alphabet soup (i.e. WP:COPO,WP:VANDAL, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:DISRUPT, WP:HARASS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:UNSOURCED, WP:CHALLENGE, WP:AOBF, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:NOTCSD, WP:PRESERVE) represents, sorry about that, what I honestly believe the bulk removals of my work by said user are.

I do seek and am committed to improve my contribution to WP. To anyone here feeling concerned, please consider doing the same, regardless the long, starred experience of some. Aren't we all human subject to mistake and improvement as WP puts it? Or only editors with no adminship are and administrator unmovable supernatural entities keepers of the Faith? I guess nobody here believe that, for you must agree with me that I legitimately had my doubts and therefore questioned some actions in my talk and in this forum. This in any case doesn't affect my capacity to question my own actions, by myself but above all thanks to good explanations and guidance from communicative, constructive administratots and editors, even when blocking an editor. Precisely what I think was somehow missing.

As per Yamla, please note that you are just mentioned as being involved in the issue. Many thanks for your prompt intervention though late to decide on the subject.--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The tl;dr advice from Daniel Case was sound. Recheck that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PLUS ULTRA CARLOS, The Blade is right - this is exceedingly long, it's unlikely that anyone is going to volunteer to read it (we're all volunteers remember). I'd strongly advise you to cut it right back to the bare essentials - remove any hyperbole, minor points etc, rhetorical questions, etc. I will say one thing though - I see that you are doubling down on your assertion that FDW777's actions amounted to WP:VANDALISM. That is a personal attack, and you are opening yourself up to being blocked again, for a longer period. You should retract that. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]