Template:Active editnotice

Background

• August 2018 – First TBAN imposed at ANI: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Davidbena
• February 2019 – Successful appeal of first TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Request to lift my topic ban issued against me in August 2018
• April 2019 – Second TBAN imposed: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Hounding and Deliberate Disruptive Editing
• November 2019 – Appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Request to lift topic ban – closed as unsuccessful
• May 2020 – Second appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban – archived without formal close
• June 2020 – Appeal of second TBAN at AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive267#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Davidbena – declined as out of jurisdiction, and DB advised to reopen a request at WP:AN.

Davidbena's original post follows. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, hope it's OK, I added a minor tweak in green to prevent people from getting the wrong idea that this request is forumshopping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I, the appealing user, Davidbena (talk · contribs · WHOIS), am humbly submitting this petition to rescind a Topic ban imposed against me by Ymblanter in the ARBPIA area; imposed here (no. 55), during my last appeal in November of 2019, and which I had mistakenly tried to appeal on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement noticeboard earlier this year. My wrongly placed topic ban appeal was declined on 13 June 2020 as shown here and where I was asked to submit a new appeal at AN, at a later time. I have duly informed all administrators involved in imposing this ban (Euryalus, Bishonen, Oshwah, Ymblanter), hoping for a fair and equitous resolution of the same.

The reason for this appeal is, first and foremost, because the current Topic ban in the ARBPIA area has been active against me for the duration of a little over one year. I am humbly asking for the opportunity to renew editing in the ARBPIA area, seeing that many of the articles classified under the ARBPIA template are, in fact, historical places (e.g. Kafr 'Inan, Bayt Nattif, Solomon's Pools, Old City (Jerusalem), etc.). Often, the involvement of these places in the 1948 or 1967 Arab-Israeli conflicts are only incidental to their broader historical context and scope, for which I am mostly interested in writing about. If I should ever touch on the Arab-Israeli wars from a historical perspective, I will do my utmost best to maintain an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among fellow contributors. I will also keep foremost in my mind that we, as editors, are to present a fact-based and fact-checked narrative of events, based on reliable sources, and detached from all personal bias and/or taking any side in this area of conflict. I assure my fellow co-editors here that I will not use my role as editor to advocate any advocacy on behalf of any one side in this conflict, but try to be as open-minded as I can to both arguments of the conflict in question (having a healthy respect and goodwill for all peoples who live in and share the same land), stating the facts as neutrally as I possibly can, whenever I am called upon to do so.

I will do my utmost best to maintain an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors, and try to present both sides of the argument (if need be), that is to say, neutrality, rather than pursue an advocacy for any one side, just as requested by WP policy.

Recently, I was asked to fix problems in the reference formatting of an article nominated for DYK that is classified as ARBPIA, as shown here, but because of its ARBPIA classification, I could not do anything to that article.

DISCLAIMER: a) In those articles where there is an ARBPIA template, I have altogether refrained from editing; b) in those articles where there is not an ARBPIA template, my edits in them have not been about anything relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Only once on a Talk-Page did I vaguely mention it in passing, but when reminded that this topic is "off-limits" to me even in unmarked pages, I quickly desisted.Davidbena (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Reading the discussion that imposed your Topic ban, I see it is your second indefinite WP:ARBPIA topic ban (which you neglected to mention in this appeal), and that after the first one was lifted you returned to the same problematic editing. That's all I need to know. Fool us once, shame on us. Fool us a second time, stay topic banned permanently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll just add that, briefly looking through some of the previous disputes, I come across this comment from Davidbena in April 2019: "Actually, Josephus disproves the theory of modern revisionists of history (who dare dispute the historicity of King Solomon)...". Anyone with that approach to history and to WP:RS shouldn't be allowed within a mile of this subject matter (broadly construed). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, first indefinite topic ban here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Boing! said Zebedee:, I didn't forget the first topic ban on purpose, but thought that it was more important to write about the second, the active topic ban only.Davidbena (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering your second ban was imposed just two months after the first one was lifted, and you were advised at AE to include the full timescale of your bans at any AN appeal, I'd say that was exceptionally poor judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Reading through all this again today, I'm struck by Nableezy's comments below, which I find gracious and constructive. Nableezy is far closer to this subject area and its disputes, and my own judgment is far less well informed, so I'm withdrawing my opposition to the appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Erk Does Talk:Paleo-Hebrew alphabet fall within said topic ban? (tiptoes away quietly and finally goes back to bed.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Deepfriedokra, also: Wadi al-Far'a (river) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a river in the West Bank; Madaba Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a map of the Holy Land showing the "border between Israel and Palestine" and used by both sides in claims of destiny. Guy (help!) 08:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles you mention are not under the general ARBPIA ban, since the ban only applies to articles where the ARBPIA template has been appended on the Talk-Page.Davidbena (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Davidbena: Err, is it? Your original topic ban was from "all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed". Was there some later discussion clarified it only applied to articles with a template? – Joe (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Joe Roe, What do those articles have to do with the IP conflict? Is the Hebrew alphabet now part of the conflict? Is a mosaic from the 6th Century now part of the conflict? No, it's not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sir Joseph: Paleo-Hebrew alphabet: just look at its talk page. There are disputes on whether the script or exists independently or is an Israeli nationalist re-branding of the Phoenician alphabet going back over a decade. Davidbena participated extensively in a contentious merge discussion about it a couple of weeks ago. The Madaba Map, as Guy has already mentioned, is an important piece of historical geography used in contemporary territorial claims: Although the original Madaba Map was part of a Christian edifice situated outside Palestine, it was highly regarded by Zionist archaeologists not only for its universal significance but as a remnant of the Jewish national past in Palestine. The Zionist rhetoric used it to verify the important role of the city of Jerusalem in the Jewish narrative of place. The idea of creating modern maps of Jerusalem, in the spirit of the Madaba Map is best exemplified by Naomi Henrik's mosaic decoration (Figure 7), originally installed in 1957 outside the entrance to the Jerusalem Municipality building and later transferred and reinstalled at the Mount Herzl complex in Jerusalem. [1] Anyone working on the history of the Southern Levant would agree that there is practically nothing about it that isn't politicised. – Joe (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Joe, look again at the Talk:Paleo-Hebrew alphabet. In the section where I was involved in the discussion about this antiquated script, there was no mention whatsoever about "Israeli nationalist re-branding of the Phoenician alphabet going back over a decade." And, besides, I was unaware of its mention. So, does this mean that if the article New York has a discussion on its Talk-Page about Palestinian nationalists or Israeli nationalists in one of its sections that I am not free to talk about the city of New york in a different section? I do not think that this falls under the definition of "broadly construed."Davidbena (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Joe Roe, None of those examples have anything to do with the conflict. You're basically stretching it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You're basically stretching it, i.e., broadly construing it. FWIW, I think Davidbena has attempted to abide by the expectations of the TBAN as he understands them, but it would've been wiser, as BMK points out below, to avoid the area altogether and focus his edits in a completely different area. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Grandpallama, I'm not commenting on the appeal, but the page is not even "broadly construed" to be part of the conflict, merely because some people mention "nationalism" on the talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Deepfriedokra, I think what you are doing is muddying the water. To say that Paleo-Hebrew falls under ARBPIA conflict is ludicrous and knowing that most people will not check the page for content. Really shameful that you'd mention it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A second indefinite ban indicates a serious problem, and the appeal doesn't address that other than to repeat the platitudes that turned out to be false promises last time. Guy (help!) 08:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Guy, I understand your worries, but I wish to remind you that both topic bans against me were the result of my having filed complaints against two other editors, for which I am terribly sorry and I am resolved never again to cast aspersions against them. I am simply asking for an opportunity to prove myself, and, if all else fails, this body can ban me without any right to an appeal.Davidbena (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. First, to clarify for others, although Davidbena's topic ban cites ARBPIA and he implies it was placed by Ymblanter, it's a community ban, nothing to do with arbitration, discretionary sanctions or arbitration enforcement as far as I can tell. As to the appeal, the idea that historic (pre-1948) topics are only "incidentally" related to the Israel–Palestine conflict is deeply flawed. Everything about the ownership, naming and interpretation of historic sites in Israel–Palestine, from the 20th century right back into prehistory, is highly politicised and contested. Both sides in the contemporary conflict lean heavily on contested historical claims. It's hard to believe that anyone familiar with this area could be genuinely ignorant of this. It's especially hard to be believe Davidbena is, because the previous discussions of his topic ban have mainly concerned his edits to historic topics, and he has recently been involved in PIA-related content disputes in articles like Paleo-Hebrew alphabet and Hebraization of Palestinian place names. In fact, I think some sort of boomerang is in order given that this and other edits above seem to be clear breaches of his topic ban. At the very least, we should clarify/reiterate that he his banned from the Palestine-Israel topic broadly construed, not just articles that happen to have this-or-that template. – Joe (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, the re-imposed topic ban from May 2019 said "Davidbena is again indefinitely topic banned from all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed", not "all WP:ARBPIA topics with the template on the talk page."-- P-K3 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that was a misunderstanding on my part. Even so, where the ARBPIA template does not appear, I have still refrained from discussing ARBPIA topics. Only once did I err in this regard, and quickly ceased from doing it again. All other edits were of a general non-political nature, such as archaeological/historical/geographical issues, without raising the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, if my edits were wrong, I would have expected someone to tell me that I cannot edit pages such as the Onomasticon (Eusebius), although the work has absolutely nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and even though it speaks about towns and villages in the Holy Land.Davidbena (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Joe, I wish to remind you and others here that in the article Hebraization of Palestinian place names it was agreed upon by the contributing editors NOT to add the ARBPIA template, which enabled me to edit that page, where the issues were purely geographical. Only once did I err there, and was quickly reprimanded, and I stopped. When the editors decided that the article belonged to the ARBPIA category it was then that I stopped editing that article altogether.Davidbena (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see how the template issue could be an honest misunderstanding (but to reiterate, your TBAN is from the topic and broadly construed, it has nothing to do with the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions). But are you seriously claiming that the archaeology, history and geography of Israel–Palestine is "non-political"? Hebraization of Palestinian place names, for example, is about the replacement of Arabic placenames with Hebrew ones, particularly after the 1948 and 1967 wars. An editor like you, who is knowledgeable about this subject, should not need a template to tell you that is directly related to the Israel–Palestine conflict. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, they are "non-political" when most of the discussions there were strictly about the British governance over the country, before the rise of the State of Israel, and where the article speaks about the naming of sites after the rise of the State, my edits referred only to the ancient history of these sites, preserved in Arabic writing, and which have nothing to do with the conflict between Jews and Arabs. In fact, I stressed the importance of preserving the Old Arabic names since they are a reflection of the Old Hebrew names. What's more, my edits had absolutely nothing to do with the political conflict, but only geography and placenames (except for once when I briefly mentioned the conflict, but quickly deleted it). Again, I would NEVER have edited this page had the ARBPIA template not been removed.Davidbena (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Joe Roe, please clarify how Paleo-Hebrew is covered under ARBPIA. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've answered you above. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sir Joseph, indeed, Joe Roe has answered that query above, but also more substantively in their oppose comment — in an especially eloquent and poignant way, I would add. El_C 16:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  El C, as I said above, I'm not commenting on the appeal, but it's ludicrous to say that Paleo-Hebrew is part of the IP conflict, even broadly construed. I once mentioned that I can get any page on Wikipedia to be "broadly construed" and we really shouldn't be doing that. Just because one person mentions "nationalism" on the talk page (which may or may not have anything to do with the conflict) we should not be bringing more pages into the conflict area.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sir Joseph, the fact is that the Committee has chosen to widen the scope of ARBPIA, as can be seen in ARBPIA4's Definition of the "area of conflict" onto "primary articles" and "related content." El_C 16:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  El C, none of those applies to Paleo-Hebrew. I agree with Boing below. IF we are going to sanction someone or not accept an appeal for a TBAN, it should be for a valid TBAN violation, not for some 1 mile stretch of a TBAN topic violation. Can I edit the USA article if I'm TBANNED from the IP conflict since the USA is related to Israel and Israel is associated with the conflict? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sir Joseph, I don't disagree that for "related content," the nature of the edits in question must be weighed in relation to ARBPIA, directly. El_C 16:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have opposed previous appeals. For this one, I just want to point out that I'm disappointed that Davidbena was selective in following the advice he was given for this appeal. While he did notify relevant admins, he did not disclose the full sequence of bans and appeals, as suggested. This whitewashes the history here, for anyone who sees this appeal and is unaware. Grandpallama (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. I've added the background to the top of this thread. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh dear, that shows the second ban was only two months after the first ban was lifted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the Topic ban came only "two months" after my first Topic ban, but I think it can be fairly appreciated by my fellow co-editors here that a previously banned editor (such as myself) has no way of knowing that if he files a complaint against another editor (say, an editor whom he thought may have acted injudiciously) that the complaint would backfire and he would find himself banned once more. I'm sorry, but this is what happened to me, and I admit that I was haste in my judgment, and that I have since made amends with that same editor; in short, I will not do this again.Davidbena (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say that both filing that complaint in the first place, and then not expecting any possible backfire, is another example of very poor judgment. I don't doubt that you are well meaning, but I just think you don't have the ability to see other viewpoints or to understand why your approach has been so problematic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Clear lack of understanding as to WHY the ban was placed in the first place. And no, filing a complaint is NOT a reason for a topic ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, I'm sorry, but if I made amends with the editor against whom I filed a complaint is this not a sign of remorse and understanding where I had been wrong? If this isn't, what is?Davidbena (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the selective sanction history portrayed by Davidbena and the topic ban violations found by Deepfriedokra and JzG --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Guerillero, can you clarify the violations? Are you saying that paleo-Hebrew is under ARBPIA violation? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - It's quite clear from past actions and the comments here that Davidbena really has no intrinsic sense of how he should be editing while under a broadly -construed topic ban. It has always been my opinion that people under such a ban should edit far, far, away from the subject area in question, but that has not been the case here, nor do I see it ever being the case. In fact, what I foresee is an eventual site ban for frittering around the edges of the ban and sticking his toes into the water once too often, Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Beyond My Ken, shalom. If I were to follow your guidelines (which I think are misguided), I would not be able to edit any article (even of geographical/historical/archaeological natures) that has to do with any place in Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, but this is NOT what is meant by being "broadly construed." And besides, I have not discussed Israeli-Palestinian issues since my Topic ban, except for once, and I was quickly reprimanded and I stopped.Davidbena (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid that is exactly what is meant by broadly construed. See WP:TBAN and WP:BROADLY. It would be one thing if the Israel–Palestine conflict had nothing to do with history or historical geography, but it does. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding of "broadly construed" means simply not to bring-up in conversation any mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict, whether in articles that have the ARBPIA template or in articles that do not have the ARBPIA template. However, to speak about Israeli food in a Tel-Aviv article is permitted. As for Arab-Israeli political issues, I have refrained from them altogether.Davidbena (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  While I am skeptical of Davidbena's ability to edit neutrally in this area if his TBAN were lifted, and I think he misrepresents his history of edit conflicts in this area, I do suspect his editing around the edges of this area is more a product of his beliefs about what the TBAN entails rather than a deliberate attempt to push the envelope. That said, if a consensus exists that some of these topics lie within the boundaries of "broadly construed", it's probably to his benefit that this expectation is clarified. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Joe Roe, that is incorrect. If someone is TBANNED from the IP conflict, they aren't TBANNED from Israel or Palestine articles. Editing an article that has nothing to do with the conflict is not prohibited and we should not be locking down articles where there is no conflict just for the sake of locking it down. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The scope of the current topic ban has come up above, and I'll comment here to avoid fragmenting any other conversations. It's not a DS ban, but as "ARBPIA" was specifically mentioned, I don't think it's unreasonable of Davidbena to have interpreted it as covering only the I/P conflict itself (even with "broadly construed" - that's such an nebulous concept that what might seem like obvious coverage to some will seem different to others). Yes, it could have been interpreted more broadly, but I don't see Davidbena's interpretation as obviously implausible, and I do see it as being in good faith. If the community wants to tighten the definition of the topic ban scope then that of course can be covered here. But I think any sanction for allegedly breaking the ban through a good faith interpretation of its scope would be wrong, and I would strongly oppose any such move. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, and very well put. Grandpallama (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I never understand exactly how broadly is "broadly construed". If I am topic banned from AP2, can I edit United States of America? Christianity? American English? United States Constitution? AR-15? Mass shooting? North America? If I am topic banned from PIA, can I edit Hebrew or Arabic? Islam or Judaism? Military occupation or terrorism? Middle East? If I am topic banned from The Troubles can I edit Great Britain or Ireland? Catholicism or Protestantism? What if I just edit the portions of those articles that don't relate to the conflict? I'm glad I'm not topic banned from anything because I'd have no idea. Without clear lines, sanctioning editors for editing at the edges of a topic ban strikes me as an unfair "gotcha". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Wikipedia's search function broken for you? I mean the this description of what constitutes topic bans is pretty comprehensive. To help you, I've reproduced it below:
    • The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:
      • weather-related articles and lists, such as Wind and List of weather records, and their talk pages;
      • weather-related categories such as all of the categories that are associated with Category:Weather;
      • weather-related project pages, such as WikiProject Meteorology;
      • weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
      • discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes).
  • Does that answer your questions -- or were your questions just a rhetorical device not actually dependent on answers? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't answer any of my questions. Most of what you've copied and pasted isn't even relevant to my questions (nobody is asking about categories or project pages, etc.). But feel free to provide answers to my questions if you'd like. I think you'll find answering those questions isn't as easy as copy and pasting from the help file. Same with the issue about Paleo-Hebrew raised in this thread. You'll notice several editors disagree on that one, a sure sign of a tricky issue. (Also I'd suggest removing or collapsing all that irrelevant text you copied and pasted, for the sake of our colleagues.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      So, basically, the skills of applying general principles to specific examples and understanding general principles through the use of examples, these are difficult for you? There's not much point in trying to help someone who is determined not to understand something, so pardon me if I don't waste both my time and yours in your sealioning. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Ad hominem attacks are admissions of defeat. ^Lev!v^ich 02:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't and have never doubted David's good faith here, and I take him at his word on his understanding of the topic ban and what it applied to and I think the arguments above on whether or not such and such page is covered by it should be reframed so it is less about his mistakes in understanding about the ban previously and more about helping him adhere to it in the future. I also dont think it is reasonable to say somebody who is subject to a topic ban about the ARBPIA topic should refrain from editing subjects even remotely related. David is one of our better resources for the Jewish history in Israel/Palestine, he researches thoroughly and when not discussing modern politics is in my honest opinion an affable and pleasant person who is enjoyable to work with. I think perhaps there needs to be a bit more clarity of the extent of the ban, but I do not see what he has been doing as "frittering around the edges". I dont really think Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, as the example contested above, is covered by his ban (though Sir Joseph I also do not think you are helping David even a little bit here). Broadly construed still has limits and I think that example goes quite a bit past those limits. My view on his ban remains unchanged. If David commits to a. not promoting fringe viewpoints regarding the modern politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and b. commits to not questioning the motives of those who have opposing viewpoints to him, then I still have no problem with him editing in the topic area. If his ban is not rescinded I would strongly suggest that it be narrowed. David is an asset for a lot of these articles, he brings sources and research that nobody else does. We should let him. Anything that is not directly related to the modern state of Israel and its conflict with the Palestinians should be excluded from his ban. Ancient villages, ancient alphabets, ancient anything should be excluded from his ban. nableezy - 16:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support remove TBAN. This whole ill-conceived mess is a setup for failure. It is too subjective, too vague, too arbitrary, and too confusing. Davidbena has been editing constructively and with forebearance about subjects that may or not have been covered by his topic ban. No one can say for sure whether they are or not.. As Levivich puts it, "without clear lines, sanctioning editors for editing at the edges of a topic ban strikes me as an unfair "gotcha". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a narrower ban per Nableezy: something like (a) retaining topic ban on modern-day Palestinian-Israeli conflict, (b) a strict sanction on questioning the motives of other editors or promoting fringe theories in any area, and (c) otherwise permitting editing of Middle Eastern regional topics including ancient Jewish history, geography, etc unrelated to the modern state. (Nableezy, let me know if I've misinterpreted your view). Not normally a supporter of a "last chance" after a previous "last chance" but some of the comments here encouraged a look at Davidbena's wider editing history, and they seem a competent and well-researched editor outside the immediate topic area of modern Israel-Palestine. On that basis the encyclopedia seems better off for their ancient history/geography/cultural contributions, and we should aim to let them carry on in those spaces. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting or narrowing the topic ban, per Nableezy, DFO and Euryalus, and per lack of evidence of continued disruption. To me, whether David properly formatted this appeal by linking to the prior ones, and David's understanding of what "broadly construed" means, are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether David has been editing without being disruptive and the answer seems to be yes. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting the topic ban. The editor has shown remorse, and sincerely plans to edit in accordance with the expectations of the community, including the higher expectations in the sensitive area of the WP:ARBPIA area. I find the fact that Nableezy, who could be considered to be on the opposite site of that conflict from the editor who filed this request, has agreed to lifting the topic ban, and has in fact described this editor in a very positive light, a telling sign that Wikipedia only stands to gain from lifting this editor's topic ban. I would like to add that the rather unforgiving approach of some here, is tantamount to a declaration that no topic ban can ever be rescinded, and editors can't ever improve their old ways. I refuse to acquiesce to such a position, and think that any closure of this request should contain a general statement rejecting that position. Likewise I think there is little to be gained from the formalist approach of some here, with undue stress on whether the filing included all relevant details. In this regards I'd like to stress that the filing editor explained that he thought it would be enough to mention the current, active topic ban only, and I find that a convincing explanation. In short, Davidbena is one of our better editors, who after over a year of his topic ban has understood well how he is to behave in the WP:ARBPIA area, and I think it would be more than reasonable to give him the chance to contribute positively to this project in that area as well by rescinding his topic ban at this time. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support narrowing of the Tban per Nableezy and Euryalus, along the lines proposed above. I'm moved by the fact that in this appeal and earlier ones, users who had interacted with him most said that he was capable of working well with others and brought unique skills to the project, but was let down by occasional lapses in judgement and conduct. Let's give him a chance to use those skills to the benefit of the project in a wider range of areas, and perhaps after six months of issue-free editing he could request that the ban be lifted altogether? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Narrow topic ban for now. Per Euryalus. starship.paint (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Narrow, but do not lift based upon what I've seen here. I remain unconvinced that the statements here, which are not radically different from ones made in the past, represent a genuine shift in approach to editing. On the other hand, Nableezy makes a compelling case for why we should not let sanctions to prevent disruption in one area result in blocking valuable contributions by an editor in another area. Grandpallama (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, constructive and hard working editor who has realized the error in his past transgressions.--Hippeus (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting of the topic ban. This user has put in his time and clearly improved, so it's time to give him another chance. He has never needed to be sanctioned since the topic ban was imposed. Tikisim (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for narrower ban

SUGGESTED COMPROMISE: If it will make the decision process any easier for administrators and/or contributing editors here, I will agree to remain under my ARBPIA topic ban for another year or two (when I will then be free to submit another appeal), but meanwhile, if agreed upon here by the editors, I will be specifically prohibited from adding content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict on all Wikipedia pages - with or without the ARBPIA tag, but I will be ALLOWED to contribute only on geographical issues, or on pre-1948 historical issues, and on archaeological issues in all ARBPIA articles, including the uploading of images to these Wikipedia sites, as may seem fitting to me. Many of my contributions, prior to my ban, have already been to upload images to these pages. In this way, I will continue to behave with restrictions in what concerns the Israeli-Palestinian area of conflict, but contribute in ways that are mutually beneficial to all.Davidbena (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody close this? Last time David appealed it just sat here until being archived. nableezy - 01:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: I'll keep my eye on this and make sure it gets closed properly - feel free to ping me any time it looks like nothing's happening (well, you know what I mean). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lifting ban. David is a knowledgeable editor and has reflected on his actions and is unlikely to repeat them. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Nableezy above, it'd be a shame if this just got archived without outcome because everyone got tired of commenting. Adding a subject header above, and FWIW support Davidbena's suggested compromise as something worth trying. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I can support this. It seems like a good compromise to see how things go. And I think it essentially sums up the emerging consensus above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting ban --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Or support compromise. whichever gains most support. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lifting ban. I think enough time has passed, Davidbena is conciliatory and should be given a chance.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been discussing the COVID19 general sanctions with ProcrastinatingReader on my talk page, and we noticed that the two most recent regimes, WP:GS/COVID19 and WP:GS/MJ, do not follow the typical general sanctions requirements. Under WP:AC/DS and WP:GS, users must be made "aware" using {{Gs/alert}} prior to being sanctioned, but COVID and Michael Jackson sanctions only require an editor be "warned" without mentioning specifics. In two other recent regimes WP:GS/Wrestling says editors "should" be alerted with {{Gs/alert}}, but IRANPOL qualifies this as a "must". This inconsistency is a problem because the COVID19 GS discussion proposed sanctions that are similar in form to other community-authorized general sanctions, so it's not clear what was authorized given that the most recent sanctions differ on whether awareness is an explicit requirement. To clarify those past sanctions and to clarify decisions going forward, when authorizing general sanctions, is the default that an editor should or must (in terms of RFC 2119 definitions) have been alerted with {{Gs/alert}} prior to being sanctioned? — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting, Wugapodes. For others, as reference, our discussion on talk: COVID Editnotice, which stemmed into whether an editnotice alone meets the awareness requirements, and I suppose whether alerts are required at all. For DS, it would not per this motion, but arb discussion there also notes that the motion isn't binding on GS: the Committee has no authority to modify general sanctions [...] If we decide to alter the awareness requirements for discretionary sanctions, the most we can do is encourage the community to adopt the same changes.

More broadly, we may as well clear up GS' "standard discretionary sanctions" in relation to DS while we're here. In my view, the WP:GS subpages (or the main page, for that matter) are not particularly great, have (or had) various inconsistencies and, along with the old set of templates, are somewhat arbitrary, so I kinda ignore them for the most part. Instead, referring directly to the previous WP:AN discussions that authorised said sanctions, wording along the lines of "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised" was used (or "standard community-authorised general sanctions", which has effectively the same meaning). My weak understanding is that, more recently, this generally refers to authorising sanctions akin to ArbCom's discretionary sanctions, but it appears no discussion has explicitly decided if all of ArbCom's rules surrounding DS also apply (including WP:AWARE). And, if yes, should all future amendments ArbCom makes to the rules/procedures surrounding their DS sanctions also automatically apply to existing community sanctions, unless the community expressly approves a diversion from those requirements for a particular sanction? As it stands currently, it appears multiple admins, quite reasonably, have different interpretations in this somewhat hazy area. It appears there's no requirement for GS to formally be aligned with DS, and multiple sanction pages use should rather than must for alerting; the system does seem to keep falling out of sync with DS (at least in terms of templates), and I suppose an argument can be had whether ArbCom's relatively extensive requirements are a good thing to adopt for GS as well, or too strict and will allow more issues to slip through. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've suggested before that GS and DS should be merged - ArbCom should create a mechanism by which the community can impose discretionary sanctions which can be enforced at WP:AE etc. Having two similar sanction regimes that differ in subtle ways is very confusing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a fan, but that also gives the community much less ability to change anything relating to the sanctions they've imposed. Just one example would be that we'd be probably unable to change the templates too much (DS' aren't so great either) without the consent of ArbCom. One example of an issue: just a few days ago El C and I caught Special:Diff/970494685, which has been standing for years after a motion confirmed this isn't correct. One other example: "restrictions" on templates that use the term seems to constantly cause confusion: the term does not include DS itself. Perhaps there will be a desire to have lower awareness requirements for a particular sanction (now or in the future), which isn't really possible if aligned with AC/DS. At least with a separate system the community can adjust them, or anything else, as it wishes. On a similar note, "GS and DS" feels like a misnomer - isn't DS technically a type of GS, and the sanctions the community imposes are also usually discretionary sanctions ("DS"), with really the main difference being they're community-authorised rather than ArbCom-authorised? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the other way round: the community could control the DS/GS policy and ArbCom could add conditions as necessary for its cases. Currently DS is an internal procedure, so it doesn't need ratified, just a majority committee vote without any direct community assent. We could amend the arbitration policy so that procedural changes to discretionary sanctions must be ratified by the community, which would make it easier to keep the two in sync since changes to both DS and GS would now need to go through the community hopefully preventing conflicts since the same group would review and amend both. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel I should specifically note that one feature I like about GS is that it doesn't run through AE. Appeals are purely at AN and it doesn't have the bonkers "sanctioning admin must have committed a felony to be overturned" level of appeal difficulty. I don't mind updating our wording to match, but I don't want to see it formally linked and i definitely don't want us grabbing their enforcement mechanisms. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not following your train of thought. AE is optional for WP:ACDS appeals. But it is, in fact, more often than not a superior forum, I would argue, where a quorum of uninvolved admins decide a case in a structured rather than threaded discussion — for appeals: often on the pros of the sanctioned editor rather than necessarily on the cons of the sanctioning admin. That is why I almost always recommend AE over AN/ANI, for both those seeking to impose sanctions as well as those seeking to lift them. El_C 13:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As its closer, I am surprised that the MJ GS doesn't have the normal awareness criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As the one who proposed it, I'm quite sure it was taken from another GS (not sure which, hmm...) and I did so with the implication that that "standard discretionary sanctions" meant we were going for the structure of AC/DS (which requires awareness). --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A very simple change that I would suggest is to change the "warnings" terminology to "alerts". Is that alright with everyone involved? -qedk (t 愛 c) 14:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would help clarify things, but we should also resolve the "should" vs "must" difference between WP:GS/Wrestling and WP:GS/IRANPOL. Presumably we'd change the wrestling sanctions to "must". — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree to this solution. RGloucester — ☎ 12:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the current wording at WP:GS subpages has consensus at all, at a glance. See eg Special:Permalink/654489355, Special:Diff/654489841, vs proposal, the earliest diffs of this wording I can find, at a glance. The 2nd diff contradicts the proposal, even. I'm assuming this was an attempt to make the pages more helpful, not to prescribe the requirements.

Best temporary solution here imo is to update all standard WP:GS subpages to the remedy wording of WP:GS/CASTE, which links to WP:AC/DS. A new subheading and a 1 line proposal for this may be most likely to get the community support required, since I suppose the above isn't generating much interest. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried changing the title of my user page using this tag like {{DISPLAYTITLE:Abdullah AL Shohag}} several times. But never worked. I think its maybe unauthorized. If so, please make me. Right now I have this template in my user page. Thanks. A. Shohag 07:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that DISPLAYTITLE can only be used to make a few specific changes, and it's not able to change what letters are shown: "if the displayed title is copied and pasted into a wikilink, the link should point to the original page" (WP:DISPLAYTITLE). For future reference, probably WP:Teahouse or WP:Help desk are better pages to ask questions to do with editing help. I hope this helps! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 08:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this - I'm pretty sure it won't work on a user page because the element you're trying to change isn't called title, it's called something else, therefore it won't accept the request to change the "title". W.K.W.W.K...^Talk 11:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DISPLAYTITLE can't be used to display a different title - it can only make stylistic alterations to the existing title such as changing the font and/or the color. This is true on any page, including mainspace.— Diannaa (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ShohagS: You can only use DISPLAYTITLE to change the formatting of a title, not the actual name of the page. You can't remove the "User:" prefix from a user page, and if you want your user page to be called "User:Abdullah AL Shohag" instead of "User:ShohagS", then you'd have to change your username. Also, in the future, issues like this one would be better raised at WP:VPT. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmcbarn, Diannaa, Wekeepwhatwekill, and Goldenshimmer: Thanks you all. But take a look at my user page in bnwiki which perfectly does the work I want. If {{DISPLAYTITLE}} doesn't do that work, then why isnot there something else? A. Shohag 03:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ShohagS: Because $wgRestrictDisplayTitle is false on bnwiki, as you can see in operations/mediawiki-config, but it's true here. When that's false, it lets DISPLAYTITLE change it to whatever you want, instead of just to the same text with different formatting. It could in theory be changed to false here if there were consensus to do so, but there almost certainly is not. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's more information at mw:Manual:$wgRestrictDisplayTitle. The convention on this wiki is that the page title and page name must match.— Diannaa (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa and Jackmcbarn: what if someone sets the value of $wgRestrictDisplayTitle to false customizing a different module? Will that be acceptable? A. Shohag 04:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ShohagS: What does "customizing a different module" mean? That's a sitewide setting. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might be better off asking this at WP:VPT; that's where the coders hang out.— Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But if there is community consensus that displaytitle should not be used to change the actual words of a page title (including on user pages), then trying to find a technical way around this consensus is not acceptable either, even if it is possible. Simply accepting that no, your user page title is your user name and moving on to more productive areas is the solution, not customizing some module. Fram (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Majavah: Just FYI, an editor has access to their own UTRS appeal (though not to UTRS generally). They just can't see admin-only and checkuser comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: I know. I was commenting on the sock that claimed that they aren't a sock and are just copying an appeal from UTRS. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 15:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it was just in case you didn't :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, if I were going to sock, I would try to stay under the radar and wouldn't draw attention to my other blocked accounts in a bizarre unblock request - but perhaps I'm just being too clever for my own good.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 14:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EllenCT is still disrupting the community, now on her usertalk page

I'd like to draw the community's attention to this endless arguing: User talk:EllenCT#August 2020. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, so don't go there. Granted, I was once blocked by an admin for telling someone on my talkpage that I don't want to discuss things further and I accept the block so please go away, and apparently that was considered disruptive. But in general, we give lots of latitude to blocked users to discuss or even vent on their talk page and it's not really a disruption to the project because if nobody reads their talk page the only person who it impacts is the talk page reader. There is no benefit to the encyclopedia to revoke or further sanction someone for posting on a talk page. Just simply stop going there if the ramblings are too much. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is nonsense. It looks like Ellen is just trying to understand how to avoid getting into trouble in the future and she's getting some helpful advice. That's hardly a matter for AN. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been multiple admin interventions on this entry to block name mentioning. Under whatever disguises and trickery.

Now it is being done again, with yet a new trickery method.

[[28]]

Please someone step in, remove those histories, and warn the infraction lovers...

Thanks a lot. Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the past history of the problem? This looks like nitpicking over the formatting of a name from my view of the link you provided. Are there prior AN or ANI reports on this issue so we can review the history of which you speak? --Jayron32 18:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, it was a contentious dispute over whether the real name of the blog's author should be mentioned in the article; see Talk:Slate_Star_Codex#Last_name, also this diff. Previous talk page entries that mention the full name have been revdel'd in the Talk and article history, Barkeep49, GeneralNotability, and King of Hearts have all recently performed revdel on the Talk page and Enterprisey on the article page. Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the summary. Perhaps one of them should continue to provide administrative support in this, since they've been dealing with it all along, and it's the sort of nuanced thing that most admins aren't going to be familiar with... I'll defer to them. --Jayron32 18:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name behind has not been a secret per se but neither has it been published on a site of Wikipedia's (or New York Times) scale. And there is a clear request from author not to do it which means a lot, absent other forms of consensus, according to WP:BLP. There are a lot of nuances to this issue, as David Gerard rightly points out on the talk page. I had taken this article off my watchlist as I was no longer following developments and did not think I could do a fair job of knowing when the tools would be in line with BLP or out of line with other core policies. So beyond adding a BLP DS notice to talk page, I am declining to exercise my administrative discretion and powers with that article at this moment. I think this might be best addressed at BLPN given the intertwining of behavior and content. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is very contentious, and the claim here is how to list a reference to a relevant RS. I suggest reading the talk page. And keeping in mind that it's an off-wiki cause celebre, with the subject of the article making arguably factually incorrect claims about his own actions - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion opened at WP:BLPN#Slate Star Codex. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement is in need of additional administrators to review and respond to complaints. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the background, see the discussion here. This page was deleted by user Deb yesterday. Then, after I asked, the article was restored to a version from 2018 and immediately (automatically?) sent to "Articles for Creation" where the nomination was denied. Now it exists as a draft here: Draft:Gaza Sky Geeks Problem is that I and other editors had worked on the article significantly since 2018 and all those revisions are lost. I believe my last edits to it was in July this year and it was in a much better shape than this draft. So can some administrator kindly restore the latest version of the page somehow? ImTheIP (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the histories if only to stop the parallel history problem from getting worse. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wug· - As the deleting admin, I should have been informed about this before the later, more promotional versions were restored. Now the draft is back to what it was like when it was deleted as G11. Deb (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that we have some infinite IP blocks, some dating back to 2006, infinite IP blocks. I would hope that we would not need to set blocks for longer than five years. I think that we should remove any infinite IP block that is older than five years, and convert any IP block to a timed block if it is less than five years. It is of zero issue to reblock any IP address that re-abuses for another five years. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's consensus that indefinite IP blocks are generally inappropriate, serve no meaningful purpose to the project, and should be lifted, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 158#Proposal about some indefinite IP blocks. tl;dr for the non-technically inclined: IPs can and do change, so the same person that was vandalizing Wikipedia 5+ years ago certainly isn't at that same IP anymore. Also, things have changed in the past few years; we now have not one, but two bots identifying and blocking open proxies. -FASTILY 03:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a list which includes IP ownership information at User:ST47/indef-blocked ips. It used to be worse, a few different people have gone through some of the oldest ones and cleaned them up. Though, I'm not sure why we're accumulating so many new indef blocks on individual IPv6 addresses... ST47 (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably misclicks. Twinkle defaults to indef blocks for certain rationales ("spam only", "vandalism only", etc). Twinkle (and other semi-automated tools) probably shouldn't allow people to indefinitely block IP addresses. I hate confirmation prompts, but MediaWiki should probably ask for confirmation, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle doesn't ever default to indef for an IP; if that's the case, it's a bug. I agree that it should just prevent it from being manually selected, though; that's an easy change. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I usually check that list once a year, and leave a message on this thread reminding all admins to go through that list and search for indefinite IP blocks by their username. Many times, an admin will do this accidentally using Twinkle or another semi-automated tool and where they accidentally left the duration set to "indefinite". If they shouldn't be there, they should be reduced to a definite duration. If they should be there, the block reason should have an explanation as to why. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oshwah. I generally don't overly pay attention to long term blocks here, more focusing elsewhere. I know that at meta and enWS that we are down to none, though note that the circumstances are different. I also know that when I was doing stewardry we stopped doing infinite blocks on IPs and the consequences at places has not been catastrophic. IMNSHO it should only be stepwise to infinite IP blocks, not the prime initial response. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason we should not now remove all indefinitely IP blocks imposed more than three years ago, and to convert all indefinitely IP blocks imposed less than three years ago into three-year blocks?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes complete sense to me, I don't see why an IP should have an indef at this point. Edit: Looking at the list, I do have a caveat, some of these are blocked proxies, which I would think need to remain in place. A few look to be LTA socks that were ranged blocked as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion last year that unblocked all indef'd IPs from before 2009, handled by a bot. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any data on how many of those IPs are now re-blocked? Or have contributed? Perhaps we can release another tranche of the old infinite blocks. –xeno^talk 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went through 2 or 3 thousand in the block log and didn't see any marked by the mark blocked gadget. 2009 was chosen as it was essentially the toggle point; there were maybe a couple hundred total from 2009 and later, compared to ~20,000 before 2009. Per Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs there were 126, roughly a fifth of which were from the last year. Many of those have been undone​. That is, the scale is entirely different, I'm not sure there's a "tranche" left to go through! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the analysis! Looks like a case-by-case thing then. –xeno^talk 16:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A number (indeed, the majority) of those are proxies, TOR, webhosts, self-requested blocks via OTRS, and more importantly Oversight blocks. Why would you want to be removing them? Black Kite (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought it is quite uncommon for IPs to stay at the same location for years. If I remember correctly, open proxies very rarely live longer than 6 months.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Only 2 are oversight blocks - I agree they should not be modified except by oversight team.

  169.241.10.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked by request of school district administration in 2006. I modified it in 2009 and wrote 'softblock' in the log summary but set it a hard block - I'm not sure which I meant to do or is appropriate now, 11 years later. Anyone can modify that one as they see fit. –xeno^talk 18:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite: I am not saying that there are not legitimate blocks among that lot, I am saying that there will be illegitimate blocks in that range. To me that is contrary to our blocking policy. I also know that internet-wise that since those blocks have been in place much has changed in a global WMF system, tools, bots, etc., even IPv6. With eyes wide open we should be removing the many blocks with review as required, and where there is problem we will be (re-)imposing blocks. I just would just prefer long-term blocks to have an expiry date, not be set and forget. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:U1Quattro has a long long history of conflicts here at WP. Recently they nominated some articles for deletion which no one noticed until after an article was turned into a redirect. Me and another editor, User:Davey2010 proceeded to add sources to the articles in question (Isuzu Forward and Isuzu Giga). U1Quattro, however, decided that this was unacceptable and began relisting, tag bombing, and generally showing that they are not able to function here. Basic things like calling other users "idiots" are troubling, but I am more worried about the users refusal to engage in discussion. When reverted, they always double down. After some prodding, U1Quattro will sometimes post on a talkpage, but never without first re-reverting. CF TVR Cerbera, Maserati Granturismo.

The user has several IBANs with a number of other users already, but understands the rules here at Wikipedia well enough to usually stop shy of anything getting a more severe reprisal. The user loves starting ANIs at the drop of a hat. Most recently this one, which led to more IBAN activity. On their user page they state the following:

You get on my nerves, I will bite hard. Plain and simple. If you don't like it, then avoidance is key.

Not a good attitude to a collaborative project IMHO. Personally I do try to steer clear of this user because it is very stressful to interact with them, but this year U1Quattro has begun editing articles on old Japanese commercial vehicles which is an area of interest of mine.

The user is a self-proclaimed deletionist but often deletes things indiscriminately. Sometimes they introduce errors through haste or carelessness. As an example, here is one set of troubling edits laid out as I attempted to get U1Quattro to own their errors and apologize for sloppy editing (introducing factual error: changing the meaning of a sentence not because they disagreed with it or because it was disputed but just through sloppiness). As usual, they responded aggressively and will not own their mistakes. At TVR Cerbera U1Quattro changed the classification of the car, a question which does not have a clear answer. There are tons of sources that support A, B, or both A and B in this question, and so it is deserving of a discussion. I reverted, citing WP:BRD, but naturally U1Quattro re- and then re-reverted.

Anyhow, any user can change and I had sort of been expecting U1Quattro to mellow out over the years, but they are just as strident, combative, and generally unpleasant to deal with as they have always been. I am not sure if I ought to ping some of the many other users with which U1Quattro has had disagreements with in the past; please advise. This ANI post is, btw, done reluctantly and after long consideration as U1Quattro has thus far succeeded in pushing out a number of users with whom he has argued with, but it is becoming a bit tough to do good work as of late.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are signs of just generally lazy editing, many of these AfD's boil down for me to "article quality bad, delete lol" and they very rarely produce many valid specific criteria for deletion. Incivility does appear to be a genuine concern here and, as noted, their behaviour hasn't changed much past being rather hostile and oftentimes defensive from what I can tell. Ed talk! 05:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all, I don't have several IBANs as OP claims here. I only have one ongoing IBAN with a user. Second of all, Davey2010 has started this mess by the use of offensive language and causing disruption. Instances can be seen here, here, here and here so I'm not the only one to blame over here for behavourial outbursts. The articles were nominated for deletion per WP:GNG and they still cite a majority of manufacturer sources which is something against WP:RELIABILITY. Third of all, as far as TVR Cerbera goes, the OP claims that there are "several" sources that call that a sports car but so far I have seen none. I, however, added the sources which call it a grand tourer. Fourth, about my user page, that is my personal name space. I can write what I want there, I don't think there is a need to point that out. Fifth, about Hino Ranger, I had already notified this user that if they have corrected the errors then it is fine by me. I don't see any issues with that neither I see a need to apologise over a petty mistake. I'm not the only one to blame here simply put, there are others who have been at fault too including the OP.U¹ _quattro TALK 06:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Actually no, You started this mess by reverting the article back to a redirect even tho it was sourced ... Sure you might of disagreed with the sources used however your next option would've then been AFD again. You also started all of this by edit warring with various people.....

As for offensive language - Sure I'll give you the first one but other than that I've remained calm and patient throughout.

Something quite clearly needs to be done here with this user. –Davey2010^Talk 11:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• U1Quattro may well be a productive editor; I haven't seen any evidence of it but that's partly because the most eye-catching feature of this editor is the slew of fights they get in. I see now that I blocked them a while ago for violating an iBan. Here is one from this year, a Floquenbeam block, which U1Quattro tries to blame on the other party. What is noteworthy in all these is the "OH ITS NOT ME ITS THEM" attitude, which contrasts nicely with last month's "The admins have the right to tell you and they told you to stop. So stop and STFU." And that user page is just asinine, completely unbecoming of someone who wants to work in a collaborative effort. Yes, that one comment by Davey wasn't great, but that's not blockable--though Davey knows I don't always appreciate their language. But while I have no intimate knowledge of the amount of disruption caused by the edits that this discussion started with, they warrant investigation, as does the attitude. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The user should be community-banned. What they write on their user page alone - "You get on my nerves, I will bite hard. Plain and simple. If you don't like it, then avoidance is key" - indicates that they are not temperamentally suited to participating in a collaborative project. Their block record confirms that impression. Sandstein 14:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein, I wonder if it's later in the day where you are, if the sun of human kindness has already sunk; for me the day is still fresh and young, the cup half-full and all that, but I know that's just my silly optimism. Thank you--you are right. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where I am it's late in the afternoon on a hot summer's day and I'm sitting in a shady garden just having opened a can of cold beer (the first today; maybe not the last), but I still can't find enough kindness in me to say that Sandstein is wrong, especially given U1Quattro's outburst here, which shows a total lack of self-awareness. Who knows, maybe without this editor cars will drop off the list of topic areas, like professional wrestling and hurricanes, that seem to a non-fanatic to be uncontroversial but actually keep generating drama. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cheers Phil. All the best to you. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Drmies the statement about the admins was said to a user who was disruptive as well as aggressive. I don't say that I'm not at fault in the disputes I get in. The other party is as equally responsible as me. Which is exactly what happened during that AN3 discussion as well as over Isuzu Giga which you have pointed out.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering Fram and Phil Bridger's comments above, U1Quattro, I have an idea, and I wish you'd had that idea too: why not start by scrapping, on your user page, everything between "As a human" and "not welcome"? Your career is dangling by a thread here, and surely we can't all be completely wrong and you the only one who's right. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • U1 - I'm not at all equally responsible for this no where near and to say I am is yet again taking the "Blaming others" approach, Sure I could've saved us the edit warring and done the RFC myself however given I'm not the one who had a problem with the image I sort of saw it as being pointless. Obviously you're aware of WP:BRD too. –Davey2010^Talk 17:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have never claimed that I'm always right. Neither here, nor anywhere else. I have pointed out that other parties are as responsible as me for starting the dispute Drmies. The sense of humour thing has nothing to do with collaborative effort as discussed by Phil and Sandstein. I have, however, made some changes to the user page.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A note: somehow or other this discussion drifted away without any sanction for U1Quattro at all. That was unfortunate. Given that they continually get in conflict with a rotating cast of other editors, I would like to suggest that a long enforced break would be beneficial to the project. --JBL (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that, JBL--it shouldn't have just disappeared. There was a clear consensus for an iBan, for starters. Let's hope that there's a couple admins around who will close this properly, no matter what the outcome. I'm thinking that a three-month block would be a good start. They made a few minor changes to their user page, so I'll forgo calling for an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Or a change in behavior, that would be just as nice. As it stands, U1Quattro is doubling down at TVR Cerbera and being allowed to continue exactly the sort of behavior that so many find problematic. The problem isn't so much what the user page states but that it perfectly expresses not only how U1Quattro feels about other editors but also how they edit. How many editors have to chime in before there is an administrative response? Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Again the issue is being about the same page about which the OP claims is a sports car while they have failed to present any sources that state it is a sports car. They used the undo button when I was trying to add the source and still did not bother with adding the sources when they had started a talkpage discussion. I had added the sources which supported what I had said. This behaviour by the OP shows that they are just as responsible as me for the disruption at TVR Cerbera.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  they are just as responsible as me for the disruption is not an acceptable standard. If you are just as responsible as another user for disruption, both you and the other user risk sanctions. If you are repeatedly just as responsible for disruption as another user, especially multiple other users, you risk serious sanctions. The acceptable standard is: complying with WP:PAGs, regardless of what another user does. ^Lev_!v^ich 01:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If the other user is responsible then they should also be sanctioned instead of me taking all the blame for the disruption caused. If we take TVR Cerbera as an example, the edit warring was started by OP and they deserve equal sanction for violating WP:3RR.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not engaging in an edit war, I followed the WP:BRD guidelines (and have continued not to violate 3RR even after U1Quattro refuses to restore the original content as they are supposed to do as per BRD). Bold, Revert, Discuss. It's not Bold, Revert, Re-revert. And TVR Cerbera is not the issue, this is just a part of a years long inability to be civil, to interact properly, and to be a good faith editor.

U1Quattro has mastered the art of the red herring, always doing their utmost to change the discussion to something that suits them better. I implore the admins to look at U1Quattro's talk page, history, user page, block log, etc etc. Something has to be done. Clearly U1Quattro is absolutely refusing to even consider modifying their behavior, continuing only to blame every single other editor who ever disagrees with them about anything, however minor a detail.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is not mandated by wiki policy. Yet the OP continues to mention and has been trying to force me to follow it. Further, the OP has also violated WP:3RR which is infact mandated by policy. They have also refused to engage in a discussion at TVR Cerbera which highlights their inability to discuss things. I'm not saying I'm right but the OP has been wrong and has violated a policy for which they should also be sanctioned.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN per Sandstein. Based on the discussion here and at numerous prior ANI threads, it seems this user is completely unwilling to take any feedback on board. I have yet to see any acknowledgment of a problem, never mind a commitment to improving. I think any further discussion is hopeless. Lev!vich 16:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I had my fair share of scrap with U1Quattro, which is why I backed off of him so I wouldn't get tangled with how he talks to people. Threatening to take it to Arbitration or report me for "misconduct" and "damaging his credibility" as well as making the odd false accusation, but I won't go into too much details since it already been said and gone. However I made the choice to not clash with him because I knew, from how he speaks and edit would make any rational user on here to become fed up with his attitude. --Vauxford (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I saw Davey's most recent 3RR report against U1Quattro the other day (maybe it was yesterday?) but I was busy and didn't do much digging; I had chastised Davey in a similar report not too long ago about reporting editors for 3RR when they were also revert warring. I was going to indef block U1Quattro for the "idiot" comments in that dispute but, I don't know, I was busy or something. After reading this I'm leaning towards agreeing with Sandstein that U1Quattro should just be indeffed until they get it. What is it? It's the attitude that they can do no wrong, that they can pick and choose which community standards to follow, that others' transgressions forgive their own, that if they're sanctioned then someone else must also be sanctioned and if not then there is nothing to learn, that they have no obligation to take suggestions or advice from anyone. Basically what Levivich said, but worse because U1Quattro has had these things explained repeatedly and they continue to not improve, and there's only so much rope that admins can extend. @U1Quattro: if someone doesn't decide to block you as a result of this report, it's very likely that the next time your behaviour leads to a report on one of these conduct noticeboards, you will be, and for a long time. What will you do to avoid being reported again? Don't talk about other editors in your response. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Since I was pinged above: I do not have time to review the newest situation in any detail, but I have observed U1Quattro's interactions with other editors for a while now, and believe that if U1Quattro can't stop feuding/fighting with so many people, they should be indef blocked. So, if the closing admin believe this can be construed as yet another case of feuding/fighting with yet another editor - no matter how minor it seems in isolation - then I support a CBAN; if not, then I have no opinion either way. That's probably of limited use, sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Ivanvector I have done what the administration required me to do at my user page. As far as behavioural issues go, I would avoid getting across some editors present in this thread due to behavioural issues of their own. Other than that, I will do effort to change my behaviour with how I deal with editors here.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very unsatisfactory response. I suggest you read WP:NOTTHEM and try again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't sound convincing. I'm not under the impression that you have any clue what went wrong. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will bow out simply because any response that I give which does not contain the words that I'd cooperate with every editor I come across no matter how offensive they are or how bad their attitude is, my response would be considered unsatisfactory.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you fail recognize your own mistakes. That's the problem. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support siteban given the response directly above this. Preemptively refusing to collaborate is an attitude incompatible with editing here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I refuse to collaborate with editors using language like this. If you think using the word "idiot" warranted an indef block then what about this?U¹ _quattro TALK 18:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHEAPFLOPPYBOOMERANG . — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Jazz I'm not making an unblock request. Even when blocked, I won't. Because when I'm expected to contribute with such people for being unblocked, I'd rather stay blocked.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro So you are essentially asking to be blocked in order to have a healthy discussion about your behaviour because you can't comprehend WP:NOTTHEM otherwise? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It mightn't be necessary, but I would like to point out that U1Quattro's link above regards a third editor, not me (OP). It's a boomerang flung after someone else.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support regular indef block till user adequately addresses their problem with interactions (and any other condition agreed to here) per subsection below in which Ivanvector says he blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CBAN per Levivich, for consistent intransigent behavior, even continuing on his talk page after being blocked. Resowithrae (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

U1Quattro has made 10 edits in this discussion, each one failing or outright refusing to acknowledge that their own poor attitude is the reason we're here talking about this, not the defensive reactions of the users they keep getting in fights with. A reasonable person ought to have long ago clued into the fact that getting in fights all the time might not mean that everyone else is to blame, particularly after so many editors have tried to explain, but U1Quattro just will not listen, and we've all wasted enough time. U1Quattro is indefinitely blocked. There is fairly strong consensus to elevate this to a site ban but that discussion should continue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I note above, I think this is a reasonable outcome, pending an agreement from U1Q to significantly alter their interactions with others. If that happens, I'm OK with this not being a community-imposed CBAN, requiring another community discussion to unban. Just a normal indef bock is fine. Also I noticed the edit summary that U1Q linked to just above, and just want to say somewhere for posterity, "no, you don't have to put up with that". I've left a warning for the other editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 all of the above. I'll counter-note, however, that it seems as though U1Q was campaigning against any development of that article for several days before Davey's clearly frustrated outburst. Not that that makes it okay, but, you know, context does matter. Also also: Davey had already acknowledged and apologized after the first time U1Q dropped that diff in this thread, and U1Q bringing it up a second time to a different admin is clearly asking the other parent, and more evidence of their battleground mentality. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI I've apologised to U1 for that outburst[29], As explained on my talkpage I've worked 3-4 days on that article trying my damned best to source it and improve the article as much as I could .... so i'll be honest it was disheartening and frustrating to see someone come alone and simply wipe away the work I put in,

Still I shouldn't of said what I did and I apologise for that edit summary, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, absolutely warranted by a country-mile but still uncivil - thank you for your apology and outstanding work to recover these articles :) Ed talk! 21:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed U1Quattro pushing several other editors over the edge in the past. I could be wrong, but I remember at least User:Typ932, User:Vauxford, User:Ybsone, and User:1292simon all getting in hot water over altercations with U1Q. There are probably more. I don't know if their statuses warrant any sort of reconsideration? Obviously they should have all been better at dealing with situations, but it has been frustrating to watch mostly good editors leaving and getting blocked.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.choppers Why should I be reconsider over this? After the IBAN between U1Quattro and Ybsone I backed away and tried to avoid the commotion as much as I could. Because I knew I would of end up in all sorts of mess if I kept getting involved. I already learnt the hard way of that happening to me anyway. --Vauxford (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna chime in here and say Tps leaving was more to do with me than it was him. (U1 for whatever reason jumped on my AN3 report but either way U1 wasn't the reason). No comment on the rest but Tps IMHO should be struck. –Davey2010^Talk 00:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, then I was worrying for nought. Good.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I approached S Marshall about draftifying an old article which had been created in 2016 and whose original author is no longer active. In our discussion, it came out that they plan to draftify up to 1200 more similar articles based on a consensus dated from July 2017, which had never actually been implemented.

In August 2017, the community extended G13 to cover all draft articles that have not been edited in six months, regardless of whether they went through the AfC process. This means that these 1200 articles, if moved to draftspace, will languish for six months and then be summarily deleted. I don't believe that this was the intent of the July decision.

WP:DRAFTIFY says that moving articles to draft space is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. As the changes to draftspace in August 2017 made the July 2017 decision an effective deletion of these articles, I propose that the decision to draftify them all be revisited, and these 1200 articles be dealt with through the deletion process in some form, either individually or en masse.

Here are a couple of options that I can think of:

• Bring back the X2 CSD criteria and use that instead, at least for the obviously uncontroversial ones;
• Tag them all for proposed deletion (ideally with a method to deal with anyone who reverts them all just to make a point);
• Use the AfD process as usual, handling uncontested nominations as expired prods.

Other editors more familiar with the history of the content translation discussions will surely have other ideas, and those are most welcome. – bradv🍁 13:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unless they're notable per the extended G13 to cover all draft articles that have not been edited in six months | consensus you've already indicated exists. I'm inclusionist by nature, but I agree, drafting an article should never serve as a backdoor to deletion, that gamesmanship! Delete them unless they're notable. W.K.W.W.K...^Talk 14:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wekeepwhatwekill, how and where do we determine whether these are notable? I agree with your standard, but I'm not clear on how we can decide that for 1200 individual articles. – bradv🍁 14:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bradv We already have guidelines to show us what's notable. They would work well in all of these cases! :) W.K.W.W.K...^Talk 16:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Wekeepwhatwekill: To clarify Bradv's question a bit: Suppose we stumble across an old CXT-created article whose topic does not meet our notability guidelines. Bradv is asking how we should delete the article, not whether we should delete the article: should we revive the X2 speedy deletion criterion, use PROD, use AfD, or move them to draft space? Mz7 (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mz7 ok....got it. I move for X2 speedy deletion. W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 18:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bradv has a point that draftify doesn't mean what it did when this was determined. Also, though I may be being a bit glib since I've admittedly not closely examined that massive old discussion, I don't see the urgency that would necessitate drafti-deleting them en masse. Restrictions have been placed on the content translation tool, and we're just left with these 1200 possibly non-notable and/or sub-par articles. 1200 sounds like a lot until you realize that's the normal number of new articles created every couple days here, so it doesn't seem like an "it's just too much work to handle them individually" issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Alas, it seems that after three years, interest in cleaning up the mess created by the poorly rolled-out content translation tool has diminished considerably. I would like to begin by thanking S Marshall for their continued efforts in this area. However, I also think that this discussion to revisit the 2017 decision to draftify the 1200 articles on that list is reasonable. It seems to me that the simplest solution at this stage is to use WP:PROD in lieu of draftifying. I'm not sure we need to do the PROD-tagging en masse. As I understand it, S Marshall has been going through the list somewhat organically and individually moving them to draft space; I think a reasonable alternative is to simply use WP:PROD instead of moving to draft space. Mz7 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Bradv, Fixing them is an option. But they can't really be left in mainspace and if can be bothered to fix them then why should we care? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that they can't be left in mainspace, nor do I have an opinion on whether they should. But if the idea here is that we can dump them in draftspace and let people work on them, that won't work. It probably wouldn't have worked in 2017 either, before the G13 expansion, but it definitely won't work now. – bradv🍁 17:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This whole backlog attracts a lot of attention from those who want to decide how someone else should fix it. It doesn't get much attention from people who want to muck in and fix it.
  I shan't be using PROD. I've tried, and what happens is, the PROD patrollers look at it and see what superficially looks like a plausible/fixable article, so they want to send it to AfD; and that's a set of interactions that makes me tired and demotivated. Mz7 is welcome to PROD them all and then deal with the deproddings.
  Those of you who want to change how I deal with it: please come up with a suggestion that you, personally, are willing to implement. Or else leave it to me, in which case, please just let me do it this way.—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the PROD patrollers look at it and see what superficially looks like a plausible/fixable article, so they want to send it to AfD — isn't that the deletion process working exactly as it should? It sounds like you are saying you are moving these to draft because you don't want to deal with deleting them through the usual channels, but WP:DRAFTIFY is explicitly not supposed to be used like this. If you're feeling tired and demotivated by this task, take a step back from it; there is no deadline. – Joe (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I have taken a break from it. I didn't edit at all in 2018, and then I came back in 2019 to find that nobody had done any work on the backlog in my absence. The issue is that we're now four years after the WMF's stupidity created this issue in the first place, and there are BLPs among these articles, and they do contain mistranslations. Please, please read the whole discussion with an open mind, reflect on it, and understand the whole problem in context before opining that it's fine to leave these in the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 21:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

isn't that the deletion process working exactly as it should?

Not really. Because in cases like this, the process is so inherently glacial and frustrating that no one wants to do it. So the articles sit, stagnate and basically just cling to the hull of Wikipedia like barnacles. The deletion process, in this case, is actually detrimental to improving the Wiki. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We should take a look at each one, even if only brief, but I can't find a proper list of the 1200 affected articles. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Draftification list July 2017 is a mixed bag. @S Marshall: if you want help, you have to provide at least the list or affected articles, or for those already moved, drafts. I could probably help, but I NEED a list. Right now you are about to draftify 1200 articles (I assume you haven't draftified all of them yet?) and I have no idea exactly which articles that will be, which is a bit frightening. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. I used to work off WP:AN/CXT/PTR, but someone called User:ToThAc decided that list had been superseded by another list in their userspace that I found much harder to work with; so now I'm keeping the list of stuff I haven't looked at yet in my sandbox here.
  I should be clear that I absolutely do not intend to draftify 1200 articles in the next few days. I've been looking at them at a rate of about a dozen a week -- and of those, at least half of them pass my sniff test. When they do, I simply mark the affected article with {{translated}} on its talk page (to make the article Terms of Use compliant) and then remove it from my list without draftifying. It's only when I'm not completely confident that I speedy-move it to draft space.
  What you're looking for here is software mistranslations. When the WMF deployed that tool, they encouraged people to move articles from one wiki to another. Unfortunately, the way it was deployed encouraged users from foreign-language Wikipedias to use the tool to move articles to en.wiki even when those users didn't speak English. And a lot of the articles were then fixed up into plausible English by people who didn't speak the source language. Unfortunately, this means the algorithm introduced translation errors that nobody has detected yet.
  If you'd like to help, please do start with the BLPs, because I've found some amazing howlers. Feel free to edit that list; the fact that it's in my userspace shouldn't deter you in the slightest.—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: I see no issues with Blokdijk (en ik begrijp Nederlands), 1 down, 1199 to go. What do you mean with "mark the affected article with {{translated}} on its talk page (to make the article Terms of Use compliant)"? Like this? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, exactly like that! Thank you. The Terms of Use thing is because translating from one language Wikipedia to another is technically copying within Wikipedia so we have to credit the original authors on the foreign-language wiki for their work. (Strictly speaking there's a lacuna in that procedure, if the foreign-language article gets deleted but we keep ours; the contributors can no longer be identified so we're in breach of our terms of use. It's a rare but not unknown case which I view as an administrative headache rather than an editorial one.)—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless this discussion reaches consensus on an alternative procedure, I intend to resume my work on this backlog on the basis of the 2017 consensus, which will mean continuing to draftify.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: Can you put this on hold for a few days while I think about alternative procedures? I have a reputation. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess it's unsurprising there haven't been a lot of new ideas here – we have fairly well-established processes for deleting articles, and there doesn't seem to be anything too unusual about these other than there are a lot of them, and not a lot of people want to work on them.
  At this point I'd suggest adding something along the lines of {{Cleanup translation}} to each of these articles, which will provide two functions: (a) place these articles in a tracking category, and (b) advise the reader that the content needs help. Then, as time permits, we can go through each of these articles and nominate the non-notable ones for AfD. I would be willing to help with this process. @S Marshall and Alexis Jazz: is this a workable plan? – bradv🍁 13:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, when you say "there doesn't seem to be anything too unusual about these", I don't really agree with you, and I would respectfully refer you to all the excitement in the discussion that I previously linked. There were a lot of longstanding, respected editors in favour of some drastic, prompt and novel actions, and that's why the community used an edit filter to stop any more of these articles being created, and it's why when I (personally) suggested that we invent a new speedy deletion criterion for these, it gained sufficient consensus to be implemented within a few days. Have you read enough of that discussion to understand why?—S Marshall T/C 14:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps you can explain what I'm missing. From what I can see, there were originally about 3600 articles that needed to be dealt with, and now we're down to 1200. Presumably those aren't the worst offenders, which is why you boldly deprecated the X2 criteria saying it was no longer necessary to speedy-delete these. In the discussion, you yourself objected to draftifying these articles, saying Draftification is exactly the same as deleting them. Nobody is going to fix these up in draft space. So if we can't speedy them, and we can't draftify them, why can't we enlist the readers help in fixing them up, and AfD them as necessary? What am I missing? – bradv🍁 14:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of SQL (talk · contribs) have been restored.

Katie^talk 19:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Change to CheckUser team

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on Hipocrite (talk · contribs) by Remedy 14 of the Climate change case ("Hipocrite topic-banned") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Climate change

Someone has taken it upon themselves to recreate an already deleted shortcut, literally one week after it was deleted. I suspect someone wants to bludgeon the process. I request this request be closed down as being done too soon (yes I know consensus can change, but in one week? ) and that this redirect be protected from being re-created for the time being. W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 11:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August_4#Cup Foods (closed). Let's let the RfD run its course. Salvio 12:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

has been hijacked and rewritten. Can someone handle that please (split or discard)? Cheers, --Achim (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - restored old version - will start new draft and invite Kdb0152 (talk · contribs) to edit there. Ed talk! 18:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Achim55, in future you can go to the page history and use a tool like Twinkle or RedWarn to quickly restore it and warn the offending party. Ed talk! 18:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is going on here? Kdb0152 is a WP:SPA and likely connected to the the questionably-notable actor. The user subsequently moved the article to Albert Kedrick Brown (I moved it back because Kedrick Brown appears to be the common name). The content that Kdb0152 is adding includes: "Houston made and Littlerock raised, actor Kedrick Brown is making major waves in Hollywood. This talented actor is catching the attention of major network execs, directors and producers throughout the film and television world. Brown began acting at the age of twelve. He graduated from Midland Robert E. Lee High School as an UIL All Star Cast Member and decided to further his acting training after being convinced by his Theatre Arts teacher. Brown then went on to earn his Bachelor of Arts in theater from the University of North Texas and trained in the University of Houston’s M.F.A. program with a focus in acting". That is... differently neutral. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• TheDonald.win (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just increased protection for this from sprot to full protection for the duration of the ongoing AfD due to revert warring by WP:SPAs apparently driven by the forum itself. I'm mentioning it here for two reasons: first, the meatfest at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheDonald.win, and second, I removed some unsourced material yesterday - I have no edits prior to reviewing it yesterday following a noticeboard thread but if anyone thinks that my protection should be undone or changed per WP:INVOLVED, please feel free. Maybe ECP or PC would be better? I don't know. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) JzG, ECP would be better here IMO. A quick MAT scan shows a majority of disruptive editors on this article are not extended confirmed. An indef semi may be warranted (alike to r/The_Donald) given the nature of the article. Ed talk! 13:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here are some threads I've found re this article: [31] [32]. It looks like the article was actually created by article community members, however, I cannot comment on who per WP:OUTING. Ed talk! 13:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ed6767, makes sense, done. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I closed the AfD, since it was about 12 hours past the normal run time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very good close. I had looked at it, although I wasn't looking to close it myself, and came to the exact same conclusion you did. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riots / violence that took place recently in the city of Bangalore. This article is getting the same level of attention and vandalism as 2020 Delhi riots, considering how OpIndia (RSP entry) has written about it today. Tons of off-wiki canvassing already happening, regarding both pages. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woody has bumped the article to ECP, that should help. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need an uninvolved and fairly patient admin to read through Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#E-960 and close it. There are some options: let it go with a self-imposed ban on "Religion" topics, let it go altogether!, or impose a community-supported topic ban in an area to be determined (there are some options). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]