I was conditionally unblocked with the agreement, "No addition of any plot summaries anywhere in Wikipedia". Can this be amended to restricting me from adding plot summaries from existing sources, and not those that I write on my own? Galobtter, I was told September would be a good time to appeal. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792,You promise to never copy from sources, yes? Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 14:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kailash29792:, I'm inclined to support this. But I have some concerns about Kailash's ability on handling near-paraphrasing, which is why I want to ask: are you talking about "you reading/watching the original book/film, and constructing a plot purely yourself" or "reading sources/reviews and then writing without drawing any of it from the soures"? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Moneytrees, yes I promise. Now the very thought of copying from the web (very often even books) makes me uneasy. Nosebagbear, I developed the plot of Guru Sishyan after watching it, and re-watched scenes to ensure I made no factual error. That is the approach I seek to follow. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds reasonable. I could only do a comparatively sparse sense check due to the sheer number of recent edits, but I couldn't spot anything problematic. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, I'm happy to partially undo the requested part of the restriction. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there perhaps someone familiar with the types of works that Kailash seems to want to add plot summaries to act as a short term mentor/checker to make sure the summary seems correct and not close paraphrase? Unfortunately these appear to be foreign films so not something like myself can check. --Masem (t) 18:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel that proper (short-term) mentoring here would be particularly onerous - since Kailash would be sourcing purely from the subject matter, rather than review sources, the reviewer would have to actually have watched the films to check it was being done properly - without that it's somewhat trying to prove a negative, which a mentor can't do any better than a standard copyright check. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support t-ban appeal As someone who is familiar with the situation and the primary copyright problem. Kailash is a competent editor who has been careful since their unblock and assisted in removing some commented out violations; I'm pretty sure they can be trusted. I don't think a mentor type deal is necessary (although I'd be able and am willing to fill that role), there's no significant deception going on here so Kailash can be taken by their word. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 20:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, so you want to engage in WP:OR? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding plots using the source material isn't considered original research. From WP:FILMPLOT: [s]ince films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, it wouldn't be OR if I'm adding the plot of a film which is available for viewing. Lost films need sources though, as WP:FILMPLOT says, "Provided the film is publicly available, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. Secondary sources must be used for all other cases, such as upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals) and lost films, as these would not be considered generally available or verifiable." Kailash29792 (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, yes it is. For some reason the film fans have chosen to interpret "no original research" as meaning "no original research apart from writing novel interpretations of things we like", but that's not what th epolicy actually is. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, the plot section doesn't contain "original interpretation"; it only describes the story of the film. The "interpretations" of the film go to "Themes" or a similar section and is subject to the the same sourcing requirements. WP:FILMPLOT is a guideline, not just some essay. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TryKid, it contains an individual user's personal observations, based on their own view of what is significant and their own interpretation of the narrative. Guy (help! - typo?) 06:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, this view isn't supported by the wider community; guidelines explicitly state that adding plots isn't original research. If you disagree with WP:FILMPLOT guidelines, you can gain consensus to change it at the MOS talk page; Kailash's request at the noticeboard isn't the right place to bring up content disputes. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TryKid, yes, the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS exists. It's still nonsense. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I won't add personal interpretations or opinions to the plot. Just look at my edits at X-Men: The Last Stand (here) and Us (here). Kailash29792 (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, then source to third party plot summaries. Simples. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Kailash seems to understand not to copy/paste plot summaries. Darkknight2149 00:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Kailash is a well respected contributer and has improved many articles to GA/FA. He understands what mistakes he made and has said he won't repeat them. That's enough to lift the topic ban. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to inform you about the fact that this user is banned by WMF from editing. I guess the extra flag is not needed anymore. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't remove perms from indeffed users. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On huwiki they're blocked as a sockpuppet of Peadar. If Google Translate isn't failing me, hu:Wikipédia:Szerkesztők_véleményezése/Peadar_(másodszor) indicates both paid editing and copyright concerns. What should be done with Borgatya's autopatrolled article creations on enwiki? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Primefac noted, this is not something we do. There's no sense in it. El_C 04:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers, then I think there is nothing else to do. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember I was banned for creating useless redirects on 24 March 2020 (link) and was directed to use WP:AFC/R. Now, 6 months are passed since then and I realised how cheap and costly the redirects really are. Therefore, I will only create redirects when necessary. Therefore, please unban me. Thanks. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your math is off. 6 months would be on the 24th of this month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely not, and I would strongly advise a wider ban to cover all redirects, broadly construed, so Soumya is no longer able to be disruptive at WP:RFD and WP:AFC/R. Besides the blunt "unban me", the request does not show that Soumya understands WP:CHEAP and WP:COSTLY. Looking at Soumya's contributions at RfD lately, we find: a RENOM violation for a redirect already hashed to death, asserting without evidence that WPJ is an abbreviation for WikiProject, asserting without evidence that Sprache has multiple meanings, misunderstanding of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a weird obsession with J947 (this is the best example of many), etc. Soumya also has several low quality AFC/R submissions, including: Shampooing, Honkong, and constantly trying redirects with "He", including: He Spaceship Company and He Origin of Species several days after being explained why the previous one was no good. I can keep going if necessary, but I'm exhausted only going back to August 20th. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As long as we are here, per Tavix, continue current ban and broaden to cover all redirect matters, broadly construed, including WP:RFD and WP:AFC/R. There are millions of articles in need of improvement. Surely Soumya-8974 can find constructive edits to make that don't involve redirects. I urge them to edit constructively in non redirect areas for another six months before asking to be allowed to come back to redirects. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I mainly find spaceflight, rocketry, aircraft, and solar system-related articles interesting, and performing page moves, which form redirects, violates my current ban. So I would have to perform WP:RM/TR instead. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum – I have recently joined at WP:WPREDIRECT to discuss about redirects, in order not to disrupt Wikipedia's redirect system. If someone topic bans me on redirect, then it will prevent me to do such discussion. Also, I am suffering in Wikipedia vaguely similar to the Pandavas in the Mahabharata. They spent 13 years in forest and 1 year in disguise. If Kauravas found them in this period, then they would spent 13 years in forest and 1 year in disguise again. In my opinion, it should be best to open WP:AFC/R at least. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, by "disguise" are you suggesting you will WP:SOCK? I highly urge you to withdraw this before your topic ban is converted to a WP:CIR block. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Tavix and Deepfriedokra. Soumya-8974's participation at RfD, while occasionally helpful, has not been a net positive, and has generated a lot of busywork for others. I think that an expanded topic ban could be worded to allow for page moves and for the creation of articles at former redirects, although as Deepfriedokra suggested, an editor could easily spend the rest of their lives productively improving articles by adding content, copyediting, or fixing categorization without once touching a redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close reverted as WP:BADNAC. Admin closure please. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § RFC closure review

 – ―Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closure of RFC by MrX at MEK talk page is questioned by the participants. I think the closure note is not fairly evaluating the comments based on the guidelines. More significantly, MrX says my "detailed argument was adroitly rebutted by Barca's". This is while, in response to my comment, BarcrMac said that "Mhhossein is arguing that these are "major points", but they are just unverified allegations by MEK members, and we don't include allegations by MEK members (or ex-members) in this article". Though BarcrMac never replied to my further comments, I am asking it here: Do we only include 'proved points' or we should go by the reliable sources? Furthermore, MrX fails to address this comment by Ali Ahwazi which focuses on the POV issue of the proposed sentence. Thank you. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community close reviews usually go at WP:AN not ANI, as this isn't a "urgent, chronic, intractable behavioural problem". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. This is a major divergence from the status quo. The closing summary is wholly insufficient. It lacks key substance. It also, as a result, comes across as a WP:SUPERVOTE. As the uninvolved admin who has the most experience with this article, I take a dim view of this closure. El_C 16:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I don't know what "major divergence from the status quo" means in the context of the RfC, or even how it would be a factor in overturning a RfC closing. Perhaps you could elaborate. Also, what is your basis for saying that my close comes across as a supervote? Implicit in that is the notion that I am involved, or have a stake in the outcome? - MrX 🖋 11:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that you have the most experience with this article, but I don't see that you have ever closed an RfC or adjudicated any other content dispute on the subject.[4] As far as I can tell, you have protected the article seven times and suppressed copyright violations.[5] - MrX 🖋 12:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: RfCs have become the only means for editors to advance the editing process in that contentious page. Even then, these RfCs take months to be reviewed, and when they are, they often close in "no consensus" based on the difficulties surrounding them. Every once in a while an uninvolved and experienced editor steps up and gracefully offers to break the stalemate that are these Talk page discussions, as Mr.X has done for us here. Complaining every time one of these RfCs doesn't go our way (as Mhhossein has been doing) seems to defeat the only means available for a consensus-building process in that page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the closures can be reviewed. You should not be concerned if you think the closure is appropriate since the admins will look after it. Moreover, RFCs should not be mis-used to reshape the article according to one's desired version by tag-teaming or like. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Purely procedural point, but doesn't this discussion need to go on, and require a community consensus to keep the overturn? Non-admin editors close contentious RfCs all the time. I believe WP:BADNAC only allows uninvolved admins to undo deletion closes by a non-admin, not RfC closes. I think it sets dangerous precedent to allow any NAC to be unilaterally overturned because the dispute closed was contentious. I note that this area is covered by community DS, but I see no entry in the log to indicate this was a DS action. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I see now the matter is before ArbCom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#JzG. If indeed uninvolved admins may revert RfC NACs, can we add some wording to that effect in WP:BACNAC? The wording is in contradiction to other policy pages, eg BADNAC says NACs across the board are inappropriate where the issue is controversial, in direct contradiction to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Non-admin_closure which says non-admins may close move discussions, even high-profile and contentious ones, and that such an action isn't itself grounds for overturning. In any case, I think some guideline pages/supplements should get a wording update for clarity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The overturn was not solely because the closure was carried out by a non-admin user, rather the closure was though to be improper. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point I am not seeing a consensus or policy reason that their close should not stand. I note at the article talk about the close it was mixed as well as here. So until a consensus is reached or a clear policy based reason is presented it should be reinstated. PackMecEng (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Totally should be reinstated. This re-opening was done outside of policy and without any discussion with MrX. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with PackMecEng. Just before this RfC, User:Kraose (a user with just over 1K edits) closed a highly-contentious RfC on the same page (Kraose had also previously endorsed the RFC's OP to be topic-banned) and nobody seemed to mind about that. Now User:MrX closes this RfC, and suddenly he shouldn't have for some unknown reason. Mhhossein was also quick to revert the results of that RfC. MrX's close should stand until a proper discussion of why this was an "inappropriate close" is established by the community. Alex-h (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think may be technically within the scope of discretionary sanctions to undo an RfC close, due to the broadness of DS in these matters (only deletions are explicitly prohibited, afaik). In which case this is merely a procedural matter of logging the action, and would solve the larger procedural question. JzG may wish to log this as such, if indeed a DS action. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to amend its procedures to prohibit sitting arbitrators from serving as members of the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee in accordance with a community RfC. Comments on the motion are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed motion for amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

Hi everyone! I hope that you're all having a great labor day! I'm on call with my job, so I'm unfortunately tied to my desk at home through the entire week when I'm not at work.  :-) I have a question and a possible concern about something that I've noticed on and on, numerous times, over the years that I've patrolled recent changes. On many articles where the subject is a movie or film, they often include content in a section or even the summary paragraph talking about the film's success. They often comprise of sentences such as "this film achieved significant critical and commercial success", "was praised by critics and fans", etc - as well as the opposite when a film or movie doesn't become a "box office success" (as it's often called), or doesn't make more money than it cost to create. I'm slightly concerned that these statements might be an issue in regards to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Statements like these come off to me as opinionated, that we're saying that this film was a success or failure, and that we're taking sources and summarizing them with an opinionated statement. I'm not sure how we should consider these statements, and whether or not they're appropriate in regards to NPOV. Is there a discussion or consensus somewhere stating that these kinds of statements are appropriate? A portal project that states such? What are your thoughts when you see statements like these in film-related articles? I'm sure you've all seen them on articles like this, and I'm pretty sure you understand what I'm talking about. I need some guidance, and I don't know how to handle these edits when I see them get added. Can you offer me assistance? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely not neutral. I remove this when I find it. Even worse, what many editors do is compare a film's budget to how much it grossed. If the gross is higher than the budget, they call it a "box office success". This is not how it works. Studios have to share revenue with the cinemas, so you can't just compare the two numbers and decide, "it's a success!" The same is true of failures. Studios have various ways of writing off costs. A film that underperforms may eventually turn a profit once the accountants are done with their magic, and a film that grosses twice as much as its budget may still end up losing money. We can't know. The issues with reviews are more straightforward, but we already have two review aggregators to tell us what critics thought: Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. We don't need Wikipedians to give us their synthy interpretations on top that. The reason why is because everyone thinks their favorite film was critically acclaimed, but the films they disliked were a critical failure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, MOS:FILM is where most film-related guidelines end up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the correct noticeboard, but I will answer anyway. How well a film did critically and commercially is a matter of interpretation and should be reliably sourced to an article that says that. We should say that Citizen Cane, Casablanca, etc. are highly regarded, just as we would say the same about Shakespeare's plays or Dickens' novels. Whether or not they were good movies is a matter of opinion, but whether critics assess them highly is a matter of fact.

Commercial success is not subjective. Any business enterprise can be evaluated based on profit. Because there is insufficient information for writers of reliable sources to calculate profit, they usually look at North American box office receipts = production costs as break even.

TFD (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for relevant NPOV policy, it looks like you want WP:AESTHETIC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TFD. RS will describe the commercial performance of any notable commercial film (e.g., Hollywood films), and for any notable film, RS will describe how it was received by critics and the general public. So box office success and this film achieved significant critical and commercial success are OK if that's how the RSes describe it (and they commonly describe films using those phrases),but they're not the best phraseology. More "showing" than "telling" would be better, e.g., was one of the top 10 highest-grossing films of the year is better than "box office success" and was nominated for an Academy Award is better than "achieved significant critical success". But at bottom, it's not promotional to describe how a film fared commercially or how it was received by critics; those are important aspects of a film; a film's impact on the world is as important as, say, who directed it. Lev!vich 05:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with TFD. I'll add that WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are important when writing about how a film is regarded.   // Timothy :: talk  06:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above by TFD and Levivich, I'll just add that the LEAD should be written in summary style so there needs to be reliable sourcing to back-up the statements. If there is no body, there needs to be that reliable sourcing built right into the lead. And if we're in the body there's nothing wrong with saying "X was generally well received" as an introduction to 10 favorable reviews to follow. NPOV doesn't mean we fail to acknowledge that things were liked by critics/awards or that it lost a lot of money, it means we give it in proportion to RS. So if it was generally well received we should reflect that, but we should also, in proper proportion, include less flattering or negative receptions of the material. With movies there will be RS that we can use to decide whether to say if something was a bomb - a term so notable in the industry it has its own article and we can reflect that without running into issues with our core content policies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Statements like these come off to me as opinionated, that we're saying that this film was a success or failure, and that we're taking sources and summarizing them with an opinionated statement." Wikipedia prevents its editors from expressing their opinions in article space. It does not prevent the editors from summarizing the opinions or facts found in available sources, and opinionated sources are specifically allowed: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view itself states that we should represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". To ignore praises and criticisms in order to keep the article devoid of opinionated statements, would both be against Wikipedia policy and mean that the article is practically devoid of information. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are current 81 requests for unblock at Category:Requests_for_unblock. Many of them have been ones that most of the usual unblock request reviewers have already weighed in on, so fresh eyes are needed since we can't review the same user. Please consider lending a hand. only (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can take a look. I'll do that today. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in the mid-60's if anyone's able to help chip away at this backlog. At least 20 have been without comment since August. only (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certain unregistered user is constantly vandalizing an article about Melissa Hutchison (by claiming her to have a voice role that is already confirmed to be someone else's and probably with different IP addresses. But when I undid his/her edits, he/she wrote to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism under IP address 49.144.196.63 and claim I would have stolen "his/her" username. Ad Orientem has already declined that IP user's request, but that IP now demands a revision from logs and sockpuppet investigations. If that IP user doesn't know my email address, then I could easily prove that I am the real CAJH. But if the IP user would find out my email, what other ways there would be for me to prove my innocence? CAJH (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP notified of the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the absence of evidence that an account has been compromised the presumption is that it has not. In this situation, the burden of proof lies with the IP. When I declined the AIV report I did so because they did not make any claim of specific actionable conduct, much less offer evidence. And there were no warnings on your talk page. So I don't really know what is going on here. At the moment I am inclined to call this a nothing burger, but if the IP wants to chime in and offer some kind of explanation we can go from there. Otherwise, I'd just move on and come back if the situation pops up again down the road. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as long as you're the only editor that can log in to User:CAJH there's no real likelihood of confusing you with an IP editor or doppleganger account (or fake sockpuppet). The WP:AIV reports appear to be (correctly) ignored. (the possibility of you being a sock of TCCJH (talk · contribs) which last edited in 2010 can be safely ignored even if you were the same person) ((templates are hard, let's go shopping)) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created CAJH when I registered as a user in Finnish version of Wikiquotes. TCCJH was created for Wikipedia before I realized that CAJH can be used in all Wikimedia sites. Ever since I realized that, I stopped using TCCJH. CAJH (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I blocked CAJH2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as an impersonator. It's pretty clearly attempting a Joe Job. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @CAJH:, you can redirect the old user page and user talk page to the new. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can I redirect them? Aren't they a little bit different case than an article page? CAJH (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CAJH, I've done it for you. Feel free to revert if you don't want it. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's only redirected in English Wikipedia. CAJH (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - apologies, don't know how to help you do that globally. Maybe try the Help Desk? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, you ain't the only one. I guess you need to do it for each page, unless it will work just doing it on Meta. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think stewards have some tools for this task, one needs to ask them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling these users, User:Evelynkwapong539 ,User:Kof4490, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.149.110.122, might be the same person editing articles relating to Looney Tunes Cartoons. They have been blocked multiple times as Evelynkwapong539, but I have a feeling that they are creating another account and not logging in to get around that. A page they created, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters, has been brought up for discussion to be deleted, but since they disagree with this without explaining their reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=977473710 , they deleted the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=977522088 template of deletion policy without explanation.

Proof of similar edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=976583210 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&oldid=959423907 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=977521861

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=976377605 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&oldid=970247049

I have been patient with this person for a while, but I don't see them ever truly understanding how disruptive their edit warring can be.

Noelephant(talk) 14:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI is really the correct venue for this. That being said, I've indeffed Kof4490 as a  Confirmed sock and blocked Evelynkwapong539 for two weeks. If this was an attempt at a clean start, it failed completely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Based on the outcome of the community discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators, the Arbitration Committee procedures are amended by adding a new Section 1.6, providing:

To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, current arbitrators may not serve as members of either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

Over the past month or so, the move review for the page currently at Grace O'Malley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been looking for an admin to close it, and I'm happy that Vanjagenije attempted to clear that specific backlog. However, I don't think the close that he made accurately reflected the discussion. In particular, his comments about the move didn't seem to be about the discussion at all, but his own views on the move. With the way the discussion was going, I can't see any consensus to reverse the move, and his closing comment seems to be more of a comment he should've made in the discussion itself (as it was, of course, still open at that point). I'm also a little concerned that he doesn't seem to have that much experience in move discussions, and it's a rather controversial subject to dip your toes in!

However, there isn't a "move review review", so any discussion about the process falls here by default. I've attempted to bring it up at his his talk page but I'm not really satisfied with the response. Hence, I'm bringing it here to get some more input. Sceptre (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, this clearly looks like a supervote. The very first sentence of the close ("After reading the original discussion, I came to the conclusion that the closure was wrong and in violation of Wikipedia policies.") is a big red flag; the RM discussion is irrelevant; what matters is what editors have said in the MR discussion and the MR itself was a no consensus outcome, tending towards Endorse. Number 57 21:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Sceptre wants to present this as if I didn't read the move review, or that I did not take the arguments presented in the move review into account. That is obviously false. If you read my closing comment, you'll see that I actually summarized what MR participants (those who supported overturning) already said in the MR discussion. Move review is a process of reviewing the move discussion, so no surprise I had to read carefully the move discussion itself. @Number 57:'s idea that RM discussion is irrelevant in the process of reviewing that discussion seams absurd. All the comments in the move review are based on the original discussion, so how can we judge their validity if we don't take the original discussion into account? In this particular case, a minority of MR participants correctly pointed out that the original move discussion was wrongly closed as "move" because those who opposed the move, although in minority, correctly cited Wikipedia policies, while those who supported the move had weak arguments not based in the policies. How could I decide whether that's true or not without analyzing the original discussion? Saying that the RM discussion is irrelevant is akin to saying that Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant, and that it's only relevant what participants in a discussion say about those policies. After reading the RM, I concluded that those who supported overrule are indeed correct in saying that there was no consensus for moving the article. This case is somewhat peculiar because in both the original discussion and the review discussion, those who correctly assessed the proposal were in minority. But, if you really take into account their arguments, it is not hard to see that the move was wrong. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Those who correct assessed the proposal were in minority" in your opinion. "It is not hard to see the move was wrong" in your opinion. Personally, despite the sockpuppetry at the original RM, I would have closed it the same way as Sceptre. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, there was clearly a bit of axe-grinding on both sides in the move discussion; like a lot of Irish article naming discussions, the discussions tend to be less about following what the evidence says and more using it as an proxy argument over the/an Irish Language Act. ("British imperialism!" vs. "terrorist sympathisers!", to wit.) Sceptre (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Number 57: said "the RM discussion is irrelevant" because Move Review (and Deletion Review) is about whether the process has been done correctly or not. As much as a closer of an RM has to weigh up consensus in the RM discussion, the closer of a MRV has to weight up consensus in the MRV discussion. In both circumstances, closing with their own opinion is inappropriate. Your comment would've been fine in the review itself; it's just as a closure I'm not too pleased with. Sceptre (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The process was incorrectly followed as the original close did not take into account of the relative weight of arguments based on actual policy-backed points. Vanjagenije could have just said 'close incorrect as original closer failed to assess consensus correctly' and left it at that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but the whole point of MRV/DRV is that it discusses and formulates a consensus whether the procedure was followed or not. You can assert whether it was in the discussion, but closing a move review unilaterally like this defeats the entire purpose of the review process. The closing instructions at MRV state that a consensus at MRV is needed to overturn a closure, which clearly does not exist in this case. Sceptre (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just like you, Sceptre, I'm rather heavily biased in this case, but in the other direction. And I disagree that the consensus at MRV, which is needed to overturn your closure, "clearly does not exist in this case". I think it clearly does exist, and the MRV closing admin made the same kind of decision you made in the RM – a difficult one. I disagreed with your RM closure, and I agree with Vanjagenije's MRV closure. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the move review was wrongly closed and should be reopened. The closer did not even attempt to assess consensus in the review discussion but merely expressed their own view about the merits of the original move proposal. The place to do that would have been in the original move discussion, not in the move review and much less in closing it. Vanjagenije should not close any more discussions until they are confident that they understand the procedures we use to establish consensus. Sandstein 07:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, this was clearly a supervote. Reyk _YO! 07:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanjagenije makes a valid point about the impossibility to judge the comments' validity without taking the original discussion into account. How else are they meant to assign due weight to the arguments? While their closing statement could be construed as a supervote, the same could be said about Sceptre's, which would make this a case of a supervote (presumably based on policy) overruling another supervote (presumably based on the closer's opinion about what name is appropriate). Going back to the drawing board (reopening the original move request) might not be a bad idea. M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if this is the right place to say this; however, since I did not participate in the RM I would like to point out that I've read a lot about Grace O'Malley and have even seen documentaries that included her. An actor who portrayed a warrior princess in a TV series was asked to host one of those documentaries about real-life, historical warrior princesses that included Grace O'Malley. She wasn't called "Gráinne Ní Mháille", nor "Ofgjdfjgdfjg", nor "Mr. Mxyzptlk", her name was spelled and pronounced "Grace O'Malley". That is her common name and the name to be searched the most by readers. End of story (or should be). The present title should stand... tall! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this was a supervote, but also agree with M.Bitton that the better resolution would be to go back to square one and have a new move request, in which proponents of both views can square off with their best arguments and evidence. I would wait for at least a few weeks from the end of this discussion before initiating such a thing, though. BD2412 T 20:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Bah. I think the original close was brave. The strength of numbers went one way, the guidelines pretty strongly in the other. no consensus to move would have been the better close IMO. The question is, was the close of the original move discussion within discretion? I'd say no--the folks wanting the move just didn't make a strong policy-based set of arguments. You'd need a stronger numeric consensus to overcome the strength of arguments--even accounting for IPs etc. But then the move review didn't find consensus that the close should be overturned. I think we default back to the policy-compliant version and the previous status quo. So move back to Grace O'Malley and suggest folks debate the policy changes needed to do make Gráinne Ní Mháille the right name per polices. I think some good arguments were made in the original discussion that indicate our policy needs updating. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § Double redirect vandalism discussion at AN

 – Nothing administrators can do to fix this; it's up to the bot operators to resolve. wbm1058 (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2010, an IP redirected the page Javier Solana to Antichrist with this edit. About 45 minutes later, the vandalism was reverted. There was enough time for a bot to "fix" the double redirect, sending redirects to Solana's page to Antichrist. See [6]. This was not fixed until about two months ago [7]. So, for 10 years, a double-redirect fixing bot perpetuated WP:BLP-violating page move vandalism. I can only get pageviews stats for about half of that range, but the misplaced redirect specifically mentioned above got 59 pageviews in that time. Other redirects got fixed quicker, but there were still others that kept trucking on for 10 years. Don Ezequiel Solana de Ramirez got 178 pageviews at the wrong target. Javier Madariaga got 118 Francisco Javier Solana Madariaga had 167. A number of other redirects retargeted by the bot were fixed in the 2010-2013 range, which seems better until you realize that's still 3 years a BLP violation stuck around. It's a little questionable, ain't it, that these bots can perpetuate serious BLP vandalism for over a decade ... Hog Farm _Bacon 14:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not much the bot can do about that. They can have a longer delay, but on some pages this kind of vandalism can go unspotted for longer, and a longer delay has its own issues. Probably a difficult issue to solve, really, as the redirects to link would update so you wouldn't be able to manually restore that way. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, seems like a problem well worth discussing. Does the bot keep a log? If it did, someone undoing redirect vandalism could check the bot's log to see if there were any double redirects "fixed" as a result of the vandalism, and then the vandalism patroller would at least have a list of bot edits to revert, which might help (if we can get patrollers to remember to check the log... even better if tools like Huggle could prompt the patroller to do that somehow). Lev!vich 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure we have several double redirect bots, including some global bots (under the Meta global bot policy), so even if a couple had a log they’d all be using different logs. Which complicates the issue somewhat. I think this issue should be popped onto the bot noticeboard btw, as it’ll require attention from that group of editors to ‘resolve’. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. In theory they could all be coded to maintain one central log. (Although it begs the question: why do we have multiple double-redirect-fixing bots?) Lev!vich 17:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be hard to do. Not even sure how many double redirect bots we've got locally (as the general list stopped being maintained in 2012), but on top of those we've got the global bots, whose operators won't be active on enwiki. Many bot ops are also currently inactive/busy, some only show up once every now and then to restart their bot if it goes down or something, so getting a change to even one bot is difficult. Double redirects are a pretty big issue, so we do need redundancies in the form of multiple bots. One approach may be to have a new bot could be made which listens to the "Redirect target changed" tag and makes a log, I guess, and flag up any changed redirects after the original page is changed, but not sure if that's the best approach. I think it's best to refer this to WP:BOTN or something to have a botop/BAG experienced in double redirects take a look. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes at Killing of Daniel Prude please. Already made reports at the other venues, but situation is ongoing. Zindor (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visit WP:AN/I HeartGlow ^(talk) 18:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked ThrowPrude21 for edit warring. Check my work please. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we are here, WP:NOTBUREAU. Looks to me like ThrowPrude21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was edit warring and refusing to discuss with several editors opposed to their changes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting context from @Coffeeandcrumbs, Serols, AussieWikiDan, and Nomoskedasticity: --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way the user came in like a train, citing primary sources on imgur.com and no communications. I think we can assume NOTHERE. It was difficult to engage with the user. This is a sensitive page. Even if Daniel Prude is dead, the article is governed by BLP. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some pov additions by an I.P, who then stopped editing, this new account immediately turned up and started making edits of the same POV. I reverted them also. I initally filed a request at WP:RPP while the I.P was active, i posted a warning on IPs talk page. After the ThrowPrude21s additions started i filed a report at WP:AIV regarding them and the I.P. I went and had my dinner and came back and saw it was still going on and posted here at WP:AN. I tried to share the reverts with other editors, but i'm fairly certain i broke WP:3RR. Later i posted on the article talk page asking ThrowPrude21 to discuss the additions, in a further attempt to descalate. Zindor (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User had 31 edits since 2020-09-10 @ 17:12:14, all to Killing of Daniel Prude. No attempt to communicate, even via edit summaries. No response to warnings on talk. Has now responded to my block, and I have made it partial on the article. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for blocking. I was patrolling recent changes and noticed this user was removing and replacing content. Addition of details regarding an autopsy without citation (later with unreliable source) made me believe this was against BLP policy and needed to be removed repeatedly. He ignored warnings given. AussieWikiDan (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks y'all. (Article now semi-protected.) User now partially blocked and attempting to make case for inclusion on talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

Our requested edit backlog is becoming extremely lengthy (97 atm), including some that have been there more than 7 weeks.

Almost all on the list are either non-protected or semi-protected, so can be handled by any experienced editor.

Some requests are rapid, either easily declined or accepted. However, much of the backlog is due to individuals making a large number of partially supported requests at once, and so individual review can be somewhat tedious.

However, if we can get 50 of us to do 2 each, we'll be done.

Huge thanks in advance, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could manage without Special:Contributions/Faktasy. --Palosirkka (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a thing. Page deleted and the user blocked for both NOTHERE and a very likely sock of User:SausagerollRevolution. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this here for community review as suggested at RFPP. David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) full protected Susie Boniface (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) back in June 2020 for this diff by Shakehandsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was (as far as I can see) a poor interpretation of a primary source. In the given source, the subject was asked in a joking fashion by the interviewer if she'd "really cleaned her toilet with her electric toothbrush" to which she replied "yes, I'm sorry, I'm very sorry, it was a really good idea at the time". The editor worded this statement as "Boniface admitted to abuse of her husband such as using his toothbrush to clean the toilet". BLP violation and bad original research, yes, but evidence to suspect chronic disruption by multiple editors rising to indef full protection? David Gerard claims the subject rang him up, after which he removed the content, indef protected the page, and created a BLPN discussion. This was discussed at BLPN at the time, where Shakehandsman said they don't intend to readd the material. When requested to lift protection, Gerard said he'd wait a few days and see, but discussion was archived as stale, with no explicit support from any editor to uphold the protection. Talk page requests by Arcturus were ignored contrary to WP:ADMINACCT, and their RFPP request was closed procedurally in July, with advice to go to AN/AE. This article isn't in the BLP AELOG, thus not DS action & AE inappropriate, so I bring this to AN.

David Gerard continues to believe the single violation from a single editor is grounds for indefinite full protection, and suggests permanently requiring all changes to go through as edit requests. He does not believe EC protection, DS, pblocks, or other measures should be considered. Whilst WP:BLPADMINS exists, I don't think it's intended as a blank cheque to indef full any BLP for any reason, especially not without trying other measures, and I would note that this is the only indef full protected BLP across this entire wiki of 1 million BLPs (and 1 of only 3 indef fully protected articles in general). Further, I've seen BLP violations far worse than this get off with a revert, revdel, EC protection at best – this wasn't even eligible for revdel apparently. I see not even a credible indication to believe that disruption would continue at EC, or that it can't be dealt with. This is evidently an abnormal protection based on numbers alone, and imv contrary to founding principles and the protection policy. I feel it should be reduced to EC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We should never indef full protect articles. This one should at least be reduced to extended confirmed (and possibly for a finite duration); if there is a extended confirmed user knowingly introducing BLP violations they should be dealt with. Protection is not an instrument against such violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I must add however that at the talk page of the article two administrators supported keeping the protection and zero administrators opposed keeping it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd note both are involved administrators in the protection, which is to be expected since they're watching the talk. One is the protecting admin, the other was involved here. Full protection is a poor substitute for potential action against a single editor imo (not expressing an opinion on whether there should've been or not). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a bizarre interpretation of "involved", given any involvement was only the precise matter at hand, and it's about a BLP issue - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Good grief. We have a page no one can edit at the behest of the subject? Indefinitely? This seems very wrong. And why are involved admins making these decisions? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Ymblanter. reduce to ECP (for 3 months) and see. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will happily watch the page, revert /revdel any BLP violations, and block the person adding them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)I have to say, I don't think there is any reason to indefinitely fully protect a page. I would reduce the protection, none of the arguments at the talk are particularly convincing. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting the original discussion at BLPN is here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to hear David Gerard's take on this, perhaps there's more to this story than has been presented above. I don't think it's fair to categorise David's view as believing that a single case of vandalism justifies this protection - he talks on the article talk page about a coordinated off-wiki campaign, but I don't know what evidence there is for that. On the face of it, if the assertion that David received a call from the subject about the article is true, I assume they're personally known to him, and I'm kind of feeling that he probably shouldn't have been the one to protect the article - it's not a case of INVOLVEMENT, more a potential COI which might have had better optics via a request at RfPP for someone else to review. Anyway, I don't see any reason to drag David over the coals for what amounts to no more than a potentially overzealous protection of a BLP, we can simply review the protection here - unless there's more stuff about an ongoing campaign that he's able to expand on here, I'd agree that ECP for a few months would probably be adequate. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Comment ammended GirthSummit _(blether) 18:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]

  I'd appreciate the WP:ADMINACCT concerns being addressed. Ignoring an editor requesting unprotection over the course of a month isn't really OK. I've asked for elaboration of this 'campaign' and received no response, either. If there is such credible evidence, it shouldn't take an AN to have an admin respond to editors' legitimate concerns. No need for coals here, but an explanation and a change in interacting with non-admin editors' concerns would be appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Everyone will agree based on the article history that full protection isn't merited. The real question is why it should take this much effort to get to this point. The ADMINACCT and COI/INVOLVED issues raised above should be addressed by David Gerard before this thread is closed. Lev!vich 16:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It is outrageous that this page is fully protected on a permanent basis. It strikes right at the heart of Wikipedia and all that it stands for. As noted above, I tried to discuss this matter with the protecting admin, to no avail. My attempt to engage in meaningful discussions at BLPN were dismissed by another admin. To reiterate what I said there; it seems that Boniface has managed to shut down the article by finding an admin willing to do her bidding. This page should be unprotected forthwith. I'm sure any material contravening BLP policy will be quickly reverted. Please note that I have no wish to edit the page myself, but I find this sort of unnecessary protection, here and elsewhere, quite infuriating; which is why I challenged it in the first place. Arcturus (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The protection request at WP:RFPP was rejected by another admin, on the basis that Arcturus had completely failed to specify what edits he wanted to make. ProcrastinatingReader similarly failed to do so.

ADMINACCT was answered at Talk:Susie Boniface. Though ProcrastinatingReader thought starting his discussion with claims of malfeasance would be a good way to go, and asking questions repeatedly when he didn't like the previous answers from multiple admins.

The claims of COI/INVOLVED are unfounded nonsense. I suggest rereading WP:BLP.

As I said at Talk:Susie Boniface: Should WP:RFPP or WP:BLPN or some other suitable board concur otherwise, that'd be fine with me, but I'm not comfortable with removing it unilaterally. If the consensus of admins here is that extended confirmed protection would do the job fine, then I am absolutely OK with that. I would suggest admins add it to their watchlists, though - David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find this response somewhat unfortunate. I’ve collated every onwiki discussion on the matter in my summary, so people can come up with their own opinions, but I feel your statement dodges all the big questions and is inaccurate on the few points it does make. Again, and I thought per Girth you would have already, are you able to substantiate your concerns: “Can I ask why you think personal targeting hasn't stopped (insofar as it extends to Wikipedia), or why you think EC would be ineffective?” If not, haven’t you been misleading editors for 3mo with wishy-washy nonsense? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've misled anyone in any way, nor that you've shown it. You're throwing around completely unsubstantiated claims of malfeasance again. If you believe you can actually (a) state a specific claim (b) substantiate it, then that's something you've yet to do.

I note also that your response there doesn't address protection on the article in any manner. Wasn't that the issue you actually wanted to discuss? I do think I've answered that issue in full, and now it's up to consensus to decide - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DG, frankly that response makes me want to open an arbcom case, because it makes me think you don't know how to use the protection tools and are ignoring ADMINACCT. You haven't explained why you full protected it in the first place (as opposed to a lower level of protection), why you chose indefinite as the duration (as opposed to a limited duration), why you didn't later lift it on your own accord even though you said in June you only thought it should be protected "for a little while", why you ignored messages from editors inquiring about this, and why you haven't lifted the protection in response to repeated requests. Asserting that you're not comfortable lifting protection unilaterally is insufficient. (Heck, you imposed it unilaterally.) Also, where in WP:BLP does it say an admin can indef full protect a BLP at the request of the subject? Telling us to reread the policy does not fulfill your obligations to explain your admin actions under ADMINACCT. I am less concerned about what you're comfortable with and more concerned about whether you are using admin tools in line with community consensus. You need to explain your actions, not just share your feelings or draw lines in the sand. Please address these issues in good faith. (That means, in a way in which I and others will understand your thinking behind these actions.) Lev!vich 17:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained why you full protected it in the first place I fully protected it because the content - which other editors at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive309#Susie_Boniface, not me, characterised as the editor adding them "was not "misled" by the off-wiki attacks (as suggested above by David Gerard). He was writing them" - was being added by an editor who would have passed ECP. I brought my concerns in full to BLPN, as detailed at that link.

why you haven't lifted the protection in response to repeated requests I have answered this also; claiming I haven't suggests you haven't read the links here.

and why you haven't lifted the protection in response to repeated requests As already detailed at the links given.

Also, where in WP:BLP does it say an admin can indef full protect a BLP at the request of the subject? The subject can, in fact, alert an admin to a problem, and the admin can decide there's a BLP-level problem there. If you don't understand this, you don't understand WP:BLP. I then brought my concerns to BLPN, as detailed at the link already given. It's a drastic protection level, which is why I promptly brought my concerns to BLPN - where nobody saw fit to remove it.

explain your admin actions under ADMINACCT As already done.

Please address these issues in good faith. Ideally, you'd first need to sound more like you were raising them in good faith. You're asking questions that are already answered. Please read through the BLPN, RFPP and talk page discussions.

- David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those discussions address why you think the full protection needs to be indefinite. You have not addressed why it needs to be protected today; that is, why it still needs to be full protected. This isn't something that multiple editors should have to ask you multiple times before you give a succinct and to-the-point answer. Why the indefinite duration? Why does it still need to be protected today? If the disruption was being added by an editor who would have passed ECP why didn't/don't you just block this editor instead of blocking all non-admin editors from editing the page?

We have over 6 million articles. Only two are indefinitely full protected: Susie Boniface and Kiwi Farms. While we're on the subject, pinging Primefac to ask if Kiwi Farms still needs to be indef full protected and if so why. Lev!vich 17:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus agrees, then it doesn't, as I've said repeatedly - David Gerard (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINACCT requires you to justify the duration of the protection; i.e., to justify it being indefinite as opposed to 24 hrs, 1 month, or 1 year. Your response, "If consenus agrees, then it doesn't" is drawing a line in the sand; it's not explaining the decision to make the protection indefinite in the first place. The BLPN and article talk page do not contain any justification for the indefinite duration. To the contrary, you said in the BLPN thread, I'd suggest leaving it a bit for now, and "a bit" doesn't mean "indefinite". So I'll ask you again to explain why you chose "indefinite" as the duration. Lev!vich 18:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite does not necessarily means infinite, and choosing to protect until the disruption is over is a valid choice, even though it does not seem to be the best one in this case. The arbitration case here is a non-starter.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is indefinite a valid choice--why not one month or one year or some other duration? And why full protection as opposed to semi or ECP? Why do we think we need to block all extended-confirmed editors from editing this article for an indefinite duration? This has not been answered. An arbitration case is a non-starter because it seems to be a one-time occurrence, but it shouldn't require multiple editors asking multiple times to get an admin to explain why they chose a particular level or duration of protection. ADMINACCT requires explanations, not instructions for how to appeal. Lev!vich 18:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi is fully protected because ECP wasn't cutting it - there were still editors adding in OSable BLP violations. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, thanks for the quick response. But why not block those editors instead of indef full protection? How many extended-confirmed editors are out there adding BLP violations? They need to be blocked if that's what they're doing, no? Lev!vich 18:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last five violations were by five different users. I'm not going to block everyone violating BLP on this. I do suppose that it's not necessary to indefinitely fully protect. I'll leave it another week or so and then drop back down to ECP. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Better to partially block five users from that article than block all editors, no? I mean, aren't we concerned that those five editors are also adding BLP violations elsewhere? I can see the revdel's, but those editors' talk pages don't appear to have anything about Kiwi Farms. If an (otherwise in good standing, extended-confirmed) editor is adding a BLP violation, shouldn't we address that with the editor, instead of blocking everyone else from editing the article? If the concern is that new accounts will game EC (and I don't see evidence of that with respect to the editors whose edits were revdel'd), wouldn't an edit filter be a better choice? Lev!vich 18:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that you may be wondering how someone knew to phone me in particular. The answer is that I'm a listed volunteer media contact for Wikipedia/Wikimedia - and in the 2000s, I was the main UK press guy. So my personal phone number is still in a metric arseload of media contact lists in the UK, even as I haven't done the job very heavily in ages. I still get several calls a year, and the call from Susie Boniface (a journalist) was one of them. That I happen to be an admin, and one who wrote large chunks of WP:BLP way back when we were launching that policy, is a coincidence that meant I could act quickly - but BLP issues coming as calls is also a thing that occasionally happens. Sometimes other Wikimedia/Wikipedia contacts get BLP issues and ping me about them, as an admin who knows the BLP area - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, thanks for explaining that - I wondered if there was more to it than met the eye above. I withdraw the suggestion that there is a COI concern, and will strike it above for the record. Would you be willing to expand on the reason why you believe there is an on-going off-wiki campaign against the subject of the sort that would require indefinite full protection (as opposed to, say, a few months of ECP of semi-)? Feel free to point to somewhere else if you've already been through that of course. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely state that I'd never had any contact with Ms Boniface before she called me, and in fact I'd never heard of her that I recall.

Per the BLPN thing, it appears there was a targeted attack on the subject being mounted across various "men's rights" forums and blog spaces, and the Wikipedia material was part of that. Given this was going on, I felt full protection was the right move (and promptly brought it to BLPN, as you do.) And that if someone had edits they wanted to make, they could suggest them - and another admin concurred. Given it was clearly a personally targeted attack on the subject, and in attacks like that, the attackers tend to wait patiently until they can act again, I figured keeping the lock was safer on BLP grounds - particularly given nobody had proposed particular edits.

There are conflicting needs here: openness versus a known-targeted BLP. I'm not a fan of excessive protection, and concur that everything Wikipedia got, it got by being as open as possible - but BLP is a big exception. (Hence: if you take a drastic action, you take it straight to BLPN.)

If editors, particularly admins, are aware of this style of misogynist online campaign, and know to watch for that stuff - and reimpose stronger protection as necessary - then ECP would probably suffice, sure - David Gerard (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, what about applying Gamer Gate discretionary sanctions in addition to ECP - would that fly, would ti make it easier to deal with any disruption from established accounts? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do note we have the BLP discretionary sanctions (WP:BLPDS). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is GG linked, GG is the Godwin example of online misogyny, and I made a point of having nothing to do with the Wikipedia issues over GG and am not familiar with the practical application of those particular sanctions :-) But WP:BLPDS might apply? Certainly if it happens again - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, I think this is probably moot, since you're quite right, BLPDS would apply too. Just FWIW, GGDS is interpreted quite broadly - issues don't have to be related to gamer gate directly, they can be applied to "any gender-related dispute or controversy", broadly construed. I'd say any online misogynist campaign would fall squarely within its scope, should you come across something similar at an article that isn't already covered by BLPDS. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the matter was referred to ArbCom, according to the BLPN discussion, assuming the admin followed through with the advice given to them, given the serious assertion they made. Though, ArbCom has yet to take any action, assuming they received an email at all (can we ask for ArbCom's confirmation of receipt?), neither has any uninvolved admin taken action for the onwiki content. No such smear campaign has been evidenced, nor here or at BLPN. The "evidence" at BLPN was solely of one editor, Shakehandsman's, contributions across some other articles. Obviously, said editor's involvement in an offwiki campaign cannot be implied without evidence as was, and cannot be evidenced onwiki due to OUTing. What can and should be evidenced is allegations that there is a general smear campaign going on. Further, it should be evidenced that Wikipedia has multiple EC editors willing to participate in that smear campaign. Neither has been shown.

The facts of the matter are very simple: an editor decided to call cleaning a toilet with a toothbrush as "abuse", that article was indef protected, it remains the only BLP indef protected on wiki. BLP allows for more cautious steps to be taken to prevent defamation, but not wishy-washy statements to lead to indef protection. If none of these assertions can be shown to be credible, with evidence, there is absolutely no reason protection should not be lowered. Even if this was a real smear campaign (and I'm not convinced it is, as it extends to Wikipedia), it wouldn't be close to the first or anywhere near most severe, yet this would be the only one with indef protection. That alone should be evidence that this is not in line with precedent or policy. I've asked this numerous times, but what evidence can be shown here? If, as you say, the stuff at BLPN is all you have, this shouldn't even be a discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

notified said admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. So I'm pretty sure I've found what you two are talking about, and if this is indeed that, then I feel this is an awful reason to indef full an article. We get this stuff all the time and we barely semi-protect for it. Maybe, at a real push, just because BLP, it does give rise to justification to ECP/indef it for a few weeks, but the source article has been deleted for months now and never gained traction in the first place. No evidence it was going to lead to wider disruption. Similar posts from this place about other female BLPs did not lead to disruption on those articles, which (looking at log) we never even protected at all. This is routine disruption, which has anyway been deleted and moved onto the next person. I hope Slp1 sent this to ArbCom if this is the same stuff they found, but in any case further protection is not appropriate and should be lifted. (for clarity, I solely refer to the content here, making no comment about who posted it) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Conceding that Full protection is better than this matter discussed on my talkpage. We need to do better as an encyclopedia. But we can't fully protect all the BLP's(?) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we just unprotect it and move on? No need for ECP or SP. Any BLP violations can be quickly reversed. I'll watch the article myself. Arcturus (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no reason not to reduce the article to ECP immediately. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been fully protected for three months, I don't think we have to worry that it would be too soon to reduce the protection to ECP. PackMecEng (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcturus: Can you tell us wht edit you'd like to make and the sourcing? That would be simpler/quicker/easier. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I do not want to edit the article. My concern is with unnecessary protection, of which this article is a classic example. Arcturus (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, alrighty then. Given the reason for the FP and the lack of edit requests, I doubt consensus will agree to lower protection. I am an advocate for preventing defamation on Wikipedia, so not terribly enthusiastic. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Deepfriedokra, but I have to disagree. FP should never be employed longer than necessary, regardless of whether there is a need for people to edit. BLP vios are awful, but if we want to start indefinitely full-protecting over a single violation, I want an RfC first. If we drop to ECP and we start seeing BLP violations, then sure, bump it back up, but for now, drop it to ECP. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability:. No, I agree with ECP, it's further up. I feel a lot of frustration right now over a debacle discussed on my talk. Here, we have the opposite extreme from that. Defamation in BLP's is a problem we have not dealt with. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, ah, okay, I see it, I think I'm on the same page now. I completely agree that defamation is an area we need to work on (and I saw the incident on your talk page, so I have some understanding of where you're coming from). Heck, I would consider immediate indef for defamation and/or ECPing articles at the first sign of defamatory edits to be reasonable measures. The problem is really going to be finding it. My first thought, as usual, is edit filters. A brief glance gives me 189 (hist · log), 339 (hist · log), 364 (hist · log), and 686 (hist · log) (kinda) as BLP-relevant filters, but I haven't worked with them enough to have a good idea of their signal-to-noise ratio or what is getting through them. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no personal life section in the article at all at the moment. There's should be something. She wrote about her ex-husband in a book and then gave interviews about it, revealing her real name in the process, so there shouldn't be any issue in mentioning it briefly. P-K3 (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prompted by the above discussion, I fully protected the Hagia Sophia article due to an edit war. The full protection was intended in part to stimulate discussion at the talk page over the issue. So far, no meaningful discussion has taken place. Now, I don't like preventing constructive editing for any longer than necessary. So, what options do we have here? Do I unprotect the article and hope that the edit war doesn't break out again? My feeling is that the opponents will resume battle. Do I issue a partial ban on thoses involved and open the article up to normal editing? Or leave the article fully protected until some discussion takes place? Open to other suggestions. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: unprotect the article and if editors are still disruptive, partial block those editors from the article (but not the talk page). Now that we have partial blocks, I can see very little advantage to full protecting any article. Lev!vich 16:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, the old rope trick eh? Well. I've unprotected and issued a warning on the talk page. I've got the article watchlisted in any case. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Mjroots. Yes, sort of the old rope trick, but not so much out a "rope" concern, but out of concern for all the other editors who may want to edit a page. My view on the "block/protection algorithm" is that protection should only be used when blocking is not feasible, e.g. semi protect if it's disruption from multiple IPs; ECP if it's disruption by multiple newly-registered accounts. The duration should be the minimum reasonably necessary to prevent disruption, and a "rule of thumb" is that it should be roughly equivalent to the duration of the disruption. So if the article has been disrupted over a number of days, protection should last days or a week. If it's been continuously disrupted for months, the protection might need to be months. The most extreme cases, e.g. vandalism honeypots like Faggot and Nigger, might required indefinite protection (which both those articles have been under for 10+ years, with obvious good reason). Full protection should be used extremely sparingly. I totally understand and agree with the "mercy full protection", which is used to spare having to block numerous editors in good standing, e.g. to avoid messing up editors' clean block logs. In such cases, the full protection should be of very short duration, e.g. 24-72 hrs, maybe one week tops, just enough to "throw a bucket of cold water" on the dispute. After that expires, if any of the same editors return to disruption, then they should be partially blocked (from the article only, not the talk page), as they no longer deserve mercy. (I guess that's the rope part.) The first partial block should be for a few days or a week; long enough to require engaging at the talk page. If a second partial block is required, it should be indefinite, lifted only by a proper unblock request showing that the block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. If an editor is disruptive on a talk page (e.g. bludgeoning, incivility), then they should be partially blocked from the talk page as well. A full block should only be used when an editor's disruption extends to multiple pages. Per this "algorithm", indefinite full protection should never be used. I'm mulling over proposing a policy change to WP:PP to bar indefinite full protection, but I want to see how the above thread resolves first. Lev!vich 18:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Levivich: obviously I didn't intend for the article to stay locked for more than a month. Had there been some discussion then it could have been unlocked pretty quickly. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Exactly, I would say let the protection expire and if the same editors restur to disruption block (possibly partially) without any future warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I see, you have already done it. A good decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can somebody remove my pending chamges reviewer and rollbacker permissions, as I'm on retirement for the time being. I will re-request at PERM when necessary. Thanks ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi admins. There are currently over 134 requests for speedy deletion, which I thought should have attention drawn to as these have been kicking around for several days. I believe User:Only had also pointed out some others, so I apologize if things are slowing down during the covid pandemic. Naleksuh (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naleksuh, thanks for the ping, it's under 50 now. Mackensen (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Further to a recent report that went unanswered by admins at AN/I, and GiantSnowman's suggestion on this noticeboard's talk page, I'm raising my concerns here about user:Carliertwo's continued POV editing and ownership at Siouxsie and the Banshees album articles. GiantSnowman asked that I state the case here "in brief". I'm afraid I just don't know how to – the problems stretch across almost a dozen articles and have been going on for years.

The same user's behaviour resulted in a 48-hour ban in January 2017. (And there was a second report a couple of months later.) I'm only referring to the past here because, generally speaking, the behaviour seems like a straight replay of what PaleCloudedWhite identified when filing that Jan 2017 report: "This user ensures that all such articles portray their subject in a positive and flattering light, contrary to WP:NPOV. A quick look at any article connected to Siouxsie and the Banshees shows that Wikipedia portrays them as a very highly regarded band that almost nobody has ever said anything negative about, and that all their musical releases have been 'hailed' and received 'critical acclaim' ..." In that same thread, it's pointed out (by JzG) that this reference to albums being "hailed" went against consensus at a recent RfC. Three-and-a-half years later, some of the album articles still use the term.

My tagging with requests for sources and attempts at more neutral wording on 7 September were all reverted by Carliertwo, at 11 album articles. After I undid those reverts, citing policies such as WP:VERIFY, WP:PUFFERY, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:SAID – eg, at Juju (here) – they were again reverted, often with a rationale stating that Greg Fasolino had "corrected" the text and I was therefore "outnumbered". Carliertwo only stopped this process of returning the articles to the versions they liked once I'd filed the report at AN/I. But it still means that pretty grand POV statements and editorialisation such as at The Scream (here) remain as before. At Tinderbox (the article highlighted by PaleCloudedWhite), critics and musicians seemed to be "hailing" it more than ever; although my revert of Carliertwo's original revert currently stands, it's difficult to believe the situation's anything more than a pause while their approach is under scrutiny yet again. Same also with the tagged "The UK music press was unanimous in its praise" at A Kiss in the Dreamhouse. (FWIW, I notice Greg Fasolino expressed concerns about Carliertwo's POV editing on the talk page for The Scream.)

I'd seen all this a year ago. The breathless reporting and editorialisation stuck/sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb (and the incredulity in some of my comments reflects this, I'm sure). Carliertwo started discussions at Talk:Peepshow (album)#August 2020 and Talk:Hyæna#August 2020. As I stated at the first of these, there is nothing to discuss, only to fix. And again to refer to past form per that 2017 report, it's the user's wikilawyering technique, if not just general, dragging their feet and time-wasting. (It was the same at Talk:Dear Prudence#Unsourced genres for Siouxsie & the Banshees cover last year.) Carliertwo will always outdo any other editor's interest in these album articles simply by wearing them down. I think they need a substantial topic ban, because previous warnings seemed to have achieved little, and it's as if once everyone's backs are turned, the text can creep back to the same POV-strewn wording.

I'm sure Siouxsie and the Banshees are a fantastic band, incidentally; but it's the extent to which Wikipedia appears to be rejoicing in this that's such an issue. In my second post in the AN/I thread on 8 September, I gave a few examples of how general statements about critical reception for other bands' albums are handled elsewhere on the encyclopedia (in the third paragraph). JG66 (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for re-posting and sharing some diffs. From what I can see, Carliertwo has been repeatedly removing valid {{tl|cn}] tags, and has been repeatedly adding POV to articles. As such, I would suggest a topic ban from all Siouxsie and the Banshees-related articles. GiantSnowman 10:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion at the talk page of many Satb albums articles like for this album [8].

• First case for The_Scream_(album)#Critical_reception, the user tags these sentences "Upon its release, The Scream received critical acclaim. Critics in the British and American press generally agreed that the album was a landmark of its time and that the band's willingness to experiment made it a challenging listen." with {fact needed} whereas the reviewers wrote rave comments such as "landmark" in Record Mirror , "constantly innovative" in Melody Maker, "innovation" in the NME. The record got several contemporary reviews rated 5 out of 5. We've got a total of 8 laudatory reactions written by music journalists from the most famous papers at the time on both sides of the atlantic. Other quotes: Rolling Stone "striking debut album", Sounds (magazine) "the best debut album of the year", ZigZag "magnificent record", music journalist Adam Sweeting "magnificent masterpiece", Record Mirror: "The Scream "points to the future, real music for the new age". So why does this user tag those sentences with "wp:puffery" and "wp:impartial" in their commentary ? the {fact needed} were abusive tags. These two sentences have been present for more than 6 years, no user editing on that article (including professional journalist User:Greg Fasolino, who edited on all those satb albums articles) has said that these two sentences were cases of puffery and impartial.
• Another case for Peepshow_(album)#Critical_reception, this user also tagged this sentence "Peepshow received critical acclaim" whereas the reviews were rated like this; Q (magazine) "5 out of 5 star review" and when there isn't any rate, the reviewers say: Record Mirror "Brimming with confidence [...], Peepshow is the Banshees' finest hour", Spin (magazine) "delightful, majestic", Stereo Review, "Best of the Month", NME " best Banshees record since A Kiss in the Dreamhouse". isn't it a critical acclaim ? Again this sentence was a presentation of all the reviews that follow in the section. The album got the best reviews possible from the most important papers We've got 8 reviews/papers praising the album. So the album received critical acclaim. would you write average reviews ? Again why does this user write "puffery" and "impartial" in their comment [9] ?
• the Tinderbox diffs [10] is an instance/story telling with distortion of facts, as a rfc of February 2017 registred one month after the 48 hour ban of January 2017 said that one comment about a singer could be used only if the verb "to hail" was not included for a remark of that artist mentioning this album. The ANI of January 2017 never forbad to use the verb "to hail" in the "critical reception" section for reviews, contrary to what the user advanced above "it's as if once everyone's backs are turned, the text can creep back to the same POV-strewn wording" which is not true. The reviews and comments of musicians praised that Tinderbox record.
• Last case, for Downside_Up#Reception the user tags "The four-CD box set compilation received critical acclaim upon its release" with {fact needed} whereas the critical eception section is filled with very positive reviews. Quotes: The Times "audacious and uncompromising musical adventurers", Stylus Magazine "a wonderfully eclectic mixture" in a review rated A, Record Collector "remarkable diversity", Uncut (magazine) "fascinating collection from an astonishing group", NME "spellbinding". Is it puffery and impartial to present those reviews, saying that this boxset received critical acclaim ? I'am a 13 year veteran and I wrote a GA. I had also suggested to ask a third opinion for all those satb albums articles [11]... Carliertwo (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. Why were you removing valid {{cn}} tags? Why have you been adding POV language? GiantSnowman 13:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those tags were abusive and it is explained with instances above. If "Too long didn't read" is your only reply, I'll tell you that the other user wrote a post as long as mine. So why would you not take the same time to read my reply ? Carliertwo (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why were those tags "abusive"? Yes the OP was long, but I was able to skim and ready diffs. GiantSnowman 14:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not only you replied "too long i didn't read" plus you had previously voted for a topic ban without waiting for a reply from me, and now you said from what I undetstand, that you read posts in diagonals, is it serious ? I prefer to wait for other opinions from people who take time to read posts in full. Carliertwo (talk)

I've seen enough to make a fair review of your editing. You have not presented anything to change my mind. GiantSnowman 15:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator, but I have read the long posts. The problem is not with the positive reviews, but with your characterization of them as "hailing" from the reviewers. Your summaries come off as overly laudatory, raising some valid concerns. The praise seems to be written in Wikipedia's voice, and the apparent unanimity of the acclaim concerns only a hand-full of available sources. In the case of Peepshow (album), the article's Critical reception section summarizes 7 different reviews (a decent number, by the way), but the article speaks of "widespread acclaim" which is not based on any of these sources. That said, I only see two or three suspect sentences in that article, and the argument could be settled with a minor rewrite. Dimadick (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick, thanks for your input.

Xeno's remark written yesterday at this noticeboard's talk page saying "The incidents thread in question strikes me as something that would be better handled at WP:DRN", was strangely not mentioned by the user who has filled this section and pleaded for a ban. For them, apparently, there isn't any point of pinging an user if they said that this case would have more its place at WP:DRN. Carliertwo (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PythonSwarm (talk · contribs · logs) has developed a habit of getting involved with technical and policy matters which are beyond his understanding. His talk page is littered with requests not to get involved in such areas e.g. User_talk:PythonSwarm/Archive/Old_Archives#Taking_things_a_little_more_slowly, User_talk:PythonSwarm/Archive#Please_stop and User_talk:PythonSwarm/Archive#September_2020. As a result of failing to listen to advice they are currently blocked from editing WP:RFP/R and WP:RFP/PCR. The latest area is GA reviews.

• They conducted two reviews (Talk:Network synthesis/GA1 and Talk:Charles Corydon Hall/GA1), one pass and one fail, both with one line reviews with no reference to the GA criteria.
• A third Talk:Typographer (typewriter)/GA1 was started but PythonSwarm placed it on hold asking for a second opinion.
• Concerns were raised at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GA_page_falsely_tagged/reviewed? and PythonSwarm was messaged about the discussion. Despite the concerns, they conducted another GA review in exactly the same way Talk:Automatic scorer/GA1.

At that point both User:GeneralNotability and I suggested that PythonSwarm should not conduct any more GA reviews and participate in the discussion at WT:GAN. They did make a comment at WT:GAN that I should discuss this before reviewing any other articles for some reason and despite being told in no uncertain terms that the standard of their reviews was unacceptable then commenced another GA review Talk:Injector pen/GA1.

From this I understand that PythonSwarm is a young editor and while they might be full of enthusiasm they do not comprehend the effects of their action or when to step away from a topic. The conduct at WP:GA and previous actions at pages like WP:RFP and behaviour such as archiving or blanking their talk page immediately after receiving criticism make me think that nothing short of a topic ban from GA, broadly construed, and the threat of a block for breaching the ban will stop them creating more disruption in this area that others have to clear up. Nthep (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. One needs a fairly firm grasp of things before diving in to GA review. PythonSwarm lacks that grasp and isn't listening to other editors. Spurious GA reviews are a huge waste of other people's time. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - they clearly do not understand the GA process and are not listening to other editors telling them to stop. Given that this is a recurring pattern, this user may end up with a WP:CIR block sooner rather than later, but I'm willing to extend a little rope. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - going from instant pass to "it would not pass" on an article that is probably in the middle shows they don't realise what the criteria is. Whilst most users can be trained, and get better with experience, there's so much here to untangle with WP:CIR issues. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Someone with fewer than 200 mainspace edits should not be conducting GA reviews. Let them get some experience writing content and adding sources first. P-K3 (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We believe in being WP:BOLD, but there are certain areas of the project which required specialized knowledge and experience to be effective, and GA is certainly one of them. Nobody minds if you dabble into new areas. That's how you learn. But when you refuse helpful advice, you've gone past being bold; that's just being reckless and/or disruptive. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've been cleaning up a few of those noms today and the issue isn't dabbling into new areas, we all have done that in the past. The issue for me is the lack of response to concerns and the inability to discuss their edits. As others have noted there are definite WP:CIR issues here. Woody (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Those reviews are not acceptable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion PythonSwarm - you are young and enthusiastic - we need people like that to keep our project moving forward. However, I hope that you can see from the comments above that you are not ready yet for the types of area you have been trying to get involved with, and you are inevitably going to get banned from making them because you haven't been taking on board what people are saying to you. Please try to use this as a learning experience - nobody wants to be mean to you, they just want you to learn how things work a bit better before you do reviews. If you are really interested in the GA process, I'd strongly suggest that you attempt to write a good article yourself and go through the review process as an author rather than a reviewer - either write one from scratch, or take an existing one that you're interested in and see whether you can improve it. I don't know what subject floats your boat - personally I mostly write about historic buildings, but I'm sure you've got different interests - but try to find a narrowly constrained subject that you can find some really good sources on, and are interested in writing about. Feel free to ping me if you want me to take a look at something and tell you whether it's ready to go forward for GA review. Going through the process yourself is vital preparation for attempting to take other people through it as a reviewer. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - they have a lot of enthusiasm but unfortunately unaware of their own limits. Thepenguin9 (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – As one who has just finished(?) dealing with an enthusiastic but inexperienced and careless user who views any criticism as an attack, I think I understand how frustrating this is. We need new people entering the editing corps, and should try to nurture newcomers as much as possible so they develop a sense of craftsmanship and pride in the Wikipedia community. Some people naturally start things slowly and are amenable to constructive criticism, some don't learn until they get a bloody nose running into a wall, and a few—sadly—just never learn. I think it's fairly clear PythonSwarm doesn't fall into the first category. Let's try Nthep's proposed solution to see if it helps. I'll help him/her, if I can. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support he is not that good with GA, plus I support an additional topic ban from Wikipedia namespace. --◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If I'm being honest here, then I think he needs to take time to sit and learn. Sometimes, I do make mistakes and what I do when these things happen is that I took these times to learn what I have done. In these times, I take some time away from taking some actions that could make not just some problems for me, but everyone involved. SMB99thx my edits 08:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Insufficient - PythonSwarm was making unhelpful comments on other users' RFP requests until warned, stopped for a while then resumed until I blocked them from 2 of the RFP pages. Then he started to mess up in the WP:GA reviews. Since then he's moved on to WP:DYK as his chosen venue, starting an RFC over a two word change and edit warring over "purge" vs "clear the cache" at Template:DYK nomination header (history). A TBAN from GA is, unfortunately, just kicking the can down the road. PythonSwarm has shown he'll just find another area where he can pass comment on the contributions of other editors without making significant contributions himself. I'm unconvinced that anything short of a WP:CIR block will be enough. Cabayi (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree, and will add WT:CSD#RfC: Clarification for G5 to the mix. This user has absolutely no concept of the amount of wasted time they're imposing on everyone else. —Cryptic 12:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• CIR block Letting an editor down gently is the last thing we should do here. AGF is not a suicide pact. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• CIR block, from WP space at the very least. I'm sorry to say this, but while their editing is being discussed at AN and multiple editors have been telling them to slow down and earn their spurs, PythonSwarm has started editing widely used templates and policy pages such as WP:Oversight and, perhaps ironically, WP:Disruptive editing. They don't know what they're doing, and they're not listening to the advice they're getting - they need to limit themselves to article content and sourcing, or be entirely blocked. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• CIR block: at this point I, sadly, agree that a CIR block is needed. It's a whack-a-mole at this point. Tell him to stop in one category and he pops up in another category and needs to be addressed or reined in. At the very least, a restriction to article edits (and their associated talk pages) may be needed. only (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal statement of -- PythonSwarm ^{T | C | G}

Addendum I will stop editing the projectspace except for minor changes, and I will learn slowly the GA criteria, starting from the DYK criterias per suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PythonSwarm (talk • contribs) 08:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC) I have been revoking my old reviews and participating in adding content, and I am currently learning the GA criteria. There is now no need to ban me from doing so, as I will come back to GA review only after 250 mainspace edits and resolving that thread with my involvement. After I finished that, I will ask for somebody experienced to help. -- PythonSwarm ^{T | C | G} 22:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a need to implement the topic ban since you seem to think that just getting 50-60 more edits is going to be enough to get you to learn the GA process. only (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PythonSwarm, There are many areas where we need people to work. If you're interested in doing reviews, may I suggest WP:DYK would be a better place to start. It's not as technically rigorous as WP:GAR. This would be a much better place to learn how reviewing in general works, in a lower-pressure environment. We really try not to put too much emphasis on edit counts, but it would be quite surprising if anybody with 250 mainspace edits has developed the skills needed to be conducting GA reviews. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, DYK is a bad idea. Just plain article editing is where new editors should concentrate. EEng 04:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep, Roysmith, and Only: Maybe I should come back to GA only when I have 500 mainspace edits? Although DYK is suitable for me. I do not want a ban since that means I cannot even participate in GA discussions, which I will sometimes participate in.-- PythonSwarm ^{T | C | G} 23:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PythonSwarm, Come back to GA when you've developed the experience and skills to be there. There's no set number of edits, but to give you one data point, I probably had 30,000 edits before I made my first GA submission. It's really the wrong place for a new editor to be concentrating on. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PythonSwarm as I said above, I don't think you should attempt to do GA reviews until you've written at least one GA and been through the process as an author. Learn how to write articles before you try to evaluate other people's work. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is mentioned somewhere above but to bring it out more squarely: this appears to be a young person so let's let them down gently. Don't the new partial blocks allow blocking by namespace e.g. block all namespaces but article, article talk, and user talk? (I'm assuming the blocking machinery treats a user's own user page as special case.) EEng 04:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note

PythonSwarm currently holds IPBE, under my grant. I have already warned him that a continuation of his disruptive editing could lead to removal of the IPBE (which requires users to be "in good standing"). Without going into too much personal detail, removing IPBE would likely have a side effect of preventing him from editing entirely. I'd be hard-pressed to maintain him under IPBE with a wide-ranging topic ban/block, but at the same time I do not want to interfere with this community discussion. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this. Risker (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could some kind admin close this AfD? It's been open for almost a month, and it's been two weeks since the last relist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mackensen (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the hopes of reducing the incidence of contentious discussion closes, I have created Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion as a place for discussion closers to discuss their opinions about how pending discussions should be closed in before actually implementing a close, particularly in difficult cases. This is intended to be distinct from merely requesting the closure of a discussion, or for raising problems with discussions that have already been closed. BD2412 T 20:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should have been discussed at the Noticeboard Noticeboard first, or perhaps someone should have filed a Request for Request for Comment. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move the talk to Wikipedia:Discussion of discussions for discussion? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD would be proud. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, come on, this is serious business here! BD2412 T 01:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, I may have to report you to the squad squad. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or the committee on committees. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is all too Meta for me. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 03:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We shall seek consensus about the consensus. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bad feeling about this. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam there has been a very long dispute started on 20 May, 2020 by editor Vice regent, who 15 minutes after leaving a message against the current name renamed the page to “Concubinage in Islam”. Most editors have found that the name “concubinage” is not well suited to describe the institution of “sexual slavery” in Islam and the dispute formally ended on 8 September 2020, almost four months later, with the decision of keeping the current name.

After the dispute was over, someone proposed a split in order to have two pages, “Sexual slavery in Islam” and “Concubinage in Islam”, and the discussion is still ongoing. However there is a lack of consensus also about this split, since it is not clear what the difference between “Sexual slavery in Islam” and “Concubinage in Islam” would be – concubinage in Islam is allowed only with sexual slaves and concubinage per se is a fairly neutral term, not linked to slavery (today is even a synonym of “civil union” – see [13], [14]).

At this point editor Vice regent has started to edit massively the page Concubinage (not in Islam, just plain concubinage), which barely contained any link to slavery, using as only source a dictionary of slavery (WP:POVSOURCE) and with the only purpose of linking concubinage to slavery (WP:UNDUE).

Is this not a destructive approach to editing Wikipedia? Is this not a typical case of Civil POV pushing? Should not a dispute be really over at some point? --Grufo (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider WP:BOOMERANG. Grufo is currently blocked for edit-warring on the above article. Many users have raised concerns about their behavior at IncidentArchive1044. Concerns about incivility have been raised at IncidentArchive1046, their talk page and by an admin. By my estimate Grufo spends more than 90% of their time on wikipedia following me around to various articles and entering into content disputes with me. (In August they made 520 edits, of which <40 were unrelated to me, and in September they've made 214 edits of which <20 are unrelated to me).VR _talk 14:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Umberto Bottura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Umberto Bottura

This user was blocked in 2012 for abuse of multiple accounts. Since that time, they've gone on to edit constructively at the Portuguese Wikipedia, where he has a generally good track record.

The administrator who originally issued the block is no longer active. Another admin who is familiar with the case has not responded in over a week. So I open the matter up to discussion here. Based on their track record at pt.wiki, I feel comfortable extending the user a second chance. However, I don't feel comfortable acting unilaterally. What do other admins think about the request for unblocking? Is there other information in this case that I'm not aware of? —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless further information comes to light to suggest Umberto Bottura would be disruptive, I support unblock as per long history of constructive participation on sister projects. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock Eight years of positive contributions to Portuguese Wikipedia plus a promise to not abuse multiple accounts is more than enough for me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As AN has been a center for other RedWarn discussions, I thought I'd inform you all of a discussion regarding RedWarn being hosted off-Wiki on WMF servers at WP:VPT. Ed talk! 20:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]