Template:Active editnotice

• Illegitimate Barrister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I posted on the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) on 13 May 2020 User:Illegitimate Barrister Infobox template codes/ parameters in articles - it has been archived. MSGJ responded that "The editor should take responsibility for their actions. When it is explained to them why their actions are disruptive, it is their duty to revert these edits". An ANI Notice had been posted on the editors talk page on 13 May Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Infoboxes: new section). The editor has been editing since 13 May and hasn't reverted either the infobox templates or the infobox changes in the articles.--Melbguy05 (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might have an issue here. It would help if some people who are familiar with templates would comment. The worst problem I see is this edit where Illegitimate Barrister removed your detailed complaint from his talk page while making no reply. If Illegitimate Barrister is planning to ignore the whole thing, then maybe some admin should leave him a note. I will leave a ping for User:MSGJ who posted in the 13 May ANI complaint: "The editor should take responsibility for their actions. When it is explained to them why their actions are disruptive, it is their duty to revert these edits." User:FOX 52 also undid one of these changes, and User:Fram participated in the last ANI. I'll leave yet another notice for User:Illegitimate Barrister. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I have started reverting the edits. I have spent nearly five hours so far. I need to revert all the article edits then the template otherwise there will be issues with the images in the articles. I noticed a further issue with Template:Infobox national military it has two subtemplates also Template:Infobox settlement/columns in addition to Template:Infobox country/imagetable. The editor responded to your notice on their talkpage that "Don't know what there is to say or do; it seems the "disruptive" edits in question were reverted".--Melbguy05 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Illegitimate Barrister won't respond to the repeated complaints about their template editing, admins have the option of blocking them from template space. I've left another reminder for IB. User:MSGJ had removed IB's template editor permission in January 2019 per "concerns about misuse of TE, and lack of accountabiity". EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He pulled the same stunt here [17] which I fixed. He has a history of extreme infobox edits with no summaries. FOX 52 (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More generally: I strongly oppose using partial blocks in this way, and it is one of the reasons that I opposed their implementation. If someone is not willing to respond to comments on their behaviour in regards to templates, it is also likely the case that their behaviour as a whole needs to be examined for the ability to work on a collaborative project. A quick look at the talk shows responses then immediate archival, and I remember in particular this non-response to concerns about BLPs and suppression. I'm not sure if he's changed, but I wasn't particularly hopeful given the response. It's why this thread stood out to me on my watchlist. So, yes, if someone is being non-responsive in multiple areas, they should have that behaviour examined.

The overuse of partial blocks that we're now starting to see as an experiment now prevents us from dealing with actual issues. So yes, I strongly oppose a partial block in this situation. IB is either having a communications issue that impacts all areas of the encyclopedia or he isn't and is fine to edit everywhere. If the community wants to ban him from template space, the community should do that via a ban, not an admin unilaterally deciding via a partial block. If he's disruptive enough to be blocked, it should be a site block, not a unilateral topic ban using technical means. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics for edit summary use are not confidence-inspiring (takes a couple minutes to load); in the past year, only 20% of edits have been accompanied with a summary. --Izno (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a problem with more than templates. But if a user simply won't respond to a problem with their edits, the only other option that will prevent the problem from continuing is a regular indefinite block. Past experience with this editor suggests tenacious adherence to their current worldview, hard though it is to understand. It should be a simple matter for them to go through and revert their disputed template changes, but they absolutely decline to do that. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Plastikspork: and @Rehman: are administrators that are familiar with templates who may be able to comment on copying code from other infobox subtemplates into infoboxes for images/image layout, creating duplicate image parameters by not incorporating new code with existing image parameters and to a lesser extent not updating documentation subpages with copied code parameters. --Melbguy05 (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melbguy05, I did not go through the full incident, but I strongly agree with your points above. Infoboxes should not use the subtemplates of other unrelated infoboxes, this only complicates things and discourages future editors wanting to improve the template. And wherever possible, use of unnecessary subtemplates should be avoided. If new image parameters are introduced, it should be made clear how the previous parameters differ from the new ones. I.e. we shouldn't be creating redundant parameters if we can simply use existing ones. If there is anything I can help with in particular, feel free to let me know. Rehman 07:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Template:Infobox national military code has been reverted which had nearly 130 affected articles by the editor to be reverted beforehand (3 had already been by User:IrishSpook diff, User:FOX 52 diff and User:Skjoldbro diff). The majority of article edits used Template:Infobox country/imagetable parameters. A few earlier edits used different parameters based on code from Template:Infobox settlement/columns for example. Template:Infobox fire department code has been reverted with one affected article. Template:Infobox law enforcement agency code has been reverted which had no affected articles.--Melbguy05 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I may suggest a standard block for a week a 3 month period, might get them to rethink their editing practices - FOX 52 (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be reasonable cause for concern, and the editor has not shown any accountability for their actions. A sanction may be appropriate to prevent this happening again. Question: are there any concerns about their editing outside template space? If not, a partial block may well be worth considering. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial blocks discussion

• Note: I created a new subsection here because it seems the partial blocks discussion below seemed to veer away from the original topic of discussion. Feel free to revert if there is disagreement. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that either no block or a regular block would be better than a partial block from a namespace. If he isn't disruptive enough where the community could get behind a topic ban from the template namespace, we shouldn't be unilaterally topic banning him from it ourselves. If he is disruptive enough for an indefinite block, we shouldn't be spreading the damage elsewhere to limiting it only to templates. Yes, I'm the guy who thinks partial blocks are the worst idea in the history of Wikimedia projects (not joking), but cases like this are an example of why I have that view: they're either an admin overreacting in a way the community wouldn't have supported a few months ago, or they're an admin not taking enough action. Neither is a particularly good thing in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this hyperbolic rant is meant to be taken seriously, but it's worth noting that partial blocks are not the same as unilateral topic bans, as they can be appealed to any admin, and don't require lengthy discussions to impose or to lift. Partial blocks can be very useful to quell disruption without a lot of community overhead or collateral damage, and often strike the correct balance between site-wide blocks and community topic bans. I'm not sure whether it's right to this specific situation, but it is certainly one of the options available to any uninvolved admin. – bradv🍁 00:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no practical difference between a topic ban and a partial block except that a partial block might be harder to lift since no one really knows how to appeal it. The community has, unwisely in my opinion, allowed them. That's fine, but we're new to it and questioning their use in scenarios like this is important. One of the things that was discussed at the RfC and in the build-up stage was that they wouldn't be used as de facto topic bans and that there were limited uses outside of things that were normally enforced socially. Here we're discussing taking what would ordinarily require a social decision by the community and suggesting that an administrator unilaterally impose it via a technical means.

As I said, if there's not enough for a consensus to develop to TBAN, we shouldn't be doing it unilaterally. If there is enough of a reason to block, we shouldn't be doing half-measures. This is the exact type of situation where partial blocks should never be used. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, so I'm confused. I'm confused because the block template, including the partial block template, makes it clear how to appeal (random example). Also I'm confused because I can't figure out who has been TBAN'ed in the way you find objectionable so I can evaluate it. Thanks best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that we've developed norms around what is acceptable and unacceptable as a normal block as an admin action. We know how the unblocks normally proceed, and admins evaluating them can look back at prior cases and established policy and use that for guidance. Blocked users can do that too. We also have norms around appeals for topic bans, and individuals are generally advised of these when they're TBAN'd, and admins can give good advice on how to edit in a way that the community will accept an appeal. We don't really have any of that for partial blocks currently.

Yes, I'm in the minority position on the RfC on partial blocks, I'm not trying to overrule that (and I was stating my opposition to it to let people know where I stand. I know I'm in the minority.) What I'm saying is that we have not established norms for their use, and I do not see the RfC as supporting the idea that administrators should be able to unilaterally impose editing restrictions that would normally require consensus to an editor, so I don't think we should have someone template blocking someone until they come to AN to talk to us or until they agree to certain conditions.

If the community supports that in this case, I'd prefer it be a social measure like a topic ban, but fine, but we shouldn't be doing something like blocking a user otherwise in good standing and who wouldn't be eligible for a sitewide block from an entire namespace without discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not an admin, I am going to chime in here about partial blocks. I have seen partial blocks in action and I think this is a very useful tool. It saves a lot of time and saves productive editors from getting burned out dealing with an editor who is stubbornly disruptive. And I want to emphasize editor burn out occurs in dealing with someone like this.

This alleviates the constant need to go to ANI over and over pertaining to disruptive editors' slow motion edit warring, continual engaging in IDHT, engaging in one or more aspects of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and even gaslighting. The gas lighting I was surprised to see, which is my opinion, and is recent. The partial block is also an effective surgical tool that focuses on one issue for a short enough period of time.

It can also result in timely action that would otherwise result in having to deal with a WP:DE editor over very long periods of time. Partial blocks can also quickly stop damage that is occurring until discussions can resolve the issue. Additionally, relying on socially enforced bans all the time leads to burn out and editor exodus from a topic area and/or Wikipedia. And, from what I have seen, unblock requests are readily available. This means, of course, that any other Admin who is satisfied that an unblock is warranted can do so. This is a great idea. Well, that's my two cents. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to add, I don't know if this can be used for something like gas lighting. I think I wrote that because it was on my mind after having seen it, I think for the first time. I guess just keep it under the heading of WP:DE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin opinions welcome :). I think that's fair, it's not my opinion, but I get why people see it as attractive even if I don't. I just think if you want to do it in a case like this where it is an editor with thousands of edits, you should be doing what you'd do to get a topic ban since they're functionally the same thing. If someone wants to make a formal proposal and it's implemented, thats one thing. Having a quick discussion and one-off namespace block without getting community support; I don't think we should be doing that lightly. The idea in the RfC was that we shouldn't limit admins for things like edit warring blocks, not that we should be supplementing existing community processes for dealing with disruption. If we want to use this to enforce consensus, I have no objections even if it is not my preference and I won't ever push that button. I just don't think we should be doing it on our own when we couldn't do the equivalent social action 5 months ago, and still can't.

Tl;dr if people think there'd be consensus in this case for namespace blocking an editor with over 200,000 edits, make the proposal like you normally would with a TBAN. This is already at a community forum: let the community discuss like it normally does for things analagous like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Well, being a concerned Wikipedia citizen I would be glad to propose a TBAN. But should we wait some more and see if they respond here? Or has enough time past? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:Oh, you are suggesting a block. Let me go back over the discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn, I'm not really suggesting either. I just butted in to point out that we already have tools for dealing with this, and going with the quick and easy option when the harder method (equivalent TBAN) might not have support or where there might be cause for more than an partial block. I don't think Ed meant it this way but the idea of we can partial block them from an entire namespace for a 200,000+ edit user without support concerns me, and I wanted to raise it since I think this is likely the first time it has occurred. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the clarification. And I think your concern is valid. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=957148417 :: if an article is about a biological genus which has only one species: a user is asking for such articles to be renamed from the Linnaean Latin name to an English name, with the reasoning "Use the common name for the only species in a monotypic grouping to avoid using genus name". That policy about monotypic genera :: is it established practice? I know that the species name should be omitted, leaving only the generic Latin name, but that is different from the user in question's requests. If there needs to be an article G about that genus and a separate article S about that species, surely (to take the first example listed at that edit-link), the article about the genus can be named Zaclistius and the article about the species can be named Zaclistius elevatus, if there is a situation that prevents all the information about that genus and that species from being all in one same article. What happens if the species/genus has no vernacular name? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I generally favour using common names, if they're well established and unambiguous, per wider policy. In general though, it's probably best to treat such cases as controversial and subject to a full RM discussion and not just wave them through at WP:RMTR, as each case would be considered on its own merits.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. The request is in line with what we normally do with monotypic genera: if there is an established common name for the species, put the article under that and redirect genus there, otherwise put article under genus name and redirect species names there (common and scientific). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any indication in the requesting user's edits (100 goes back years) that they have a familiarity with how botanical articles are treated and I do not think a technical move request should be performed unless someone with a clue (e.g. from a relevant wikiproject) has given an opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user is continually editing two articles, altering information so that it no longer matches the cited references. The articles are List of epidemics and 2017–18 United States flu season. At issue is the range for the death toll, which is provided by two CDC references as between 46,000 and 95,000. The IP user is editing the upper limit to 80,000. One of his first edits shows this as the reason "The CDC says the upper range limit for deaths was 80,000. Someone keeps changing it to 95,000 and no source supports that," but it's clear that he didn't read the references in question, he's not looking at the comments in the revision history (or he would see that I changed and explained why), he's not looking at the article talk pages, and he's not looking at his own talk page (where I tried to leave a comment in the vain hope that he would see it. The CDC references in question are here and here (they are the only CDC references given that show estimates for the death toll); The CDC's estimate for the death toll range that season is between 46,404 and 94,987. I have no idea where he's getting the idea that the upper limit is 80,000 (it's nowhere in either of those references). I want to adhere to guidelines per WP:EW, but I don't know what to do next because we have no way of communicating with this person. Please help. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have partially blocked the /64. They do cite a CDC source as :5B73 (unlike more recently as :C938), but unless I'm missing something, the data still seems to align with Global Cerebral Ischemia's upper limit of 95,000 rather than the IP's 80,000. Either way, the IP is encouraged to engage in actual discussion. Repeating the same sentence while edit warring in multiple articles is obviously counter-productive. El_C 07:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I think I know the reason for the misunderstanding, but unfortunately it seems the IP editor is oblivious to the talk pages. Oh well. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fundamental issue with IPv6s that a single person is often allocated an entire /64 range, and may switch within that range dynamically. That makes the talk pages of IPv6s a needle in a haystack (more like a needle in a pile of hay the size of a mountain), so the chance of being able to leave a message that is actually seen is vanishingly small. In addition, a mobile user may be completely unaware of the existence of any talk pages. It's frustrating that the only tool we have for attracting the attention of an IPv6 user's entire range is a (partial) block, and maybe we need to think about what other solutions could be developed. --RexxS (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Coronavirus disease 2019 is subject to the community-imposed Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019.

I recently checked through the sourcing and found examples of content sourced to preprints. The applicable sourcing guideline WP:MEDRS clearly states "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge". The preprints at https://www.medrxiv.org/ carry this warning:

Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

I maintain that they don't even meet our criteria for reliable sourcing, let alone the higher standard of MEDRS.

However, when I attempted to remove one of the preprints, it was immediately reinserted by another editor. The article has developed a culture of using news media and unreliable sources for medical content in an attempt to keep up with breaking news. That has lead to poorly-sourced, unreliable information being inserted into our article, despite it being under general sanctions.

On 11 May, I decided that the article needed a specific general sanction prohibiting editors from adding preprints as sources for content, so I made clear my intention on the talk page and received support from admins Boing! said Zebedee and Doc James, with Ymblanter confirming the decision several days later. Consequently on 12 May, I followed the requirements to add an edit notice and talk page notice notifying editors of the prohibition, and I logged it at WP:GS/COVID19 #Log of administrative actions.

There was vocal opposition from a handful of editors very active on the article, each of whom criticised me for insisting on applying MEDRS. This is not a content dispute; it is a simple application of a project-wide sourcing standard.

I have not had to sanction any editor for breaching the prohibition, but when I warned Almaty that if they were "going to deliberately breach MEDRS at the COVID-19 article, then I will topic ban you again from the area to prevent disruption", they decided to raise a case at WP:ANI #I am being inappropriately threatened with general sanctions for COVID-19 questioning whether I could, and accusing me of being WP:INVOLVED. I have indeed made numerous "minor or obvious edits" to the article, but in all good faith, I do not believe that they show any CoI or bias beyond my desire to maintain sourcing standards.

Therefore I'd like independent admins to review (1) the specific restriction "Editors are prohibited from adding preprints as sources for content in this article" and (2) rule on whether my edits to the article rise to the level of being involved as defined at Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins, which I have always taken to apply to admins involved in content disputes, not to admins attempting to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks for any insights. --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I condone both the GS application and the warning issued to the editor. The specific restriction is simply an application of already existing policy. Your introduction of the restriction and your edits on the page do not make you WP:INVOLVED. "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." None of that applies to this situation. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Rexx's restriction. However, Rexx has clearly weighed in, in my view, on the editorial content of the article - the RfC alone is enough for me so we don't need to debate whether his reverts qualify under the exception and is thus clearly and unambiguously INVOLVED in this article. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into RexxS's involvement but, that aside, may I suggest that the GS be modified to "Editors are prohibited from adding preprints as sources for content in this article without first establishing clear consensus for inclusion on the talkpage". The point being that there may be (hypothetical) circumstances under which an important result is released as a pre-print/self-published given the urgency of its findings, be widely discussed by various health-authorities, influence actual policy and medical practice etc, and yet be uncitable on wikipedia due to a blanket ban that prevents considered discussion of the particulars. Lets leave room for the exceptions like the Imperial College reports, which are (afaik) self-published, not independently peer-reviewed etc but are (correctly IMO) cited in wikipedia articles. Abecedare (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: I'm not averse to amendments of the specific restriction, but I'm not convinced that it's necessary. Surely we would want to cite the conclusions of the various health-authorities as secondary sources (per MEDRS), rather than the primary source, especially in its preprint form? --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction is reasonable and so is Abecedare's suggestion. But admins should not be admin-ning a page they are involved editorially, and I agree with Barkeep49 that you are involved with respect to the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the restrictions are fine for the page. I also think your contributions to the article and discussions on the talk page have also made you involved. PackMecEng (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No concerns with Abecedare's addition. There could be a one off were the preprint would be reasonable in addition to other sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the restriction imposed by RexxS and the modification proposed by Abecedare. I see nothing here that would suggest to me that RexxS is too involved editorially with the article to act in an administrative capacity with respect to it. Sandstein 06:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I fully support the enforcing, by general sanctions, of WP:MEDRS on Covid-19 related articles, and the additional clarification that preprints are not MEDRS sources - they're not even WP:RS sources. SarahSV said it perfectly at ANI: "WP:MEDRS has strong consensus, probably the strongest of our guidelines. It means that Wikipedia can't be an early reporter of new medical information, which is frustrating, but it's how we've chosen to approach getting things right in the longer term."

  I do not support Abecedare's proposed modification, for the very reason RexxS cites in response (though I wouldn't necessarily oppose it if there were other examples of where we might want to propose that relaxation).

  RexxS is not in violation of WP:INVOLVED, as he has only been involved in this in an adminstrative capacity, not an editorial capacity.

  I support the warning RexxS gave to an editor for repeatedly challenging our MEDRS requirements (and RS requirements), which was reasonable and measured - you know who I mean, but I won't name them here as they appear to have courtesy vanished.

  If anyone wants to violate MEDRS and doesn't want RexxS to block sanction them, just drop me a line and I'll be happy to do it instead. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just as an additional comment, if anyone sees anything related to the General Sanctions over MEDRS in any Covid-19 pages and want an admin to look over it, please feel free to ping me and I'll be happy take a look. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the restriction, which amounts to stricter enforcement of existing guidelines, and it makes sense to do that on a high visibility page on an important topic. I do think that RexxS's edits have made them involved though, RexxS has made 53 edits to the article and 102 to the talk page, and most of these have nothing to do with admin actions. Hut 8.5 12:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Two things. Any number of edits to an article and/or its talk page, whether related to admin actions or not, do not automatically make an admin WP:INVOLVED in relation to the article in general - only potentially to those specific edits. WP:INVOLVED is often misunderstood, but it *does not* mean "Any admin who has made more than a certain number of edits to a page must not act in an admin capacity on that page". Secondly, for a breach of WP:INVOLVED, we'd need to see editorial disagreement about content with an editor against whom RexxS might then be proposing taking admin action, not merely upholding policy (and such upholding does not need to be actual admin actions). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Like RexxS threatening to sanctions someone after they had content disputes with them?[18] Also it is generally understood community consensus that when an administrator is extensively active on a page outside an administrative capacity, such as here, that they are considered involved and should not be taking administrative actions against someone they are in a content dispute with. You have to remember Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute which has easily been meet here. Given the reverts and disagreements on the talk page over content. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm still not seeing any editorial conflicts or conflicts outside of the simple enforcement of WP:MEDRS. But it shouldn't be a problem, as there are plenty more admins who can take GS actions when needed - at least one positive outcome of the ongoing pushback against the enforcement of MEDRS is that more admins will be aware of it now and will hopefully be watching. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, lots of admins watch that page and that is a good thing. It means when one is involved like RexxS they don't need to threaten to inappropriately use their admin bits. I disagree with the not seeing conflicts, there was him reverting them and the talk page disagreements. PackMecEng (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Boing, I don't think it's quite as clean as you're describing here ("merely upholding policy" isn't a great standard because administrators have a wide range of opinions of what upholding policy is and the community should desire that diversity of thought). But you've given me a lot to think about as your overall point resonates with me to some degree so thanks for that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for that thought too. I think part of the problem is that RexxS has been pretty much single-handedly struggling to maintain compliance with MEDRS without much help from other admins (and I mean no disrespect to the many editors doing a great job of MEDRS, just that there's been a lack of admin support). So, I think we're coming to the best way to approach this, which is to get more admins prepared to help. (And, of course, to get the discussion more open, as we are doing here.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Mere numbers of edits don't make an admin involved, no, but those edits show a lot of back-and-forth between RexxS and other editors about issues like sourcing, which is usually understood as a content matter. These are fairly characterised as content disputes about sourcing, so I think RexxS is on somewhat shaky ground in using admin tools to create a sanction relating to sourcing on that page. Being right doesn't make an admin uninvolved. Hut 8.5 17:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, Hut 8.5, but issues of editors deliberately breaching sourcing standards like MEDRS, despite being aware of them, are behavioural issues, not content ones, even more obviously so on a page under general sanctions. I'm simply not prepared to accept that warning editors about those breaches can reasonably be construed as making an admin involved, and I hope you're prepared to accept that you're on even shakier ground suggesting otherwise. We are experiencing a net loss of admins at a steady rate, and those prepared to insist on maintaining the quality of our articles are being spread ever thinner. Lowering the bar on being "involved" to include explaining our sourcing standards on article talk pages is not going to improve the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is saying a warning makes you involved. Extensive involvement in the content side of an article makes you involved. It is not lowering the bar, that is where the bar has always been. PackMecEng (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There you have it in a nutshell. That's just the usual misunderstanding of WP:INVOLVED which is designed to prevent administrators using their tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute. It was never the purpose of INVOLVED to hamstring an administrator who takes an interest in an article from upholding PAG. The act of editing an article does not create involvement, either. No amount – extensive or otherwise – of minor or obvious edits which do not show bias creates involvement, and fortunately the policy spells that out clearly. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah but you are wrong though. That is not how the policy is written or how the community generally interprets it. If you want to change policy I suggest you start a RFC on the subject. This is starting to get into WP:DEADHORSE territory at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Pull the other leg; you're just gaslighting now, as anybody who reads the policy can see. Fortunately, your misunderstanding of the policy caries no weight unless you manage to get it changed so that it no longer says "an administrator ... whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity". End of story. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:INVOLVED Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Which is what you have here. You claim minor and obvious edits which is just not the case by any reasonable measure. Even on ANI there were what 5 or 6 people all saying yup you are involved. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Doubling down on this is not a good look. But hey, you already agreed not to take admin action on that page so I guess it is rather a mute point huh? PackMecEng (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Now you're getting it. I have no problem in accepting that others can reasonably consider !voting in an RfC or reverting sufficient to make me involved, and I've said so. What I'm not prepared to accept is the proposition that any admin who is part of "back-and-forth ... about issues like sourcing" is involved because of that. If an admin explains how a particular source fails to meet MEDRS and another editor challenges it, that's not a content dispute, and there's no bar on the otherwise uninvolved admin taking administrative action with regard to that issue. Good grief, if your interpretation of exchanges on an article talk page were accurate, it would be impossible for an admin to caution or take any step less than sanctioning because any editor who argued about the caution would become immune to further admin action by that admin. Ridiculous. --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ridiculous indeed! Good thing no one is making that argument. Ironic since you accused me, without evidence, of gaslighting just above. I think we are done here if that is the road you want to go down. PackMecEng (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I'd like to thank all of you who commented, and I appreciate the support and constructive advice. It seems pretty clear that the specific sanction could be usefully amended to Abecedare's suggestion, and I have no objection to any other admin making the change. I won't do that myself because I can see too many opinions considering me involved on the page. It's difficult to judge how one's own actions are perceived by others. For example, I saw edits like pointing out that I couldn't read the text in an image (my !vote at the RfC) as an obvious accessibility concern, not a content dispute, but I accept that others can reasonably hold the opposite view. Nevertheless, I don't think it is productive for me to attempt to act as an uninvolved admin at the article, and so I'll refrain from taking an administrative action there. Hopefully, it will be sufficient in future to refer any breaches of MEDRS (or threats to do so) to a clearly uninvolved admin, or to this noticeboard for action. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal.

Rather than amending the sanctions notice itself, which has consensus and some precedent from ArbCom, I propose instead to add a section as follows:

Application notes

Sources for any content related to medical aspects of the disease are expected to adhere to the standards laid down at WP:MEDRS. Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used.

Editors are reminded that onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page.

• Proposed. Guy (help!) 18:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So this is consensus required for MEDRS topics? PackMecEng (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MEDRS applies to medical content anywhere on Wikipedia, not just on particular topics. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it does. That is not the question being asked though. When Guy says Editors are reminded that onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page. Which sounds like the AP2 consensus required sanctions. I was asking for clarification if that is what they are proposing. Understand now? PackMecEng (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I still don't. The wording of the proposal seems utterly clear to me. Could you explain clearly what you're asking? --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps let Guy answer then. PackMecEng (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Bite your hand off" support: thank you, Guy. I think that would be incredibly useful. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - I think this is a good idea, but I do have a specific question regarding preprints. Many decisions that were and are being made regarding how to deal with the pandemic have been based to some degree on preprints. I'm thinking here specifically of the early French study regardiing hydroxychloroquine, but there have been other instances. Can these preprints be linked to in the context of the political and social decisions being made based on them, or is it best to refer to them without linkage? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to write "President X recommended use of Y based a preprint", you can. If you want to use a preprint or any other study to support content making a biomedical claim, you can't. This and this (or this) are "French studies", which come to different conclusions, and none of them is suitable for use in our article. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, that's clear, link to the RS which reports that a decision was based on a preprint, but don't link the preprint. (Incidentally, I'm not defending any of those decisions.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well done! This must be the day for me and JzG to be on the same wavelength. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Makes sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wikipedia is not the place for bleeding-edge reports of what might be. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. That stuff belongs on Bleedingedgeopedia.com. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, big Support from me. And thanks Guy, it's great to have more admin help with this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed. Seems totally reasonable and will actually fix the problem at hand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was involved very early on with the first few Covid19 pages (I think there were only 2 or 3 then and no country outbreak pages) EG > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome__2/Archive_1 . I requested back then that an administrator with a science/medicine/bioscience background be tasked to monitor the overall space. While I would have supported Bioxriv/Medxriv type "fast science" up to around March I think an administrator is well within reason cracking down hard on that practice now. Reputable journals like the Lancet and the NEJM have greatly accelerated peer review/publishing for Covid19 now. My thanks to @RexxS to their stepping into a very onerous role at this time and indeed to any other administrator who chooses to help them given the velocity of change in this article set. Wikimucker (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Monday, 2 accounts were created calling a specific living person gay. This person, according to a sourced statement in his own article, is "the first openly LGBT person to be appointed as a minister in the Israeli government", making this statement not a BLP violation. The log entries are:

• first
• second

Was the redaction appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.12.209 (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they were oversighted and we do not normally discuss or debate oversight actions at WP:AN as they are too privacy-sensitive for this board. BTW, I am fairly sure that such an username would be questionable even if it's not a BLP vio. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, absolutely the redaction was appropriate. For the record, thank you for not linking to the individuals specifically, but rather to the logs (meaning I don't have to redact anything here). Primefac (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SOunds to me like an attack user name, without delving deeper. I agree, the redaction was appropriate. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 14:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If these names should be redacted, you should also look at this page, which has other accounts with the same issue. 147.161.13.38 (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following my protecting of a template at template editor level, another editor has complained that the rest of the ordinary editors are "being punished" for the actions of an individual editor. He has pointed out that an alternative way to prevent the disruption which caused the implementation of the editing restriction exists - simply to block the editor in question from editing the template. I've never done a partial block, but accept that the complainant has a good point. There are no admin instructions listed at WP:PB, so I have no idea how to do this. Can someone explain the process please? Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Open up Special:Block as normal, and click "Partial" instead of "Sitewide". This will open up an input box for you to enter the pages they're blocked from, so enter Template:Whatever. The rest is the same as a normal block. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• And by all means have a practice with ThisIsaTest (talk · contribs · block log). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Black Kite, have now issued a partial block and unprotected the template. My only concern now is that said editor can log out and repeat the edit. If that should happen then it's indefinate semi-protection. Difficult to prove it was the editor in question and thus unable to block for the offence as far as I can see. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If this happens the article must indeed be semiprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If that happens, rangeblock the IP's whole range from the template as well. The chances of someone else from that range wanting to edit an obscure template are approximately zero. Black Kite (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, now that is a block log. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• One tiny little quibble, Mjroots. Editors are allowed to remove block templates while blocked; it's only declined appeals that need to remain while the block is in place.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another editor expressed that opinion on my talk page. I've struck through the statement and apologised. I notice there's an unblock request. Am mulling it over, but background info at WT:UKT if any other admin wishes to respond to the request. Mjroots (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Simple solution: boycott partial blocks. They cause more disruption than they solve. I installed CSS to prevent me from seeing them as an option :) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This file was deleted as orphan but a copy is used in id.wiki (id:Berkas:HPIM0335.jpg. Could someone undelete so I can move to Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, Restored. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Sphilbrick. Could you also undelete these 3:

• File:CR_Plat_1.png
• File:CR_Plat_3.png
• File:CR_Plat_4.png

That is also in use in id.wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73,  Done - Can I leave it to you to clear out the prod templates? S Philbrick(Talk) 20:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick thank you! Of course. Fixed and moved. I can see admins have lots to do. I might have thousands of files to move so I'm afraid I will add to the pile of work. --MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been contacted on my talkpage by someone claiming to be an article subject asking that their article be taken down (I'm being a bit cagey for a reason). I have no objection to doing this...unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm horribly rusty as to the process. What steps do I need to take? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have Twinkle, just choose the "XFD" option. If you don't, follow WP:AFDHOWTO. Primefac (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: So it needs to go through AFD, then? OK - if that's the case I can take care of it shortly, thanks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't see it meeting any of the speedy deletion criteria, so AFD is the way to go. Primefac (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, Ser Amantio, there really is a lot of coverage for this person, and a "normal" AfD would be likely to fail--that is, I'd argue tooth and nail for keeping the article. Ser Amantio, I don't know why you were cagey--I'm wondering if we shouldn't just send this to ArbCom, for instance (I just sent them a note, but Ser Amantio, it would be good if you did the same). Drmies (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Call it habit - I spend so much time being cagey that it's become my default. :-) (Also, I didn't want to put a name here that would need to be scrubbed later, should it come to that.) I'll drop a note to Arbcom, then. I take your point about AFD, but if I were to put it up there I would make it clear that the article has been nominated expressly at the request of the subject. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you would; I've seen that done before. But let's go with ArbCom first, just to make sure. Thx! Drmies (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I sent the message off to ArbCom a little while ago, just after dinner. If I don't hear anything in a day or two I'll look at AFD. Thanks, all, for the assistance! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy I'm aware of that allows ArbCom to delete a long-standing article about a notable subject at the subject's request. This article has existed since 2010, meaning it has most likely been mirrored countless times, so no deletion could ever address any vague security concerns the subject might have, especially if the subject is a journalist and blogger who has extensively used their name in all kinds of publications. For subjects of marginal notability, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE/WP:BIODEL already gives us guidance on how an AFD can be closed but even that policy presupposes that a deletion discussion takes place. Regards SoWhy 08:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to SoWhy's assessment of the real life implications, to put it baldly, if the article subject is in danger is because he advocates from of the press in a country which has seen 47 journalists killed there in the last three years; not because they have a Wikipedia article.

None of this, of course, and for the record, impugnes their personal courage or strength of character: they are truly in the caldron of freedom and an example to most of us in the "civilized" west. serial ^# 09:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT from the article, the subject doesn't live in Afghanistan. While they have mentioned their own safety, they've also mentioned the safety of their family back home, which also supports the view they don't live in Afghanistan. IMO we're underestimating how much of an influence we actually have in providing a simple means for people to find out basic details about people which they obviously could with more work otherwise but which often wasn't going to happen. (Or maybe people are just overestimating how much work many nutters put into deciding whether or who to harm.) As an example of our influence, I seem to recall a case where some immigration official read details of a Wikipedia article to someone they were planning to deny entry although couldn't find mention of it from a quick search. That said, since I think it's clear there's little chance of getting consensus for any deletion I won't be discussing this further since bringing attention to it will just make things worse. (I mean in the case of Kidnapping of David Rohde, the primary reason we were able to keep the details out was because most sources did the same.) In truth, if this article in part contributes to the death or assault or other human on human harm of someone, I doubt it will be the first time or the last anyway. A big part of the problem is that even if we were to deal differently with cases like this, we're not going to be able to deal with all the case people don't think about until it happens. That's the scary truth about our size and reach. The good or bad news depending on your PoV is that most of the time, probably including this, even if the Wikipedia article is a contributor to something bad that happens there's a good chance we will never know about it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I know the article is pretty much a lock, but Ser Amantio asked a question and I answered :-) Primefac (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be opposed to deleting this article about an obviously notable person, and cannot see how it being on Wikipedia is a security concern, given their history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've had this situation before - Sally Boazman and Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) spring to mind. Subjects of articles do not get to dictate to Wikipedia whether or not they have an article. If they meet WP:GNG and someone writes an article that complies with WP:BLP, and is accurate, we have the article. Mjroots (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mjroots, no they don't - but in marginal cases we defer to them. Because anything else would be evil. Guy (help!) 07:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    JzG, I agree. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: et al.: I tend to agree. I tend to defer to the article subject's wishes in as many cases as possible. For what it's worth, ArbCom said no, so I will be opening an AFD later today on the subject. That being said, thanks, all, for the input - I was sure there was a procedure here, and I was equally sure that I'd overlook something if I went hunting for it myself. Which is usually the case for me, alas. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, for future reference, the policy you're looking for is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I've also invoked WP:BLPPRIVACY once or twice, usually when the subject says "please don't list my date of birth, it's not public information" at which point I've scrubbed the date and just given the year. creffett (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Creffett: Thanks very much. I'll mark it for future use - it comes up now and again, I find, though I don't encounter it often at all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that the AFD has been started. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasim Fekrat. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could someone have a look at User_talk:Rehman#Retiring_user please? Is there something I should be doing regarding this? They seems troubled by something, but I'm unsure on what to do... Rehman 03:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Email the address listed here? Could be a misreading or false alarm but just in case (esp. considering their age). Abecedare (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that. Rehman 10:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dreadful backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Are there no admins regularly working that page? SpinningSpark 11:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I point out every time this is raised, most people ignore it because it primarily consists of one user listing RfCs he’s uninvolved with that may or may not actually need to be closed. It overwhelms the board. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are saying there. Is someone mass-adding requests? If so, filtering out the ones that were requested by someone who did not take part in the discussion may be the solution. Or just forbid drive-by requests altogether. Whatever, something really has to be done about it; this is an important board. If we don't have effective dispute resolution processes it will lead to more behavioral problems and come back to bite us in the ass from a different direction. SpinningSpark 12:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a quick headcount. By my count ~30 of the open requests at ANRFC are from Cunard. ~20 are from all others combined. I know Cunard says he has been trying to take on the concerns of the community about this, and I believe him, but from a numeric standpoint his requested account for the overwhelming majority of the backlogged discussions needing closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So do you agree that they should be closed as "not done" if there is no evidence that the participants wanted an admin close? I'm willing to go through a bunch of them and take the flak for that, but I'd to feel there was consensus to do that first. A lot of them are completely stale anyway. SpinningSpark 14:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I’d support responding to stale requests at ANRFC with {{nd}} if there’s no evidence those involved wanted a formal close. Might be worth letting others chime in, but I think decreasing the size would increase people’s willingness to respond to requests there. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, a realisation will sink in that certain requests are being deliberately ignored. If that happens, and making more requests be an obviously fruitless exercise, they might wither on the vine... ——Serial ^# 14:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, the problem is that this has been the subject of multiple noticeboard threads for years and apparently hasn’t noticed that no ones closing the stuff. If you want a symptom of how bad the problem is, finding the prior discussions is difficult because his signature is so present at ANRFC it clogs up the archive search. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:, ah, I misuderstood. Well; if something has been raised as potential issue, agreed to be one, and the issue continues as before then that rather limits our options. ——Serial ^# 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say there have been a couple times that I've been involved with a discussion and didn't list it here because Cunard had already done it. It would be a shame if those weren't closed just because people got tired of Cunard's postings. I've also been in discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it. I suppose it's possible that Cunard could be posting against the wishes of those involved, but I haven't seen it (then again, it's not a page I really monitor -- I'm just drawing on discussions I've been involved with). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this thread from February to be the last discussion of this topic. My thinking on this hasn't changed since then so I will just quote myself It always difficult for me to assess how backlogged it is because so many of the requests come from one editor who may or may not have even participated in the discussion for which they're asking for a close. Not every discussion needs a formal close and the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way...with the result, I suppose, that you then went elsewhere, and the backlog got longer. Absolutely your prerogative. But I imagine you're not the only one... ——Serial ^# 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your supposition about me is correct. I also suspect I'm not the only one who would pitch in sometimes if it were easier to find the closes that most needed attention. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Per the suggestion in that thread and here, I’ve gone ahead and marked 10 discussions as  Not done. More probably could be marked as such, but those are the quick ones I was able to clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a couple more of the oldest ones which had quite clearly already been actioned by the participants. I think that Cunard could at least ask the participants if they need a formal close before posting here. I marked as nd one that was on the footie Wikiproject; the participants there might actually positively resent an admin poking their nose in where it wasn't wanted. SpinningSpark 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is good, for the time being. Now, all things being equal, do we have the means (or the inclination), to stop the issue becoming a perennial one? (Anymore than it is, perhaps.) ——Serial ^# 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I started closing some of these when it was originally posted, then edit-conflicted with Spinningspark with some "not done" ones that I could close. I'm going to sit this one out for now, but I tried. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Primefac: Sorry for the edit conflict. I've left a note on the requests page. Please don't let me stop you from closing some more. The instructions do recommend using the {{doing}} or {{closing}} templates. SpinningSpark 17:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily going to stop, just going to stop while there is active pruning going on. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Drmies (talk · contribs) and Primefac (talk · contribs) for your work closing RfCs at WP:ANRFC yesterday. I deeply appreciate your hard work. Drmies, this was a nuanced and very well explained close of a contentious RfC. Primefac, your close here allowed the article to be updated to the version supported by consensus.

  The below is a modified version of my post here. I in the past listed all RfCs at WP:ANRFC. The community's feedback several years ago was that I was posting too many "consensus is clear" RfCs. I responded to their feedback by making changes to my approach. As BU Rob13 wrote in June 2016:

  I'm talking about this most recent listing vs. a month ago. The number of listings went down from roughly three dozen to more like a single dozen, all of which has at least some aspect that didn't seem 100% straightforward. I was the person who originally brought up this issue at AN, and I'm a strong opponent of the idea that we should close all RfCs, but Cunard is a good-faith effort. His listings are a net positive if and only if he continues to list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all. Can I be sure that he isn't just temporarily adjusting due to this discussion? No, but I assume good faith and recognize that this can just wind up at a noticeboard as a pure behavioral issue if he were to go back to blanket listing immediately after this discussion concluded. I value Cunard's contributions as a whole and doubt things will get that far.

  Since June 2016, I have continued to "list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all". I started closing the "consensus is clear" RfCs myself and listing only the remaining RfCs where I think a close would be useful at WP:ANRFC. This significantly reduced the WP:ANRFC backlog. I have become even more discriminate in my close requests by omitting RfCs that look like discussions such as RfCs 3 and 6 in this list by leaving them unclosed or closing them myself. This has further reduced the backlog.

  I have listed RfCs at ANRFC for over eight years since the creation of the board. Why have I consistently spent so much time collating the list and closing RfCs for eight years? I have in mind users like Triptothecottage who may not remember to list an RfC for closure or may not know about WP:ANRFC. I have in mind the RfCs mentioned by Rhododendrites (talk · contribs): "discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it". I do not want the time and effort of the RfCs participants to have gone to waste when an RfC ends without anyone determining whether a consensus has been reached.

  As Scott put it so well here in January 2014:

  Lack of resolution to ongoing debates is a continuing issue on this project. If there are too many things listed here, it's because there are too many things left unfinished. It's a reflection of reality. As Cunard points out in his admirable response in the "September 2013" link above, not having a formal closure can also lead to misinterpretations (or deliberate ignorance) of consensus by persons in disputes, and not provide a recourse for editors attempting to enforce consensus. Having an accepted closure to point to will be immensely useful in many subsequent debates. We should encourage these. Making them is tough work, and I think that's what's putting editors off doing it, not seeing the number that need to be done.

  If an AfD with a rough but not obvious consensus to delete was never closed, the article would remain undeleted. Likewise, if an RfC with a rough but not obvious consensus to make a change to an article was never closed, the article would remain unchanged.

  More concretely, Primefac (talk · contribs) yesterday closed a stale 95-day-old RfC with the result: "There is a narrow margin for converting the pie chart to the 'Pew' version listed below." Primefac then modified the article to use the updated pie chart based on the RfC consensus. If this RfC had not been closed, the article likely would never have been updated.

  This 95-day-old RfC was one of the 12 RfCs yesterday that was marked {{not done}}. If Primefac had not assessed the consensus in the RfC at the same time it was marked not done, a change that had consensus likely never would have been made. For the other RfCs that had been marked as not done, I think closes would have been helpful but will not contest those decisions. I will procedurally close the RfCs and direct editors to create a request at WP:ANRFC if they would like a close.

  Cunard (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted two of the procedural RfC closes after a talk page request. I wrote: "Do you want the consensus for these RfCs to be assessed by a closer at WP:ANRFC, or do you think they do not need to be closed and should be archived without closure?" SharabSalam (talk · contribs) responded: "if they got archived I will restore them. I dont know how to request a closing in WP:ANRFC but I will try. I understand that there is a dispute between you and other editors. I support your position but I dont support your latest closings. They seem WP:Pointy."

  I have made these RfC close requests in part for editors like SharabSalam who do not know how to make a close request at ANRFC. I informed SharabSalam about how to make a close request which SharabSalam has now done for both of the RfCs.

  I made the procedural closes to inform RfC participants that the RfCs would not be formally closed since they had been declined at WP:ANRFC. This is to inform editors who might have intended to request a close at ANRFC but didn't because they saw I had requested the close that if they believe an RfC close would be helpful, they would need to file a close request at WP:ANRFC themselves.

  Cunard (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont really know what is going on here. I just thought that there is a dispute between you and that Admin because he seems to be closing request for closers with "Not needed". I dont agree with the admin who was closing those request for closers. All RfCs need closing. Anyone should be able to request closing. Cunard was doing a great job by requesting closer for RfCs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All RfCs need closing. - Not so, per WP:RFCEND. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I can only speak for myself, but I've always appreciated Cunard's diligent listings of expired RfCs. There were many occasions in which I was going to list a request for closure, but found that Cunard had beaten me to it. I've just relisted WP:RFCL § Talk:One America News Network#RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor. This RfC is intended to resolve a language dispute that was subject to edit warring, but nobody has implemented the consensus yet, and a {{Dispute inline}} tag remains on the wording in question. — Newslinger talk 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's fairly outrageous that legitimate closure requests should have to sit ignored for months because people can't be bothered to simply skip the requests signed "Cunard" (if that's how they feel about Cunard's requests). It adds literally seconds to a job they are committing to spend hours on, so that's a remarkably lame argument. I've been on the receiving end of that BS several times, and I didn't know the reason until now. If people are going to abandon the ANRFC system in droves, get rid of it—although we sorely need more uninvolved closers and closures, not less. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

I've requested that Cunard stop posting to ANRFC, and I actually take points like Newslinger's above to be an argument in favour of this: yes, Cunard is making some requests that are needed, but if they are needed there's a very high likelihood that someone who is actually involved with the thread will make a request for closure. This problem has been going on for years, and it's made ANRFC one of the most backlogged areas of the project.

Yes, it's super lame that people aren't willing to just skip anything with his signature and look at the others, but part of the problem is that you have no clue if the things with his signature by them are meaningful discussions in need of a close or an obvious no consensus that not even the participants care about anymore. So yes, he may select some RfCs that need to be closed for closure, but the fact that he's the one picking them likely causes there to be a delay in closing. That's disruptive, even if done in good faith.

Tl;dr: I think we've reached the point where we've been having an ongoing discussion for years about one person causing a backlog at ANRFC and have never just asked them to stop outright. I've now asked them to stop outright, not as a sanction, but as a way to see if the page improves. If people notice that because he stops requesting things get closed, we have this sudden crisis on Wikipedia, then we can request he start again. I don't think that will happen, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing, TonyBallioni, I appreciate it. I've been accustomed to seeing closing statements on RfCs, especially ones about heated topics, but I suppose that changing this expectation would make editors feel less dependent on closing statements for implementing consensus. — Newslinger talk 21:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to wax philosophical here, but the idea of a wiki is that it is a lightweight collaboration tool that doesn't need formal approval mechanisms to make changes to published content. On the English Wikipedia, we've developed a complex dispute resolution system because well... we're the 6th largest website of all time and it's needed. Even then, most of our content and disputes do not need formal approval. If there is consensus on the talk page, as there was at One America, someone can just implement it. By moving towards an every RfC must be closed mentality, we're moving away from a wiki mindset, and it causes things to stagnate. We want our editors to feel comfortable implementing consensus when it is clear it exists, which is why we shouldn't be listing everything at ANRFC :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I responded here. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solutions going forward

I suggest that we should tighten the guidelines for posting new requests on the board. If we still have regular repeat offenders after that, then that is a behavioral issue that we already have the mechanisms to deal with. Here are some suggestions for possible guidelines;

• The nominator has requested the close
• A participant in the RFC has requested the close
• The RfC is on a substantive issue of policy (not a discussion of clarity or style)
• An administrator has requested the close
• If the RfC has very low participation, the issue would be better settled at Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

Adding one or more of those, or something similar, should do the trick. SpinningSpark 22:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the wrong forum to discuss changes to the guidelines of that page since WT:ANRFC exists. I also object to listing an adminstrator requests the close as administrators have no special authority over content and while RfCs can be dispute resolution mechanisms and thus quasi in the sysop realm, this gives sysops more authority than I think we/they should have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I'm not a regular here. I was really just trying to respond to user:Serial Number 54129's comment and get a discussion going on what should be done going forward. It was not really meant to be a solid proposal, just some bullets to give the discussion something to focus on. What I don't think is a solution is leaving requests to fester unanswered. That results in frustration for good faith nominators and loss of faith in the adminstration of the site. SpinningSpark 05:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring that requests meet one of the first three points above seems reasonable (I agree with Barkeep on the fourth point being kind of inappropriate). Though there are occasionally cases where the participants forget about an RfC but an unimplemented consensus has been reached, in which case Cunard's listings can be helpeful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm with the majority that all of the first three are fine, definitely not the fourth. In regards to where the participants have forgotten about it, but if closed would cause a change, that's reasonable, but I find it better to first drop a new section on the talk page calling attention to it and see if people are happy to handle it themselves. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the participants have forgotten about it, that's a good sign nothing really needed to change. Not trying to be dismissive, but sometimes lack of action is a form of consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this proposal helps to prevent the dreadful bloating of the ANRFC board with requests that don't need closing, then I certainly support it. Tony and Barkeep have hit the nail on the head above with the reasons why it's not a place admins choose to spend their time.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add my thanks to Tony for sorting this out. It has been a problem for several years. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third points seem fair (nominators are participants so the first one isn't needed). Closing contentious discussions is one of the nastiest admin jobs around and having a massive bloated backlog is definitely off-putting to anyone considering helping out. Hut 8.5 13:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 205.251.232.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 205.251.224.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Hello, it seems that 205.251.232.0/22 isn't actually an AWS range, "merely" owned by Amazon. See https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-ip-ranges.html#filter-json-file for further details. Could you please have a look? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Urbanec: There's some unusual WHOIS records in that range, and some other things that say to me that at least some of it is part of their corporate network. Some of the later edits also look a bit specialized. Unless anyone has some contrary views I'm happy to unblock it - we have the /20 blocked so I'll take a chance on unblocking that. You know it's also globally blocked, right? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment zzuuzz. I'm aware of the global block, I just wanted to wait with removing the global one, in case some enwiki admin sees something I didn't :). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I figure it'll probably be best to convert it to a local soft block rather than unblocking, to help deter someone just hard blocking it again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I've just removed the global portion. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Why do you think it's better to convert this to a soft block? I don't understand that part. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll admit it's not ideal, but there are two scenarios a soft block avoids. First, a lot of Amazon blocking is done by bot, from the IP file, and the bots will (or should) exclude any ranges already blocked. Second, if there's anon editing then someone someday will look up the WHOIS, see Amazon, and just hard block it again. A soft block allowing account creation is not a great burden for the end user, and I'm sure they will understand without feeling offended or put upon. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi zzuuzz, I'm the one who brought this block up with Martin Urbanec.

It seems to me that blocking Amazon by bot, or based on a single glance at the WHOIS, is problematic. Some of Amazon's published IP ranges are used for the public-facing IP addresses of EC2, which provisions virtual machines that can run arbitrary applications, such as sending arbitrary Internet traffic. However, other Amazon IP ranges are not used for this purpose; the documentation of the public IP ranges go to some length to clarify the distinction. The services that run from other Amazon IP ranges are things like databases, storage, logging, etc., and simply don't allow running arbitrary code.

Other large cloud providers also provide detailed information on their IP address ranges (e.g. Microsoft Azure IP ranges, Google Compute Platform IP ranges and a script to enumerate them easily). Amazon appears to control about 1.4% of the total (!) IPv4 address space, if I did my calculations correctly based on the published ranges, and I would guess that including cloud infrastructure from other large companies increases this total several-fold.

In my opinion, the description put on these blocks ("open proxy") is confusing and probably exacerbates the lack of feedback from users about IP ranges that have been erroneously blocks. It seems to me that it would be preferable to have a block message that says something like, "Your current IP address has been identified as belonging to public cloud computing environment XYZ."

Also, it appears that English Wikipedia (at least) doesn't have a clear policy on whether or not it's reasonable to impose IP blocks on IP ranges belong to public cloud computing platforms; it seems to me that they fall under the general category of shared IP addresses, but this is pretty vague. While there is obviously potential for abuse of these services, because they allow users to provision IP addresses that are not easily associated with their "normal" home networks, there are also many legitimate reasons to use them, or even why particular users can't escape them. (A lot of corporate networks and VPNs' egress points go through such clouds.)

If there's a more appropriate forum to discuss the general issue of how public cloud IPs should be treated on Wikimedia sites, please do let me know. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxfyre: Thank you for bringing this up. For the record, I do deal a lot with IP addresses and open proxies, and situations like this, but I do not get involved with the mass blocking of these ranges - when I do I do it as conservatively as possible. Having had some memorable experiences with Leaseweb and SoftLayer a long time ago, I fully recognise the various useful (and often restricted) apps that can use these services, and I try and impart this message at every opportunity. Unfortunately, the main users involved in blocking these ranges are not currently very active, but I'll be sure to point this out to them at the next opportunity. Although having said that, who on earth is going to be editing from databases, storage, or logging servers?

The blocking of AWS generally falls under the 'anonymising proxy' policy, which is fairly liberal on this wiki, when you look closely. I do happen to know the latest round of blocking was kicked off by some rampant vandalism hopping all over the AWS ranges, and we had no choice but to step on it. It wasn't the first time either.

I would be in favour of both a better template for the blocking reason, and an informative page about data centres including clouds and compute hosts (or these providers generally). We could also provide specific information about collateral risks. We don't currently have that. It might take a little momentum to kick it off, probably starting with an essay and some discussion at the village pump, with notifications for the blocking policy and the open proxy policy pages. These discussions can get easily derailed by people wanting full editing from open proxies and such, but a focused discussion might be of use. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way would be just to do some editing to the template with a brief information page. I know I have a significantly more liberal view on mass blocks than you do, but I don't really think policy-wise much should/needs to change. We allow for mass blocks of ranges and since SQL and ST47 started doing this systematically locally (as well as Jon Kolbert globally), we've seen a real decrease in certain types of abuse, particularly when it comes to spam sock farms and POV-pushers trying to evade CU... it's just much harder now than it was 5 or even 1 year ago. I think linking to a page explaining this to people might be a good idea, but getting a wiki-wide effort going to rework a policy that has achieved very good practical results precisely because of how broad it is would not be something I think would benefit us. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, Thanks for the ping.

It has happened once or twice that I've seen where Amazon retires a range. I've unblocked a few of these over the years, and prior to my break, I was watching for them.

However, that is not the case here.

This range appears directly in https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json.

{

"ip_prefix": "205.251.232.0/22",

"region": "us-west-2",

"service": "AMAZON",

"network_border_group": "us-west-2"

},

This is an amazon AWS range, per amazon Amazon Web Services (AWS) publishes its current IP address ranges in JSON format. To view the current ranges, download the .json file. To maintain history, save successive versions of the .json file on your system. To determine whether there have been changes since the last time that you saved the file, check the publication time in the current file and compare it to the publication time in the last file that you saved.. SQL^{Query me!} 23:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the other range appears here:

{

"ip_prefix": "205.251.224.0/22",

"region": "us-east-1",

"service": "AMAZON",

"network_border_group": "us-east-1"

}, SQL^{Query me!} 23:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni and SQL: as I wrote above linking to the same source, these are not Amazon EC2 ranges. That document goes to some length to clarify the difference between EC2 ranges and non-EC2 ranges. The bottom line is that the non-EC2 ranges don't contain virtual machines where the public can run arbitrary code. This one here happens to host [some] the Internet-facing egress servers for Amazon's internal corporate network. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moxfyre, I don't know how to clarify beyond Amazon's own words. Amazon Web Services (AWS) publishes its current IP address ranges in JSON format. To view the current ranges, download the .json file.. It sucks if they choose to mix in corporate ranges, but it seems from that quote that these are AWS ranges. Affected people can request IPBE - I know this because I've granted it many times for this very reason. SQL^{Query me!} 23:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: Yes, it sucks for Wikimedia (and for Amazon employees trying to edit Wikipedia) that AWS ranges are mixed in with corporate ranges; Amazon (and Microsoft Azure) are known for dogfooding so it's probably not too surprising that some of their corporate services run from IP ranges that are associated with their public cloud services. To also quote Amazon's own words, To allow an instance to access only AWS services, create a security group with rules that allow outbound traffic to the CIDR blocks in the AMAZON list, minus the CIDR blocks that are also in the EC2 list. IP addresses in the EC2 list can be assigned to EC2 instances (emphasis mine).

What this is saying is that only the IP ranges described as EC2 can be used to provision arbitrary public virtual machines. The others are not used for this purpose, and it does not make sense to block them, at least not on the grounds that a member of the public could use them to cheaply get a new IP address. (The document could be much more explicit and clear about this.) —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 00:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: "who on earth is going to be editing from databases, storage, or logging servers?" Hah, true! Presumably no one. I was just listing those as examples of things that shouldn't be blocked. The reason that this block came up is because it was also including [some of] the Internet-facing egress servers for Amazon's internal corporate network. Obviously there are cases where blocks are warranted due to sustained abuse or PoV editing, but I believe that in general you try to avoiding blocking networks just because they're associated with the employees of particular organizations, even large and powerful ones.

A lot of users connect from networks which do render their traffic effectively anonymous (IPv4 NATs with too many hosts behind them, institutional network egress points) even though anonymity is not the users' intention. I will try to kick something off over on the Village Pump. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have always been very accommodating to employees of these server firms using the corporate parts of their network. I'd also agree that part of this network is their corporate network. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zzuuzz, Based on...? Direct ARIN whois doesn't mention anything along those lines. SQL^{Query me!} 23:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just adjust that link a little. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While y'all are discussing things I don't understand, the vandalism goes on and on. This is the third one today, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an ongoing RfC about the future of using UTRS for block appeals. You may be interested in commenting. Please cross-post as necessary. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors please consider taking a look and participating at the Village Pump on this notification by the WMF Board. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For years now, I've edited chiefly under various IPs. This inevitably results in blocks but I'm typically able to resolve them quickly. Not this time.

There's currently a block on Special:Contributions/78.28.44.111 that reads "If you wish to get into disputes with editors please log into your account" which was the result of this edit. As requested, I promptly logged in and made this edit which I believe resolved the issue. The blocking admin disagrees.

I'm bringing this here for review because, since I only partially grasp the idea behind the block, I'm at a loss to know how to appeal it via the template. What would I say? "The block no longer prevents anything (and in fact never did prevent anything worth preventing, frankly) and is seemingly just there to force me to log in to edit, which I find unreasonable?" That sounds like the kind of request that gets shut down without a second thought.

I'd like to hear some opinions from uninvolved editors; am I missing something here perhaps? Was that a good block? Is it still a good block right now? Were my edits unhelpful? Were they unhelpful to the point where an emergency one-month block was required which needs to remain in place for its full duration as the blocking admin would have me believe?

I think an important side question to answer is whether enacting blocks of that nature is something we want to encourage at all. Personally, I believe that, at minimum, a talk page request should come first in case the person we're about to block can be reasoned with. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block. You are coming across as avoiding scrutiny. Just make sure you log in whenever you involve yourself in disputes, so it is immediately discernible which account said what. El_C 08:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block The block was 10 hours ago and correctly indicates that it is necessary to use the account under circumstances like that. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per El_C, and I'm tempted to suggest blocking the registered account. Since your "preferred mode of editing" is supposedly logged-out, you don't need this account. Even though you've made >4K edits with it. And this comment was trolling: its getting difficult to see your preferred mode of editing as being anything other than also being your preferred method of winding us up. ——Serial ^# 08:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch, I missed that. That has all the hallmarks of a returned user with attitude. That, and wasting everyone's time over a time-limited block of their favorite IP may add up to net-negative. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I do need the account for the occasional file upload/new page creation/project space participation, few and far between as they are. And the comment you linked to, which I made on my own talk page, and which is unrelated to the block, wasn't "trolling." It was just me expressing my genuine thoughts on a matter that directly affected me. If it's enough for you to think I should be blocked, then oh well. Such a block certainly wouldn't be any less reasonable than my previous two and in many ways, it'd be more reasonable. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block. If you alternate between editing logged in and logged out, and you edit logged out in disputes with other editors, you are evading scrutiny. And that scrutiny seems to especially needed after this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't alternate; I simply don't log in unless I have to. The link you provided is to an unrelated comment I posted on my personal talk page while logged in two months ago. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Iaritmioawp: I linked to that an hour ago :D but you've forgotten to point out that Bishonen removed it ([19]) as gravedancing. ——Serial ^# 10:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That you did. And then your colleague was kind enough to link to it again so I addressed it again. Everyone can read that comment, which I posted on my own talk page as I've already mentioned, and judge for themselves if it constituted gravedancing or not as well as assess the scope of disruption it caused. Seeing how my talk page experiences very low traffic, if any at all, due to the fact I mainly edit while logged out, I actually don't think it caused any disruption at all because, quite frankly, there was nothing to disrupt in the first place. Do take a look at my talk page and see if you can say with a straight face that I'm wrong. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block - Stay logged in and don't evade scrutiny by logging out, Doing so makes people trust you a lot less. –Davey2010^Talk 12:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocking admin comment Figured this was coming. I came across the IP after we were discussing something on the oversight list that Ponyo had raised (IP has no suppressed contributions, just giving backstory.) I wasn’t sure who it was, but obviously it was someone with an account who was very experienced at Wikipedia to the point where they were getting into a dispute with a CheckUser over the nuances of the socking policy. That’s usually an LTA. I blocked anon-only because if they’re a good faith user, they could log into their account and tell Ponyo and me how abusive we were with a name and a history for people to scrutinize. It worked. The IP is relatively static, but if you look at the range contributions it is clear that it changes over time. If someone wants to give other users warnings about policy and argue over policy nuances with admins, they should log in. I realize they say this is for their technical convenience but their logging in is for our communication and tracking convenience, and policy cares more about the latter. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  At no point did I call you or the other editor "abusive;" with the kind of experience I've had with one of your colleagues, the bar for that is set so high I doubt if I ever will. You'd have to really work for it. I consider your block unnecessary, annoying at the most, but not abusive, no. I don't agree with the logic behind it ("it might be an LTA so let's just block first and ask questions later") but I can at least kind of see it. That's a major improvement over what I'm used to. You keep talking about some nuanced discussions but I don't see this as such. What I do see is an admin trying to strong-arm a new user into choosing one out of his/her three properly linked, disclosed and purposefully created accounts so that the other two can get blocked and for who knows what reason asking him/her questions that the user already answered on his/her user page. All I did was point out that easily observable fact and express my displeasure with it which, by the way, I still believe was the right thing to do. Ensuring that new users have a good initial experience is vital to the perpetuation of the project and I was happy to do my part. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I consider the bite accusations a bit over the top, but that’s my view. Yes, there is some nuance there: Ponyo had access to some suppressed information as an Oversighter and was trying to act in a way that could potentially limit damage on that front. There is a lot of nuance there. You’re free to question her on it, but you should be discussing that logged in. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "if they’re a good faith user, they could log into their account" - so there are no good faith users without accounts to log into? Peter James (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I intentionally did not turn on the account creation block feature which would enable them to create an account to track these type of disputes if they didn't have one. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So if an unregistered editor gets into disputes with administrators not only should they be tracked, but they should be made to link their account to an IP address on a page anyone can see? Not a legitimate reason to block. Peter James (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block Per all of the above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block and note that Iaritmioawp has been incorrect in his understanding about editing logged out and has generally interfered. Keep IP blocked as he was correctly blocked before for this and still didn't get it. One more time will likely mean that his account and IP end up blocked.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTFISHING - you may have checked and blocked users for similar reasons but that doesn't make it the correct thing to do. Peter James (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  My previous block, which was utterly absurd rather than "correct" might I add, was the result of a certain CU abusing their tools; they have since been issued a warning for such by the Arbitration Committee. I made an ARBN comment on the matter at the time if anyone's interested. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No. Your block was upheld on both your account and IP and Arbcom's warning didn't have anything to do with you. If you ankle-bite another admin or checkuser as an IP and I see it, I'll be checking your IP and blocking account and IP. Are we clear? ...or do I need to reach for the cluebat and block you now for your failure to get what others are telling you in this thread with their consensus?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I already said (and even earlier proved through action) that I have no problem logging in when someone needs their "ankles bitten" as you put it, so please calm down. Your threats are as unnecessary as they are embarrassing to read. And no, my previous block wasn't "upheld," it simply expired before anyone got around to reviewing it. You can choose to believe whatever you wish, however. You can also choose to abuse your tools however you wish, but there might be serious consequences, such as a polite warning issued by e-mail, if you overdo it, so please don't; with new editor retention in the dumps (no idea why, perhaps our CUs aren't clobbering them with their "cluebats" [oh, the irony!] aggressively enough), we need to keep as many of the old guard in place as possible and that includes you as well. We're on the same side whether you like it or not so hold your fire. Iaritmioawp (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Great, you are super experienced and able to out-argue anyone. However, I am also willing to indefinitely block you for general WP:NOTHERE as volunteers should not have to spend this amount of time explaining what is required. There is no possible explanation for why an editor would need to log in on each page other than they are using a really shonky setup. Per AGF we are happy to accept that you have such a requirement, but that is not a reason for allowing this IP/account mixing which is against the spirit of alternate accounts. Sorry about your trouble but this distraction has to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your skepticism, but my commitment never again to get blocked while IP editing, which will be achieved through my sustained conscious effort to only make completely uncontroversial edits in that way, perfectly in line with the spirit of the policy, is genuine, and I'm looking forward to proving it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block and suggest that the editor in question be given the option of editing with the account only or with IPs only. If the former keep the IP(s) blocked for a reasonably long period of time, if the latter, indef block the account unless the editor changes their mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

There seems to be agreement that the block was fine. The only question remaining is whether it should remain in place for its full duration of one month. Clearly, the main operator of the blocked IP now understands what the issue was and how to avoid it so the only thing currently being prevented by the block are useful contributions. Do we remove the block or do we keep it in place? Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's move forward. Let's block the account for sockpuppetry -- that's what "avoiding scrutiny" amounts to -- and block any other IPs we know of, then give Iaritmiowp the choice: to keep the account, and edit with it only, or to keep the account blocked and edit with IPs only. The option not open is to continue editing with IPs and switching to the account only when it's convenient to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, logging in is never "convenient" to me but there are cases where it's required; today, I've added a new item to that list. If you look at my last 100 contributions, you'll see that they go back three years and they're almost exclusively file uploads, new page creations, page moves, and project/talk space edits. I use this account merely as a tool to supplement my IP editing when necessary. Blocking the account would just mean I'd have to submit requests instead of performing these edits myself. How is that a good idea? Iaritmioawp (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear who you're going to avoid falling afoul of WP:ILLEGIT again. If you are to remain unblocked, how will you ensure that your future editing is in line with policy? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple; if I get into a disagreement with another editor that isn't related to content, I'll log in. Or would I also need to log in for things like this? I'm open to adding whatever is currently considered necessary to the "log in to make that edit" list within reason since I have no interest in "avoiding scrutiny" whatsoever, I just don't want the hassle of having to constantly log in (my current setup, which I neither can nor want to change is such that every new page I open requires a new log in) and that's it. This block was entirely unnecessary; a simple talk page message would've done the trick. I do always make an effort to be in line with policy; the problem with WP:ILLEGIT, and more specifically with its "evasion of scrutiny" component is that it's not clearly defined to the point where it can include pretty much anything, which means that what it actually includes is determined by the current practice which can mean anything at any given point in time and is bound to catch you unawares if you're not paying attention, which is what happened to me in this instance. Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All things being equal, I think Beyond My Ken's suggestion was simpler. ——Serial ^# 14:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler than unblocking a good faith editor and letting them resume normal editing now that the issue which prompted the block has been resolved? I'm afraid I must disagree. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has not been "resolved", because the issue is that you're editing with IPs to avoid scrutiny. It would be resolved if you edited only with your account -- regardless of how "inconvenient" it is to you, which I don't understand, since you can set your account to stay open for up to 1 year unless you deliberately log out -- and not with IPs except in error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iaritmioawp: There is a requirement that you make clear the connection between your IP addresses and account every single time that there is a potential for crossover. That could be using an image you've uploaded with your account when you aren't logged in or editing the same page with your account and an IP address. You will need to be extremely careful not to do this as it will likely result in you receiving a long if not indefinite block. You should also make it clear on the talk pages of the IPs and your account that you are the same operator. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: I believe I have come up with a solution that will satisfy both myself and everyone else in this thread. What if I were to start a subpage in my userspace, called User:Iaritmioawp/IPs, and use it to list all of my IP addresses moving forward? It would allow all of my contributions to be tracked in one place while at the same time allowing me to edit normally. I'd still log in whenever the policy as I understand it/common sense would dictate I should of course. The list would contain the date on which I gained/lost access to any particular IP address and I would log in to add new entries to ensure the integrity of the list. As for the crossover concern, I don't believe there's ever been any meaningful crossover. As I said, I always do make an attempt to stay in line with policy and the only time I ever run into problems is when the policy itself is vague; frankly, where does WP:ILLEGIT say that you need to log in to make edits such as the one that got me blocked? It's not there. I don't think the policy page on socking reflects our currently accepted editing practice sufficiently and it might be time to make some adjustments to it and clarify a thing or two. I'll add it to my to-do list for sure. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why this complex rigamarole when you can just edit with your account? Simple, neat, doesn't violate policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That idea of yours only works one way round, which is going from the account to the IPs but not the reverse. ILLEGIT requires that editors not use multiple accounts or edit logged out in a way which avoids scrutiny or is misleading, such as, in your case, by making the connection between the account and IPs unclear. The only way this is going to work for you is if you avoid editing in the same areas with your account and IP addresses, and that the connection is also disclosed. That still won't prevent you from breaching the policy if it appears as if you are editing logged out in order to avoid scrutiny as it did in this situation. The safest and simplest way for you to continuing editing is to use only your account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already explained, my current setup makes account editing infeasible. I suppose I'll have to work something out on my end. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iaritmioawp: Is it possible for you to give us some details on the reason your current setup makes account editing infeasible? I appreciate there might be confidential information that you don't want to disclose, and I'm certainly not asking to breach your privacy. I'm just thinking that if there is anything you can tell us, someone might have suggestions for a way round it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: they explained this to TB, slightly, although I'm not particularly technical. ——Serial ^# 12:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Yes, I saw that, but all it says is "I use a setup such that I have to log in anew every time I go from one page to another". I don't understand what such a setup could be and why such a setup would be needed. If we knew, we might be able to suggest something. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thought but any changes to the setup would affect more than just myself. Iaritmioawp (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would such a change affect others? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure that out either. I think Iaritmioawp needs to provide more specific information. If there's a privacy issue, they should e-mail an admin with the information, and the admin can report back here with as much info as can be made public. Until that happens, I still believe that they should be given a choice between using the account, or editing with IPs, and not be allowed to go back and forth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am content to leave the question of lifting the block early to Tony as there is no question regarding his judgement in this matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The endorsements in the section above include the duration of the block on the IP.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think they do, but there's clearly no one supporting an unblock so one month on the naughty chair it is. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jpk0721 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been involved in an edit war at Funhouse (The Sopranos), and although his edits are not a direct violation of WP:3RR as they have been just outside of the 24 hour period, he has reverted two editors five times over the past three days, and has also been warned about edit warring by another user at his talk page, but continues to do so despite MOS:TVPLOT and WP:BRD. I think administrator action is needed here. Thanks for the input. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to respond here because I don't know any other way, being a relatively light user, and this experienced user is clearly trying to push me around. This war was started by someone reverting an edit I made in good faith and spent a lot of time on. There was no reason at all other than the changes were "unnecessary". Who decides that? I thought pages were not supposed to have "owners"? And now Vaseline goes to admin? For what? Does Wikipedia want good faith efforts to improve these pages or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpk0721 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the changes are unnecessary is besides the point when we’re at the point we’re at now. After your same edits were reverted five times by more than one user that’s when you go to the talk page to express your thoughts as to why it should be included per WP:BRD as the status quo should remain until that is done. However, you continue to ignore this policy so this is what I have to resort to. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the changes were unnecessary is the *entire* point. My changes should never have been reverted in the first place without even the slightest reason given - let alone an ample one. The first user was anonymous, and they disappeared. And just look at "this is what I have to resort to" - who are you? Page owner? An admin? If you want to discourage someone from ever contributing to another Wiki page again, you are doing a great job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpk0721 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you see it that way, but you can't just keep edit warring and reverting to your non-status quo version a half dozen times within a short period of time when several editors have raised concern to those edits with no repercussions, period. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpk0721: Even though it is not a policy, please review WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You made a bold good-faith edit in the hopes of improving the article. Other editors have made good-faith reverts of your edits, claiming they do not improve the article. We're now at the phase where there needs to be discussion at the article's talk page (Talk:Funhouse (The Sopranos)) to determine what changes, if any, should be made to the page. I encourage you to make the case for your changes there. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. That is the last time I *ever* spend even one minute trying to improve Wikipedia. Your so-called "rules" were broken from the very start when these users reverted my changes with NO explanation whatsoever. I'm done here, for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpk0721 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpk0721: They did provide explanations. But if you'd rather walk away than enter into productive discussion, your choice. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect Zara Abid.

The subject is "feared dead" in the PIA Flight 8303 crash, but people are editing to say she is dead, without sources confirming this.

Please be sure not to protect a version making such unconfirmed claims. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for full protection? Because the article is already semi protected Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, full protection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing, i've applied extended-confirmed protection for a week, as the latest addition was made by an autoconfirmed user. Note for next time that WP:RFPP is the correct place for these sorts of requests. – bradv🍁 00:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed there would be a more prompt response here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note it now seems confirmed she is dead. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pestick (talk · contribs) is clearly a sockpuppet of Albertpda (talk · contribs). Please look into their contributions and Albertpda and his/her socks contributions e.g Listmaine (talk · contribs). It is so clear.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr.User200 might be interested.---SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albertpda is the place to report such sockpuppetry concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I dont want to do an investigation in these obvious cases because in my opinion if an editor got to know how we discovered them they would learn how to not be detected the next time they create a sockpuppet. It is also a very boring process and I dont want to waste time with sockpuppet investigations. You don't need a checkuser to tell you that Pestick is Alberpda. Anyway, I will send a message to the admin who blocked the sockmaster.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In any case, I have already launched a sockpuppet investigation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, editing habits and behaviour clearly help to find out Sock accounts. CheckUser is the final definite proof to ban the Sock. Sharab have detected many Checkpuppets only by observation. Also Pestick used a Anon IP adress to avoid 3RR.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hereis the proof.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Sutanu Sinha

I am an Insolvency Professional by profession and asocial worker. You can get my numerous reference either in web or google news.

I dont understand how to maintain a page of my own.

Please guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutanusinha (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sutanusinha I'd suggest using the Help Desk in the future, but to answer you, Wikipedia is not a place for people to maintain "pages" about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, which has articles that summarize what independent reliable sources say about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Please review the autobiography policy for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, need some help dealing with this:

• Draft:Gouri G Kishan (no period after the initial G) existed in live space in 2018, but was converted to redirect, then moved to draft space. It has a number of edits made by TamilMirchi in April 2020 onward, including a copy/paste move.
• Draft:Gouri G. Kishan (period after the initial G) existed in live space in 2019, but was moved to draft space after an AfD. TamilMirchi subsequently also edited the article, then moved it back to live space, then converted it to a redirect. In that time he also copied a version of the article and pasted it into the incorrectly named draft listed above, and I guess started editing that draft again.

What's the best way to deal with this? Delete Draft:Gouri G. Kishan as duplicate? Is there a way to neatly merge TamilMirchi's edits to the correctly-named draft? Might I trouble someone to assist if it's tech-y? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, TamilMirchi here. Prefer to have the article name as Gouri G Kishan (with the period) since that is how she is refered to by the media. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I usually just redirect one of the duplicate drafts to the other one (whichever is more recent or, if they're the same, whichever has a better name). I don't think actual deletion is usually necessary, and usually history merges are also not necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With parallel histories, history merging may not be a good idea, but if any copyright eligible content from the one "discarded" is copied/merged to the one that becomes the primary article, then you need to make sure this is acknowledged somewhere to comply with the licence terms or a WP:COPYVIO arises. (I think possibly since TamilMirchi is in both edit histories, you don't have to worry about any content copyrighted by them, but I'm not sure so check with an expert.) We should not disregard our contributions copyrights anymore than we do other people. See WP:Copying within wikipedia for recommendations how to handle. Definitely deletion is not acceptable if this applies unless you are copying the contributor somewhere. You need to preserve both pages somewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamilMirchi

Keep an eye on TamilMirchi. In two months of editing, they're on pace to performing over 70,000 edits in their first year, and are generating new drafts and articles at an extraordinary rate. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever does that mean, "keep an eye on"? Are you suggesting inappropriate behavior? Or are you calling favorable attention to a busy and productive editor? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TamilMirchi here. Just wanted to tell you that I am using this account for a legitimate use called clean start under a new name. My previous account, DragoMynaa, was used up and until March 1 when I changed the password (by typing random keys on the keyboard) to prevent myself from my Wikipedia addiction. I tried several times to recover the password to no avail. I thought I would never use Wikipedia again. I never used the old account again since I couldn't access it. Starting fresh, I used this new account from March 11 onwards. I never used two accounts at one time, so it is not sockpuppetry. Sorry for the confusion. If need be, my old account can be indicated on my user page. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything weird about TamilMirchi's contributions to Wikipedia and TamilMirchi has admitted the fact that he used previous username DragoMynaa but has forgotten the password of his previous account. So it is not strange and can't be considered as sockpuppetry. I have reviewed most of his articles under the new username TamilMirchi which he created as a part of WikiProject India/The 10,000 Challenge. There are several editors who generate huge number of edits in quick time but it is not the criteria to make allegations about the behaviour of editors. Nowadays usually editors keep on editing Wikipedia continuously amid the pandemic and it is not strange though. Abishe (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant DragoMynaa. You're currently linking to the article on u (the letter of the alphabet) under DragoMynaa's user name. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried three times to add a birth certificate I purchased from the Louisiana State Archives for Peter Edwin Bocage but it failed. Please DO NOT USE MY NAME IN PUBLIC. I can email the birth certificate to you so you can correct Peter Edwin Bocage's birth date in Wikipedia. Thank you. cmbocage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmbocage (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the birthdate on Peter Bocage to match the allmusic reference already used in the article. We rely on secondary sources for our articles, what you are engaging in is original research, which is not permitted here. Iffy★Chat -- 09:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right thing to do? Allmusic is listed at WP:RSPS as "some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available". I think birth certificates are more useable than Allmusic for a straightforward fact like a birthdate. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous birthdate was unsourced (both references agree on the year of birth) so changing it is better than doing nothing. The problem with using birth certificates like this is as per WP:PRIMARYCARE, it's impossible to be sure that the certificate is for the notable person and not just someone with the same name. Iffy★Chat -- 11:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the secondary source is not considered reliable then it would be better for us to simply remove the birth date from the article. It adds very little to our understanding of the topic anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources and left some comments on the article talk page Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forget if we have a specific forum to request it (well, it's English Wikipedia, I am sure we do). But anyway: Maria Beatrix Krasińska and Marya Krasińska. Content merged by User:Aciram following a discussion, but I think the article history should be merged to, particularly as the old article is from 2004, and has more contributors. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Wikipedia:Requests for history merge is probably the right place DannyS712 (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Someone has redirected the page, which is all that can be done here (per WP:Parallel histories). --Izno (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Izno, though personally I think a {{histmerge}} template is a lot easier than going through the hassle of filing at WP:REPAIR. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would humbly ask the community to repeal the sanction placed upon me in 2017 which is recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community#Legacypac and Godsy. Two reasons in support of this as a seemingly a reasonable request:

1. The scope of G13 has evolved since the placement of the editing restriction, rendering good portions of the underlying cause of the ongoing disagreements between the two parties largely moot.
2. The other party has been indefinitely blocked for over one year; as long as that remains the case, the sanction serves no practical purpose.

Moreover, I have had a lot of time to reflect on the situation. I realize that the community found our interactions to be unproductive. Though I have not had as much time to contribute as of late, I have kept the lessons learned from that experience in the back of my mind when doing so. That being said, it would be nice to return to full "good standing" within the community. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the removal of this clearly obsolete IBAN with the proviso that Legacypac be allowed to, at his/her own discretion, effect its immediate reimposition should s/he ever successfully appeal his/her indefinite block and return to editing. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That provision would be a quasi-sanction in itself; it would allow the recondensation of the metaphorical storm cloud at any point in the future. Worse, it would be unamusingly whimsical. I think the community is capable of quickly reimposing any sanction should they ever deem it necessary upon evidence that an issue is reignited, and that is where I would rather the fate of the matter lie. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If the sanction is lifted, the other party should not have a right to reimpose it unilterally. That should be for the community to decide, should there be any complaints made. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Given LP's been indeffed for over a year now this IBAN is moot and I see no issue with it being lifted, I do however Oppose this being reimposed if LP ever returns - As Boing says that should be for the community to decide. –Davey2010^Talk 12:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this was one of the worst and longest running feuds on en.wiki at the time. Unlike some other indefinite blocks where the person who was blocked has about zero chance of being unblocked, if Legacypac were to appeal there’s a good chance it would be granted and we’d be back at them fighting again. There is zero reason for Godsy to be discussing Legacypac especially now that he’s been blocked. I see no point in lifting what was probably the most needed IBAN in my time on this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There's absolutely no reason to lift this. Legacypac is not banned; he could be unblocked by any admin tomorrow if he makes a reasonable unblock request, and if he does return to editing, the IBAN will still be needed. I understand that Godsy doesn't want a black mark against him, but the two of them earned those black marks with their time-sinking feuding.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions against editors should not be punitive.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 14:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained why I felt it was still needed, ie. why it is preventative. P-K3 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- So if two people have an IBAN against each other, and one of them disappears from Wikipedia, the other can never under any circumstances ever appeal for the IBAN to be lifted? What a disgusting notion. No violations in the three years since it was imposed? Check. Dispute no longer relevant due to the G13 having substantially changed? Check. It does not seem as though this ban is accomplishing anything right now, and hasn't for a long time. Reyk _YO! 16:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Largely per Reyk. No violations in a long time, reason for ban no longer relevant with changes to G13, and Legacypac is gone. So a clear record with the ban and nothing the ban could possibly be preventing so no longer preventative. I understand the argument that if Legacypac comes back there is a possibility for disruption to continue. If that does happen it would be a no brainier to reinstate the IBan. PackMecEng (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - No reason to keep this on file. LP is indeffed, there's been no issue in years, and I don't like the idea of having no possible path to clearing sanctions just because "the other person might be unblocked someday." Godsy's main fault in that dispute was not dropping the stick when the community asked and focusing too high a proportion of his efforts on addressing a single user's pattern of problematic edits. Part of that is Godsy persisting past the point of disruption, and part of it is the rest of the community being too willing to ignore/dismiss a prolific user's long-term tendentious behavior because the user is also the only person willing to spend a ton of time in an oft-neglected part of the project. Regardless of who's "right", however, if you find that most of your edits are in response to a particular user, that's a very bad thing. At bare minimum, it's going to make for an easy claim of hounding/harassment. Better would be to step back from direct engagement and seek sanctions. If you get clear signals from the community that you should stop, it's important to do that, hard as it may be. My assumption is this is one of the points Godsy has reflected on in the time that's gone by. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There is no present need to keep it and no disruption for years, so it seems much more punishment, than prevention. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Godsy has, in the past, definitely shown a tendency to keep hold of sticks long after they should be dropped. And the Godsy/Legacypac fight really was a bad one. Saying that, I do think Godsy has learned from previous issues, and I don't think we should ever insist that a ban can never be removed. Should Legacypac ever be unblocked, and should there be any future problems, we can revisit it then - but I really don't see Godsy getting back into that situation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per TonyBallioni and PK-3. In general, I do not consider it to be a good idea to lift IBans simply because one party is blocked. We've all seen editors who have been blocked, even indef blocked, successfully appeal and return to editing, and when that happens, it's protective of the project to have those IBans still in place, so that the issue doesn't have to be adjudicated all over again when it (almost inevitably) flares up once more. Since Legacypac is not editing, the continued existence of the IBan cannot be said to be inhibiting Godsy in any practical way, so there is no practical reason to remove it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No present need. If LP returns, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Miniapolis 22:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mir Qurram Ali

Hi, this SPI has not been marked as closed but the suspected has been blocked and tagged. Can someone mark it as closed so that it get archived.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it. It might be easier to post SPI-related stuff to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations or Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks, so that a clerk sees it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It didn't cross my mind to ask in the talk page of sockpuppet investigations. Next time I will ask there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJTonyPrep has been persistently edit-warring at Schooled (TV series) over the past several days. A report was opened at WP:ANEW (see here) 3 days ago but, despite the edit-warring being very clear, no action has been taken on the report and DJTonyPrep continues to edit-war there. I stepped in as an uninvolved editor and posted to his talk page,[20] but the response was not positive, with the editor saying that he didn't care and was going to continue the edit-war.[21] after I explained edit-warring he told me to "BACK OFF!"[22] If there is an admin who would care to look at the ANEW report it would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I have repeated asked that my edits not be undone, and I am not harassed by other editors. Those requests have been ignored, and now multiple people are starting editing wars with me. I am following Wikipedia's guidelines, and I will continue to do so. I do not care to hear what other editors think of what I'm posting. This is a self-policed site. No one gets paid to contribute to Wikipedia. Therefore I am under no obligation to heed any warnings from anyone, especially when they are violating the same rules they claim they are following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJTonyPrep (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, 72 hours. The above demonstrates unwillingness to edit collaboratively. As I noted at WP:ANEW, "The editor's conduct shows flagrant disregard of WP policies, guidelines, and norms." I have taken action to prevent further disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please move Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/MKCheserek to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MKCheserek. Making this request here since WP:RM is semi-protected. Thanks. 2601:1C0:5:E41D:F878:DB05:C690:971E (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]