It is looking possible that sometime this year, the country currently known as Turkey will be acknowledged to have changed its English name to Turkiye or Türkiye (matching the spelling in Turkish). However, it has not yet done so to the satisfaction of the UN, the AP, or other sources that Wikipedia follows. There is likely to be a steady stream of ECP editors who want to change this name on articles such as Turkey before there is consensus to do so. Could admins please watchlist that page (and related articles such as Name of Turkey) to watch for any disruption that may occur, and to shut down untimely RM discussions? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it does change its name, we should retain its current name until such time as the common spelling changes. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rockstone35 makes a good point. We follow the sources, not the country's preferences. No one in Germany calls their country "Germany", they call it Deutschland. We use the name that is common in English speaking countries, so we may eventually change it's spelling at Wikipedia, but not instantly, and not until most sources are using that spelling. See WP:COMMONNAME. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that COMMONNAME does not support us following the name common in English speaking countries. Instead it supports us following the name in "independent, reliable English-language sources". The only time we restrict to English speaking countries is when it comes national varieties of English. Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And even there we have the WP:COMMONALITY exception. BilledMammal (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It took many years for us to change Kiev to Kyiv. (A change I was opposed to.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If only we were the sort of encyclopaedia that told readers about "Anadolis" (Anatolia), "Anadolu", "Türkistan", "Türkeli", "Rumi", "Osmanli", and what "Rum" actually meant. Like Masters 2010, p. 574 is. But we are, instead, the sort of encyclopaedia where Name of Turkey mentions the current name change twice over, once in the wrong section, devotes 4 out of its mere 20 sources to that, and has none of the history, even of the various competing alternatives for the Republic.

The fact that we have crap explanations in the first place is why we have ended up in these situations many times.

• Masters, Bruce Alan (2010). "Turkey". In A ́goston, Ga ́bor; Masters, Bruce Alan (eds.). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 9781438110257.
• Everett-Heath, John (2019). "Turkey". The Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192602541.
• Akşin, Sina (1999). "Factors put forward to explain independence movements in the Balkans". In Delilbaşı, Melek; Ergenç, Özer; Kayapınar, Levent (eds.). South East Europe in History, the Past, the Present and the Problems of Balkanology. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Companyğrafya Fakültesi Yayınları. p. 43. ISBN 9789754824711. […] When the Ottomans wanted to say 'Turkey' they used the Italian or Spanish form, 'Türkiye', instead of the Turkish forms Türkeli or Türkistan. […]

Sina Akşin is a history professor at the University of Ankara.

Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Uncle G: If you have all these reliable sources and are aware of what all these terms mean, why not just improve Name of Turkey? It's not like there's a cabal of editors stopping you or enforcing a viewpoint, there just hasn't been enough people editing the article. There's literally nothing stopping you from just editing the article and adding this information. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's someone else's turn. I wrote things at user talk:Girth Summit#Sockpupperties, user talk:Drmies#In popular culture, and Geographic Names Information System this week; and that's more than enough, not least after user talk:Drmies#February songs, Pity#Mediaeval conceptions, and Bulfinch's Mythology the week before. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following appeal is made by Coldstreamer20, posted by myself. I and several others discussed it and ultimately I advised the user to submit an appeal to the Community, which they do so now.

---

I was blocked back on the 13th of January for using (what I thought at the time) as copyright images free to use on sandboxes, but not on main space pages. Now, this quickly became an issue when @JJMC89 (who I thought was a bot at the time) kept reverting the images which caused the issues. These images, I can say I knew were copyrighted, however I didn't until around the 15th or so understand the images issue on Wikipedia. After I learned the issues this could cause, I began trying to fix the issue, but was blocked while removing them in my edit. Later on, I learned (after this block) that JJ is in-fact not a bot, and a real person so we were going back-and-forth. Editors can see here the back and forth issues. So, this brings us to the issues which at the time, but now after the block realise:

• 1) JJ is NOT a bot (something I thought, because the first edit says the user is 'JJMC89 bot', and didn't see the others weren't from this bot
• 2) The reverted edits from JJ stated "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). Non-free files are only permitted in articles." Something which at the time I actually thought was just an automated message.
• 3) After realising my mistake, I saw I was going back-and-forth as I stated with JJ, not realising he was actually an admin removing copyrighted images.
• 4) Why was this an issue for me? Well, I wasn't aware at the time that I couldn't use the copyrighted images even on my Sandboxes, which I hadn't understood. After the block, I took the time to check the image issues and noticed the problems it causes and the issued I didn't understand regarding the use of the images. I thought that they were fine to be used on sandboxes because they aren't in the mainspace, but I then learned this isn't the case, and can't be used at all, ONLY on the page is for.
• 5) What can I do? Well, #1 As I stated, I took the time to check what the issue actually was, and I will admit, after the block happened because I hadn't realised JJ was not a bot and wanted to stop with the back-and-forth. #2 after I took the time to check the issues, I saw how this can be an issue and very much understand how the images can only be used on the pages they are for, and nothing else. #3 Restrictions:
  • #3A) Remove ALL images from my sandboxes, and only add them with consent of an admin or someone who wouldn't mind checking over the page first.
  • #3B) Require all pages moving from sandboxes go to draft first and be reviewed, and in that case have an admin check for image/copyright issues, which can be problems on the page and down the road.
• 6) Where does that leave me? I will admit that when this was all occurring at the beginning of the month, I honestly didn't realise that JJ wasn't a bot. As I stated, that first edit was from his bot, and immediately assumed that they were all from the bot because it was the same changes every time. This caused issues, and I can freely admit now that this wasn't just a copyright issue, but a problem because I was reverting an admin's edits. I very much know how this looks to others as if I couldn't care about JJ's authority or his good work trying to make sure copyright issues don't occur.
• 7) As I stated, I freely admit I was wrong, and not just wrong, but an idiot (frankly) and acted like a fool, not checking that it was in-fact JJ, and not a bot who was reverting the edits so that way copyright issue wouldn't occur. At the time, I had no idea that the images couldn't be used on sandboxes, but now that I know this I very much see the problem this causes and an/will cause for me and my background for edits.

I hope I've answered everything which was needed to be answered, and hope I'm able to be un-blocked, because I really want to do more on Wikipedia and have plenty to share. The images issue is a very recently problem for me, as I've typically not done much in the way of images, and made an honest mistake which unfortunately JJ took far very quickly without warning. I know that even when I had this issue occurring, I was planning on making changes to my pages and such, especially regarding copyrighted images which need to be replaced, adding my own made images, and remove myself from post-1900 military edits as per the discussions by Buckshot06. I very much want to come back though, and hopefully get rid of this stain and not do any image additions which would cause copyright issues.

Cheers, Coldstreamer20

• Note: CS20 also requested I include a link to this discussion. That discussion also links to two other discussions, most notably this request for a TBAN that are likely relevant to any editing restrictions imposed in the event of an unblock Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Unblock per WP:ROPE. CS20 seems to understand why they were blocked, and are making the right statements about how to proceed going forward. I'm agnostic on the TBAN noted above; the discussion seems to have been cut short after they were blocked, and I'm not sure where the community would have gone given more time. However, I think the block is obviated at this point, and we should welcome CS20 back, with the understanding that they are on a short leash with regards to copyright vios and disruption of MILHIST topics. --Jayron32 16:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock - Coldstreamer20, you need to understand this:- the only place that a non-free image may be used is in article space. If writing an article in a sandbox or draftspace, the image cannot be added to Wikipedia until after the article is live. If you can keep to that then there won't be a problem. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock - given the circumstances surrounding this block and the likelihood of any further problems with image-use, I think CS20 should be unblocked. That said, editing restrictions have been proposed more than once (most recently by Buckshot06), and those proposals should not continued to be de-railed. There should be a complete sounding done on whether any restrictions are needed, or if mandatory mentoring should be required. That said, I know there have been several problems with CS20's editing, but I believe he has good intentions and a desire to improve. (imo) - wolf 04:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unblocking The enormous amount of errors and mistakes this user has committed across large parts of the military history space require that editing restrictions - a topic ban - be imposed before this user is unblocked. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remain blocked with a note that persistent problems with editing conventions are the cause, partially per Eggishorn. I do not want to have to clean up any more of this user's mistakes. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock with TBAN per the scope agreed in the prior conversations (milhist) - I think ROPE suggests we should unblock, but the prior conversations were very clear at showing a consensus for a TBAN so that need be a condition of any unblock. I'm just checking that @Buckshot06: is aware that a condition can be designated in an AN appeal - it would actually be unusual to try and designate it elsewhere first. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure whether this discussion *is* an AN appeal. I am not worried about the exactitudes of whatever formal process we're in. I just do not want this user editing any military-related articles, broadly defined, in future. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a full AN-appeal, submitted by request of CS20, although I did advise it I specifically didn't rule out a different admin making a direct choice on the indef (this does mean it comes with the flipside of, if we decline it, it will become a CBAN) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unblocking A user who has amassed five substantive blocks in little more than three years has been given quite a lot of ROPE already. When Arbcom unblocked J-Man11/Coldstreamer20, they kind of goofed a bit. The then-current Checkuser block was successfully appealed but the prior disruptive editing block from Lourdes was apparently not. One would think that J-Man11/Coldstreamer20 would then try to step carefully. That they did not is evidenced by the two recent AN threads by Buckshot06 linked above which point to the exact type of sloppy referencing and repeated violations of the WP:CCPOL that preceded their reprieve and which they also committed while socking. The request above says all the right things but frankly is not credible. They claim that they mistook JJMC89's reverts and warnings for their bot's. Why does that mean they should have ignored those warnings? They say they thought the message from the bot was an automated message. Well, of course it was. Again, why does that mean they should have ignored it? The revert message was crystal clear and their own subsequent edit summary of "this is a sandbox, not an article" when warned against using non-free files anywhere but articles is baffling. The request explains over and over and over again that they couldn't tell JJMC89 bot from JJMC89. Are they really that unable to discern the difference between those user names? Didn't they think once to click the links? The previous blocks, warnings, AN threads, and SPI represent a sustained and repeated failure to either not read or not understand or not follow the feedback they receive. That they only mention their more fundamental errors as an afterthought of this request does not give any confidence they will suddenly start follow feedback now if unblocked. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Eggishorn, I'm skeptical of unblocking given this user's history of WP:IDHT. I oppose unblocking unless there is a topic ban enacted to prevent the constant time suck for milhist editors dealing with this editor's non policy compliant contributions. (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would again strongly request all involved in this discussion to oppose any unblock. Coldstreamer20 should not be able to edit on this site. I have just (again) had to make a series of corrections at 24th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom) which demonstrated that Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) was unaware of the sequence of events regarding the airmobile trials for 6th Armoured Brigade; skipped lightly over a decade of service which meant that the unaware reader might have thought that the airmobile role for 24 Brigade started in the 1970s while it was in Northern Ireland; misattributed the nature of what Anthony Beevor was talking of when he mentioned the brigade's new role in Inside the British Army (did not give unit/location listing, but described the new role generally, including exercises); and missed out a whole Army Air Corps regiment which was mentioned in one of his key sources (Vieuxbill, *not "Vieux-Bill*), but probably not in the Wikia listing which this user was probably copying out of. I am beyond tired of having to run around after this user making multiple fixes of fact and implication. He's had far too much WP:ROPE already. Keep him blocked!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it will soon be archived without a resolution. This is not fair to either the appellant or the community. Could some kind admin please assess this discussion and give a definitive verdict for the appeal? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonathunder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights · renames · global renames)
• Special:UserRights/Righanred

Hi all, a few days ago I got an alert that stated that the user Jonathunder removed my account as an extended confirmed user. I'm not sure why they would have done this unless it was an accident because my account passes the 30 days tenure and 500 edits requirement per WP:XC. Jonathunder has made edits since they removed my extended confirmation and have not responded to my message on their talk page that I made on Feb 6. I am hope that by bringing up this matter here that I can either: A. Have an accidental change to my account rights reverted, or B. Figure out what I did wrong. Hope y'all have a plesant day. --Righanred (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate thought is to wonder why Jonathunder has not responded to the various messages left, and why removal of a perm you attained almost a year ago received no actual reason in the userrights change, and why it shouldn't just be re-added. I'm not going to wheel-war with them, but it's very tempting to reinstate purely from a "lack of reason" perspective. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If requires community consensus to avoid wheel-war, count me as supporting restoring rights absent an explanation from Jonathunder.Slywriter (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very disappointed by the lack of communication, and I'm not seeing anything EC-remove-worthy. I did notice that this isn't the first time Jonathunder has removed EC,[2] in case that provides any clue. Am I right in thinking those people still don't have EC? I think all we require here is have a few more people check for any concerns, before we assume it was a mistake. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They do not. I'm rather more interested in this granting of both Confirmed and EXCon for a brand-new user who then proceeded to make a single edit to an unprotected page (and has never edited since). Primefac (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since the page in question has never had any protection applied. How does changing the image on a low-traffic uncontroversial insect stub require any permissions to "help a new user"? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've gone ahead and restored the right; Jonathunder seems to edit sporadically, was asked about this days ago with no response, and just because Righanred is being gracious about it doesn't mean we have to sit on our hands. I look forward to an explanation when Jonathunder resumes editing. It's quite possible the other two editors should also have extended confirmed restored, but I've run out of time to look into their edits, at least for a few hours. Any takers? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and thanks everyone for the fast response.--Righanred (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)  Administrator note another admin has already restored this, I'm supportive that the no-reason logged removal should be reversed in this case without this beeing a WHEEL, at least during Jonathunder's absence from this discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It wouldn't actually be wheel-warring to revert - that requires reinstating a reverted action (here, the removal is the initial action, it's not a revertion). That said, I would support its return, but would like to hear the admin's response on their return Nosebagbear (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Unrelated, but when going to Jona's talkpage to look at Righanred's situation, I saw there was another notification for an RFD on The Andrew formerly known as Prince. It's a redirect he created about two weeks ago as a joke, I presume? He's made some odd choices recently. — Moe Epsilon 15:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's a discussion about one user's rights being removed: User_talk:Jonathunder#Edit_rights. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok so I did some more digging and I noticed that the one edit that Jonathunder made on the day he took my extended confirmation rights away was an edit to Andrew Cuomo changing the lead image, claiming that there was "no consensus for other photo with odd expression". I don't do a lot on Wikipedia except for updating lead photos from time-to-time so I went back to see if I had made an edit on that page and sure enouch, I changed that article's lead image on 21:48, 30 November 2021. Did he remove my rights out of spite for changing the lead image of an article three months earlier? And isn't no one changing the lead image for three months a consensus in its own right per WP:EDITCON? As you can see, I'm new to this lol.--Righanred (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming good faith, I would guess that he perceived it as vandalism, and removed extended confirmed to prevent you editing more controversial articles. Leaving aside whether that's fair, the process was definitely not. Theknightwho (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI I nominated the Prince Andrew redirect when looking at this posting out of curiosity and seeing the edit history. Is this another case of an old (confirmed in 2006) admin maybe a little out-of-touch with current norms, as detailed above in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#We_need_the_ARS ? ValarianB (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's unlikely it would have been noticed otherwise, since Jonathunder popped back in to regrant himself autopatrolled in December. – Joe (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think at this point there's enough oddities going on, and weird choices, that Jonathunder kinds should explain these decision to the community. The rights thing that started this thread looks like a very odd punitive action for a very good faith edit to replace a photo with a more up to date one. Canterbury Tail talk 17:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and the idea that this is a legacy admin "a little out-of-touch with current norms" looks weak. The sequence of edits that Righanred posted is very concerning and "Administrators are expected to never use the tools to gain advantage in an editorial dispute" has been a norm for as long as I've been around. I believe it extends right back to 2004, so this isn't an expectation he wasn't aware of. I don't want to impute malice to what could plausibly be oversight but we really need to hear from Jonathunder before he makes any other administrative actions. I think that's the very least we should expect here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Jonathunder got their admin stripes only 5 months before I did, so that's not really an argument. There are lots of us around from those days that are up to date on what the rules are. Are mistakes occasionally made? Sure, but they're acknowledged and learnt from. All being said, Jonathunder doesn't seem to use the admin tools very often, not that that's a crime. Canterbury Tail talk 18:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The two other users Jonathunder had removed EC from were BC1278 and Darcourse. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Think they should be restored, if they asked at WP:PERM we'd put a call out to the removing admin, but barring some good explanation would re-grant. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm seriously tempted to restore them. Darcourse has edited as recently as today. BC1278 hasn't edited yet in February, but was active on January 31. There seems to be no reason for them not to have user groups that are supposed to be automatic. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, I did just restore them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ONUnicorn: That restoration of rights seems completely justified. Jonathunder appears to have removed Darcourse's EC rights solely because Darcourse restored an Oxford comma (diff) several hours after Jonathunder removed it at Paul Allen (diff). Jonathunder removed the Oxford comma again (diff) and EC rights (log) without comment. Based on the Interaction Analyzer, this is their only direct interaction. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be worth adding to this conversation, that not all editors that got the mop long ago and don't edit much make 'weird choices'. Jeepday (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As a longstanding PERM admin, to my knowledge, reversal of automatic EC is not something that I have ever seen done. I can't find any policy guidance on it one way or another. Regardless, just with any sanction, there needs to be clear violations, a clear explanation, and a clear demonstrable preventative aspect to the action, and I'm not seeing any of that here. The user was not even editing ECP articles when their EC flag was revoked, in essence partially blocking them from all 8327 ECP articles. Could you imagine if an admin just partially blocked someone from editing a list of over 3,000 articles, randomly spread across various subject areas, without any log entry or any explanation? There'd be an emergency desysop in a heartbeat, so please let's keep the gravity of this action in mind here. Also I note a clear pattern of out-of-touch permissions changes, including stripping others of EC (one without any log entry or explanation, one because he thought they "didn't need it", not because they did anything wrong), granting ECP to an account with one edit, and granting Confirmed to non-autoconfirmed accounts without good reason (he confirmed MeganKalene31 after unblocking her for copyvios (which a second admin disagreed with), and he confirmed Lanelsen "per request", an account that had only insignificantly edited in a sandbox and had never communicated on-wiki.) Not good. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No comment on this situation, but I do know that ECP has been removed from people who are clearly gaming the system, often for PAID or DS reasons. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not looked too much into this specific situation, but I know I have seen editors get EC revoked following a community discussion on AN/I or the like. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Swarm: removal of ECP is rare, and when it was more tied to an arbcom remedy was even rarer, as @Barkeep49: mentioned it is normally only routinely done when someone has obviously gamed the threshold, normally with an AN(/I) thread about them, and generally with a direction of something like "once you have made 500 new non-trivial edits, you may ask for restoration at PERM, or on "my talkpage"). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a series of disturbing actions noted above. Is it too early to discuss desysopping? We all make mistakes, but there's a real issue here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's too early to discuss desysopping. Jesus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not Jesus... but thanks for the compliment. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of this is arguing in circles until Jonathunder responds to the above thread. It was only posted a day ago. Let's all simmer down. --WaltCip-(talk) 16:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolutely. Agree with you and Flo. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it too early to talk about desysopping? We have seen proof that this is not a case of a legacy admin "a little out-of-touch with current norms", but of someone who obviously should never have been let anywhere near adminship. No response can change that. We are here to produce an encyclopedia, not to be nice to someone who has less ability to be a good admin than my two-year-old grandson. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Posts that register over 5.0 on the hyperbolemeter belong at ANI, not AN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It has now been a week since Righanred's request for accountability from Jonathunder. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  True, but it has also been 5 days since Jonathunder has edited. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm primarily making sure that this doesn't get archived. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My own two cents is that someone who edits as infrequently as Jonathunder does right now shouldn't be using the tools because there's no possibility of accountability. If they became more active that would be a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there's necessarily an issue with an admin editing sporadically, but when they are alerted to a complaint about their admin actions and do not respond promptly, that is a problem.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wandering in kinda late, noting for the record that I've revoked the use rights granted to MamaTeeth as obviously out-of-process. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• On the Andrew redirect referred to earlier,its origins seem to be this post, which I admittedly found funny. But I was bit surprised to subsequently see the RfD and more surprised to see that the redirect was created by him. Now, us mere mortals might get up to that sort of malarkey but it does seem odd that an admin does that. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have deleted the redirect. Jay (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion in the archive in which there seemed to be consensus to overturn the RfC closure but no one has yet done anything about it. Please do something about it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the AN discussion as clear consensus to overturn the RfC close and allow for a reclose. I'll leave it to others to perform that reclose, and it may be listed at WP:CR if no one initially takes it up. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reclosed the original discussion. – Joe (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I big "hello" to my fellow colleagues and editors this fine Saturday! I hope everyone who reads this discussion is doing well, staying safe, keeping healthy, and are enjoying their weekend so far! :-)

TL;DR - All IP address blocks (whether applied to an individual IP address or range), regardless of the block settings applied (I found this issue with an IP range block with account creation still allowed), currently result in access to Special:PasswordReset being denied to non-logged in users that are from within that blocked IP address or range.

Long version - I'm here to bring a very interesting issue to the attention of my fellow knights at the round table here. I was poking around on IRC for a bit while taking a break from patrolling logs and updating some AbuseFilter code, and I saw that an anonymous editor was currently in the #wikipedia-en-unblock channel waiting for help from someone and with getting their password reset to their Wikipedia account.

The user stated that their IP address was currently blocked from editing Wikipedia, that they were trying to use Special:PasswordReset to recover the password to their account so that they could log in to edit, and were being disallowed from accessing the page and that the error stated that it was due to their current IP block. Writ Keeper had just started to respond to them when I did as well. This spiked my curiosity; as far as I remembered from technical knowledge and experience with helping editors in the past with similar situations, only IP address or range blocks that were set as hard blocks (no account creation, and no editing from existing accounts unless they are IP block exempt) would have access to the account recovery page restricted by users current under that range. I looked at the IP address that they were using to connect to IRC, and nothing came back at all; no range blocks - nothing. I wanted to keep digging and figure out what was going on....

After I had the user visit whatismyip.com and respond to us with their public IPv6 address, I went and looked for any current IP or range blocks that were affecting it. This is where things got much more interesting (and perhaps even concerning to me)... Their IPv6 address was currently affected by a range block. However, not only was it not a hard block that disallowed editing by existing accounts without IPBE, it didn't even have the account creation restriction set. It was a completely soft block that was placed only to disallow editing by anonymous users; it didn't restrict them from creating accounts. "Umm... what?!! am I seriously seeing what I think I'm seeing?", I asked myself...

From there, I told myself, "Okay, this is unlikely the problem, but why not?... Let's just temporarily unblock the IP range, have the user try accessing the special page again, and - if anything, I'll know for sure that this isn't the problem." I went and unblocked the IP address range and with an explanation that it was temporary, and in order to have a user who's requesting assistance test something to see if we might have an issue." I had the user try accessing the special page and enter username into the field. The user responded just a few moments later that it was now working. He could now access Special:PasswordReset and recover his account. I went back and re-instated the original block and set back to both its original parameters and duration.

So... It goes without saying... we obviously have a problem here. I do not believe that we should be restricting users from accessing Special:PasswordReset if their IP address or range is currently blocked, and where both account creation and the editing by logged-in accounts are set to be disallowed (a hard IP address block). In situations where less-restrictive blocks are currently applied, users should not be restricted from being able to recover their account so that they can log in and edit. In this situation, neither flag was set, and the user couldn't recover their account until I temporarily lifted the block for them.

Yeah.... I think we should discuss this, and if the community agrees that this is not how thing should be... we should facilitate filing a phab ticket to have this changed. What do my fellow Wikipedians and editors think about this situation? Personally, I think its laughably asinine and should definitely not be how it's currently set, but I'd like to hear from others and get a basis of community thoughts before I decide where things should go next. :-)

I give my sincere appreciation and "thanks" in advance for your time, input, thoughts, and ideas as to what next steps (if any) should be taken in order to have the status quo changed, and if so, to what level or restriction. This is definitely not the issue that I was expecting would cause the user to not be able to get into their account... ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be phab:T109909, which ironically happened under the exact same circumstances. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Good to see this receiving some attention three years after I had the problem with it. DuncanHill (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This issue should seriously get more attention and have a (slightly) higher priority than what's been given. To me, this is a bug, and one that prevents users from being able to recover their account and log in so that they can edit and no longer be affected by the current block... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of text for "All IP rangeblocks currently prevent access to Special:PasswordReset". :)

The "block the user from sending e-mails" option is normally used for this purpose: Enabling it on an IP block should prevent password resets. It wasn't enabled, however, so I'd say it's a bug. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree - HA! Yeah, you got me there... I added a TL;DR section to the top of my initial discussion so that users don't feel obligated to read through my wall of text. I added a lot of details due to the (perhaps bad) assumption that I had that this is an issue that may not have been reported before ("the more details, the better" is what is usually said for these situations). I also shortened the section title due to it being annoyingly long (sorry everyone...). ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no worries from my side. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

+3798 is the magic number. Last week the above article was protected because editors, one of which is an IP kept adding and removing content with my Watchlist showing a constant change between plus and minus 3798. Well the protection has ended and the magic number is back via an IP account.

I'm not an admin so my powers are limited. Just a heads up about warring faction doktorb _words^deeds 06:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Semi-protected by Ymblanter. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking of an IP that has been adding a lot of Wikipedia-style content has been excessive and needs review please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:21E7:A4CA:EB07:8D84 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions at WP:AAB to appeal the block- which is for a specific page only. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reported other users for editwarring on Elections in Cuba. However, even though I was the only one presenting arguments for my edits, I was the one blocked from editing the page. I would like to be unblocked and begin a disscussion on the articles talk page to resolve the conflict. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. You should consider yourself thankful that the block (1) only applies to one page, and (2) is only for a month. Consider your behavior and learn from it, or your next block will be more punitive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are blocking me, then User:Snooganssnoogans should be blocked as well. There are at least two recorded instances excluding mine on the articles talk page where they have reverted edits meant to ensure political neutrality. They, as an editor, have an obvious right-wing political bias against Cuba. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Two reverts an edit war does not make, read wp:editwar.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being blocked from just the page has gotten the message through. Editor was extremely lucky to only be blocked from editing the page the first time around. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a mild block (I placed it), but then it's the user's first block. That said, I've no objection if another admin wishes to embiggen it, especially considering this foolish report that they made. Note for Hcoder3104: you are not blocked from the talkpage, so I don't see anything stopping you from beginning a discussion there to resolve the conflict. Bishonen | tålk 17:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

At this stage I will point out the filer has made false accusations of meat puppetry (or as they called it "Uncoordinated meat puppetry" (whatever the hell that is)) and has left tit for tat edit warring warnings (and filed a report) after a single revert of their edit. Not as well that reasons were offered for reverting them such as " There is no discussion of this on the talk page." and "You need to make a case". On the other hand some of their reasons were " Edit is disruptive and unhelpful. You have been warned on your talk page" (a warning for edit waring after one revert) and "Contribution to an edit war so must be undone" (again after one revert).Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have they informed anyone they are in dispute with of this ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hcoder3104 -- you are clearly not understanding either the plain text or the spirit of the edit warring policy. When several people disagree with you--even if you are "right"--the first thought should be "there is a consensus and I need to change it," not "people are conspiring against me." The latter requires extraordinary evidence, and I have seen you produce no evidence at all. I personally would not support a general block, but I think showing you get why the page block occurred would help you tremendously. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never accused them of meatpuppetry, I was just saying how multiple people editing results in no one reaching the three revert mark. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I understand why I was blocked. I just don't believe it was justified. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did [[3]] " And yes, I am accusing you of uncoordinated meat puppetry", and not just once [[4]] "which is a way so they will not reach the three revert rule by teaming up".Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misspell. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Missspell" what word did you mean?. And this [[5]] "As I have noted, the three of you are working together so you won't reach the three revert rule"? With this I think it is clear the user is trying to game the system to wp:rightgreatwrongs (in this case over Cuba), and a Tban might be needed as I do not think this will end here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support some type of upgrade. Unclear on the right scope. I have got to wonder how USER:Hcoder3104 ended up here.[6] I see no sign of interest in the Olympics before or since. Is it coincidental that, shortly after my involvement with this incident, the user put in a merge vote on an article I created (which admittedly may not meet WP:GNG)? I would also note this enormous deletion which the user misleadingly marked as "minor"[7] and tried a second time on [8] after being reverted. Also another enormous removal here [9] with a second try here [10] after the first one was reverted. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it on your talk page, and I decided to contribute like any good wikipedian. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the edits were made before I was familiar with Wikipedia policy, and frankly they are just making the articles more factual. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hcoder3104, I suggest you read WP:3RR which explains the criteria under which you were blocked. Basically if you make more than three reverts on one article within 24 hours you can and almost always will be blocked, whatever your reasons are. Going forward, you may be blocked for edit-warring, even if you don't exceed 3 reverts. Take this time to learn the rules and decide whether you want to follow them or leave the project. Your appeal here incidentally is disruptive because you have no grounds for appeal and it shows you have not read the policy on blocking editors for edit-warring. You were given leeway because you are a new editor, but do not expect any in the future. I suggest you accept you were mistaken in this appeal and say that you will not edit war in future. TFD (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The official website of Parimatch seems to be global dot parimatch dot com. The infobox has another website instead which looks like a parent company. However the correct website is blocked by an antispam filter (it is also blocked on this noticeboard). Can someone make an exception to the filter on this specific article? Thank you and apologies if this is not the right place to ask. --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikibusines/Bodiadub article. MER-C 20:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy hell what a mess. I've removed several sources that either didn't even mention the company name, or are clearly not reliable sources. This article needs a sweep. What happens to it after that, who knows. One of the worst link spam articles I've seen in a few months. Calling all editors.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer initial question, you'd need to make a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to file a formal request to lift my AA2 topic ban. I was sanctioned more than a year ago, based on this report. Following the initial imposing of the TBAN, I have also violated it due to a lack of understanding of WP:BROAD. As a result, I had agreed to avoid a broader variety of topics in August ("related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc.").

I've been away from these topics for a long time. In the meantime, I've contributed extensively to other WP:VG, WP:RELI, and WP:MILHIST-related topics. I've expanded and nominated two articles concerning medieval Middle Eastern monarchs (Fakhr al-Mulk Ridwan and Irtash), as well as a WP:VG article titled Castle Wolfenstein. I've also significantly expanded (about nine times in size) Hòa Hảo. Nine new articles were created (as seen here, starting from article number 133) by me. Apart from Hòa Hảo, I expanded numerous articles, like 2021 Erbil rocket attacks.

The articles I've presented are, in my opinion, examples of improved WP:RS usage on my part. I'd love to go back and edit the articles that fall inside the TBAN's purview, as well as successfully nominate new GANs on the subject. The TBAN covers my country of birth and the region where I live; normally, these are the most familiar topics for me. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 11:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As an WP:AE topic ban, pretty sure you need to go back to AE to appeal it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beeblebrox, oh, WP:UNBAN states that it should be at ANI, which is why I came here. I could move it if it's wrong. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 20:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The UNBAN section you indicated applies to community-applied bans, not AE bans. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals by sanctioned editors indicate that appeals can take place at either AE or AN? DanCherek (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Beeblebrox, they're in the right place (one of the right places). WP:AN is an acceptable alternative for appealing this ban, per these instructions. There is a link to them in the topic ban notification that the user received. Bishonen | tålk 20:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I'm new here, you can't expect me to know everything. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're only new compared to User:Bishzilla. Bishonen | tålk 22:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• Support. Solavirum has written a good unban request, and has been editing constructively in other areas during the ban. After one year, that is really enough for lifting the ban, IMO. Pinging El C, who was pretty much the only admin engaging with the original AE report. Bishonen | tålk 22:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment - Looking at the report, Solavirum was topic banned for nationalist pov-push and Armenian genocide denial, or rather genocide denial tropes. Interestingly, they also created, quote, "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim." userbox in az-wiki, where they are a sysop. Since the tban, they violated it multiple times and have been blocked for those violations as well. At this point, blaming the violations on "lack of understanding of WP:BROAD" is rather unconvincing to say the least, imo. Side note maybe not as important to admins unfamiliar with AA, but AA has been suffering heavily from various social media meat collaborations/campaigning (I can link them, but AN isn't an appropriate venue) in the past and especially recently, those concerns were brought up by others in the motion discussion as well. It seems like Solavirum himself isn't far off from the off-wiki collaborations, [11]. This should be also taken into account, imo, given the situation in AA with meats/socks and whatnot. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I already made this mistake with GizzyCatBella and Volunteer Marek, so not again. In the recent past, I've indulged in certain lenient impulses to the detriment of the project. I still try to err on the side of leniency, but with a better measure of reasonableness (I'd hope).

I'd estimate that lifting this sanction will just add to an already pitched WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've spoken about some of the issues plaguing these non-ARBPIA Western Asia set of DSs in my latest ARCA (link), as clunky as that request was. I'm in opposition at this time. El_C 01:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I've waited a year since my TBAN and worked on many articles from other WikiProjects, with several becoming GAs. I don't think it's fair to oppose the appeal because of what other people did. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 09:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposing because I think you'll continue to engage in BATTLEGRUND conduct, including in such sensitive areas as the Armenian genocide. El_C 09:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I've never edited the genocide article and I don't intend to do so, its out of my scope really. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 10:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say page, I said areas. For example, the Armenian_genocide_denial page is one such obvious area (diff). El_C 10:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly more optimistic about this user, El_C. They're a lot younger than the two people you mentioned (more room to grow).
Still, I get where you're coming from. If needed, we could just add a clause allowing unilateral imposition of the topic ban for the next 6 months or something (for like battleground behavior). Thoughts on that type of thing? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you can tell their age. Also, not sure how decisive it is, because growth can happen really at any age. El_C 16:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned in one of the AN/I threads. Solavirum started editing quite young, I believe if I recall correctly. Still probably isn't an adult yet either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, this is not something I care to speculate on or rely on one's memory for. If Solavirum wants to bring up his age, then maybe it can be factored in. But I think it's inappropriate for anyone else to choose to do so on his behalf. El_C 06:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, during one of the reports in February 2021, my exact age was disclosed without my approval by another user who received one-way interaction ban for doing the said thing. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 10:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C: Fair enough. My apologies to Solavirum for speculating. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Solavirum:, if you have a diff or diffs, feel free to email em to me for WP:REVDEL. El_C 02:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is the wider topic ban still the one in force? Since if it is, even if you've done good work at 2021 Erbil rocket attacks, it seems questionable for you to be editing it as an attack blamed by several parties on Iran (although relating to their dispute with the US rather than any of their neigbours or internal issues), indeed something you added [12]. Can User:El C comment on whether the topic ban was intended to cover actions or alleged actions of the Iranian government? Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it says Iranians, so... But Solavirum is the one who wrote the wider sanction rather than receive a 3rd block (blocks that came after multiple warnings). Anyway, I'd caution against supporting without doing a bit of research some on this user's past incidents, even if these aren't laid out cogently in this appeal. Because if and/or when it goes wrong, in increments, it may prove very labour intensive to reach the point when sanctions get reinstated again. Don't count on a magic switch.

The problem, again, as mentioned in my ARCA (linked above), is that many users edit disruptively in some, most, or all of the three non-ARBPIA Western Asia DSs (WP:AA2, WP:KURDS, WP:ARBIRP), and topic areas not covered so much or at all (more on these in the ARCA). So overlaps, holes in the overlaps. I'm finding it challenging to connect these more general observations with this particular appeal, but the connection is there, and I feel it's a strong one. El_C 16:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, El_C, I worked on the article several months before the wider topic ban was imposed. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 16:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now. In fairness, looking at it now, I think you've done some good work on that page (major expansion diff). El_C 17:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry I missed that as well. Your contributions to 2021 Erbil rocket attack do seem to have been good. I have some suggestions I'll post on your talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm opposed to lifting it at this time. I expect to see at least one solid year of no violations whatsoever. It hasn't even been six months in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Like Beeblebrox, I oppose removing this topic ban at this time. The editor has been blocked in the last year for disruption in this highly contentious topic area; and on another Wikimedia site (where they are an administrator), they created an Armenian genocide denialist userbox. I lack confidence that they will not engage in Armenian/Azerbaijani nationalist POV pushing. Better for them to work on areas of the encyclopedia that do not provoke their nationalist feelings. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cullen328: I almost thought from your comment you meant Solavirum created the userbox on azwiki since the topic ban was imposed. However, I think that you are referring to this one? That was (nearly) four years ago.
  @Solavirum: I'm not currently supporting this appeal, but can you state definitively whether or not you stand behind that userbox? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cullen328, I created that userbox in 2018, though I do not stand by it, and I remember removing it from my userpage (more than) a year or so ago. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 18:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • MJL, to be precise, no, I don't agree with the things I believed in four years ago. Back in the day, as seen with my contributions, my wiki-activity was focused almost solely on AzWiki, where the genocide denial is the norm (and an obligation in a way). I had no access to Western academia or English sources, and Azerbaijani historiography/society denies the genocide. I did a bad thing in 2018, though a lot of have changed since and my knowledge about the topic is now in a better shape. I don't deny the Armenian genocide. There was a meta case about AzWiki in 2019, it was about the genocide denial, and the article concerning it having "so-called" in its title. In the same period, AzWiki users proposed to re-add "so-called" to the genocide article, where I opposed the proposal. In Azerbaijan, recognizing the genocide is a problem for one's safety, and doing that publicly in Azerbaijani Wikipedia, which is also monitored, would've been dangerous. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 05:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like. I think that comment buys a lot of goodwill. I can see myself supporting an appeal in the not too distant future, or just lifting my own sanction outright (probably easiest). El_C 06:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @El C:, I want to raise attention to a few things I find very troubling about that comment. One, Solavirum is using the 2019 vote as an example of their views on the Armenian Genocide having changed, when in fact, as ZaniGiovanni pointed out, their vote states

• On the contrary , it is similar to this clause in the Wikimedia Commons: "Don't tell readers that the topic is great, tell them in a neutral way what the person is doing and what they have achieved, and give them a chance to make their own decisions." We must make the reader understand that this genocide is fabricated.

That seems to indicate to me both that Solavirum's views on the genocide may not have changed, and more concerningly, that they are making intentionally misleading arguments here to get their topic ban removed.

The other troublesome nature of that comment is Solavirum indicating that they could not recognize the genocide on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia due to it risking their safety. What is there to prevent the same pressure from affecting the neutrality of their edits here? Nothing has changed in the Azerbaijani government's authoritarianism since than and edits that are made on the English wikipedia are subjective to that same danger, so I fail to see how Solavirum can be an unbiased editor on related topics here. I also find that defense of their genocide denial highly questionable because if Solavirum disagreed with genocide denial and such danger existed, why didn't they simply leave the topic alone? Nothing compelled them to make edits in favor of genocide denial. Achemish (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to oppose this appeal because I remain deeply concerned about highly nationalistic editing in this specific topic area, and I fear that this editor will fall into that trap. Cullen328 (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shit. El_C 02:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, keeping in mind WP:ROPE. If the ban will be reimposed, it will likely last several years nex time... traed lightly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am astounded that Solavirum has the nerve to approach this forum after so short a period of time. His time spent in disgrace and exile has been wasted if the grounds of his appeal are to be believed; at no point does he express remorse for his actions. So he has been a good boy on unrelated topics; I remain unimpressed - even the pagans do as much. His rehabilitation should only proceed once it has been clearly demonstrated that he (1) Acknowleges that he has done wrong, (2) that his actions have hurt people and the Wiki project in general, (3) that he promises to never repeat those hurtful actions again. Having had a few dealings with Solavirum on Artsakh-related topics, I am of the firm opinion that he fulfills none of the above criteria. Just look at his intervention on International Airport: no amount of patient explaining would convince him of the reasons for UNDUE. He just didn't want to relent. In this, he was aided and abetted by his chum CuriousGolden - the usual tag team. CuriousGolden has since received a ban as a user of socks. Thanks to the services of a third party, Solavirum eventually relented on the airport. I have seen no evidence that this bias has been eliminated. I very much doubt that he is at all capable of doing so. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Laurel Lodged: "So he has been a good boy on unrelated topics; I remain unimpressed - even the pagans do as much." (emphasis mine): can you please explain this, it comes across as some kind of religious hatred against atheists or people of different faiths but perhaps you meant something else? Fram (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep calm Fram. It's a biblical allusion. Most educated westerners would be assumed to know the phrase from Matthew 5:46: "If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?". No offence was intended to pagans. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, most educated westerners won't recognise a random misquoted insult to non-Christians. Your assumption is rather bigoted or provincial. Please don't add such random garbage in discussions, it doesn't help at all. Fram (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most educated westerners would know that there is a difference between an allusion and a quotation. But all this has nothing to do with Solavirum and everything to do with our past clashes on another issue. Nobody needs to see these unpleasant displays. Concentrate on finding proof that La Tene culture was established in the Republic of Austria. That's a better use of your time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice strawman there to deflect from your Christian POV insults. I never stated that, so no need to find proof for it either; you on the other hand posted a random allusion to an irrelevant and insulting Bible verse, and clearly see no problem with this. Bah. Fram (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. You left so many open goals, it was difficult to decide on the best one to shoot into. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is rather bigoted or provincial. Provincial, an adjective whose meaning is based on the assumption that people outside of major cities are unsophisticated and narrow-minded. Are you insulting rural people? You're making a mountain out of a molehill, just as me hypothetically attacking you for the use of the word provincial would be. Modulus12 (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You´re right, "provincial" was the wrong choice of words, I meant the more appropriate "parochial". Fram (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Per the above answer to my question. It took a lot of bravery for Solavirum to speak up about this, but I'm glad he did because people here need to be aware of the problems NPOV Azeri editors are struggling with right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, I would also like to commend your bravery for describing an editor banned for extreme POV-pushing as having problems of NPOV Azeri editors. It doesn't work when you state opinions directly opossing the facts. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevo327: Did you not read the part where Solavirum pushed back against Armenian genocide denial on azwiki at great personal risk? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MJL I don't know about others, but I read that discussion/vote in az-wiki. There are 11 other Oppose votes besides Solavirum, and again interestingly, Solavirum's vote states, and I quote:

• On the contrary , it is similar to this clause in the Wikimedia Commons: "Don't tell readers that the topic is great, tell them in a neutral way what the person is doing and what they have achieved, and give them a chance to make their own decisions." We must make the reader understand that this genocide is fabricated.

• This case can be settled by Solavirum himself. He just has to say if he still believes that "We must make the reader understand that this genocide is fabricated.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just something crucial to point out, you know, since you brought up that vote. Also, I don't think you're hardly uninvolved in this case to cast a vote. My deepest apologies if I'm wrong, but it seems like you've defended Solavirum continuously during various AN/I / AE cases, tban violation cases, etc. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is out of context. What it actually means that: "[if you want to claim that the genocide is fabricated], you have to prove it in the article's text". Virtually no one there recognized the genocide and I had to achieve a consensus somehow to have the word "so-called" (qondarma) removed from the title. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 13:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translations of the highlighted text (Biz elə etməliyik ki, oxucu bu soyqırımın qondarma olduğunu anlasın.) disagree with you: [13], [14], [15], [16]. Pretty sure in all the cases, you're addressing other users and explaining your vote, so that "we" should make the user understand the genocide is fabricated.

You're free to provide other translations of the text with links. Reality wouldn't change from it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El C I think you should take a look at the above comment by Solavirum. I've used virtually every translation platform available and nothing matched what Solavirum's claimed text is.

This is their full vote text from the discussion/vote, feel free to translate yourself:

• Əleyhinə bu da, Vikimübaliğə qaydalarındakı bu bəndə oxşayır: "Oxuyuculara mövzunun möhtəşəm olduğunu deməyin, onlara şəxsin nə etdiyini və nə uğurlar qazandığını bitərəf şəkildə söyləyin və öz qərarlarını verməyə imkan yaradın". Biz elə etməliyik ki, oxucu bu soyqırımın qondarma olduğunu anlasın. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Any particular reason that you wish to return to contributing to articles related to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh? The last time I dealt with your edits you added an "Azerbaijani victory" to the Maraga massacre. Have your values changed significantly since then? AntonSamuel (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  AntonSamuel, I'm sympathetic to your concerns. I, unfortunately, had relied on Azerbaijan's POV in Maragha, there's virtually nothing about the tragedy and the only version shown is a "simple military operation". I acknowledge that it was wrong and I don't stand by it anymore. I believe that I've changed since that incident and once again can productively engage in the topic, I want to contribute to the topic yet again. Thanks to Wikilib and other platforms, I now have access to better sources. I'd want to expand and promote a number of topics that aren't even linked to Armenia, but Azerbaijan, and to put my newfound experience gained while working on other topics to good use. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 19:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sympathetic to your concerns. I, unfortunately, had relied on Azerbaijan's POV in Maragha

  It seems like you rely on Azerbaijani POV/sources quite often. The propagandistic edit in question is literally from last year (diff). Where are all these "Western Academia" claims of yours since 2018? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about a pledge not to interfere with anything controversial with regard to the topic area with regard to the tensions that exist - period - you've shown no reason why you specifically would be able to deal with the area more than others. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonSamuel: Not sure how enforceable a pledge like that would be? Like there is no clearly defined line between controversial and not controversial, and it's why the whole country is under DS regime rather than only a specific set of articles. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AntonSamuel, RE: Maraga massacre — now I'm remembering (diff). That was wild. Eep. El_C 02:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum, I have two questions for you. First, is it true that on your Wikimedia Commons user page, you freely disclose your real world identity? If that is correct, is it also true that, under your real world identity. you have tried to canvass pro-Azerbaijani individuals to edit Wikipedia, in violation of the behavioral guideline Stealth canvassing. I am referring to posts on Facebook and Reddit posted under the name you seem to have revealed on Commons, that urge Azerbaijani individuals to come to Wikipedia to support your nationalist POV. If my statements are inaccurate in any way, I apologize. If what I have written is accurate, please explain. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To first question, I had done it on my Meta page. Second one, I don't think so? May I ask, with all respect, where does this assumption stem from? --► Sincerely: Solavirum 13:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I'd like to drop the appeal and wait for a longer period of unviolated sanction. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 13:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know. El_C 14:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To Closing Admin I was aware of a lot of the details about Solavirum prior to this - his age, how he was recruited (by adults who ought to know better) with a lot of other minors to engage in Azeri-POV pushing, his mockery of Armenian deaths, his genocide denial etc. All quite sickening. They will come as a shock to some admins. So rather than let this slink off into the night by a withdrawal, is it not abundantly clear by now that a wider ban is needed? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know it probably should go to the noticeboard but I'm also asking for protection and possibly block of a user. Mariam Memarsadeghi has written in Twitter that she was being portrayed as "war activist" in Wikipedia: https://twitter.com/memarsadeghi/status/1493657858163896321 and it seems some IPs have been vandalizing her article that went unnoticed. Also User:Sepehrsalar seems to have been adding copy-vio material to the article and other issues (including the "war activist" section) maybe they need to be blocked from this article? Ladsgroup^overleg 03:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did the things. El_C 10:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what happened to the "Ijtihad" article in wikipedia? When I type "Ijtihad" currently, it only redirects to the Ulema. It used to be a separate article.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk)shadowwarrior8 12:35 pm, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ijtihad was moved to Legal authority in Islamic law, and the redirect was changed to point to Ulama. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Primefac. I have changed the article title to Independent Legal Reasoning in Islamic law since it is a better English translation. Could you please re-direct Ijtihad to that site?

Ulama refers to Islamic scholarship and legal authority. While the article on Ijtihad refers to the Independent Legal Reasoning employed by the legal scholars. shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Y I fixed the new article title so it uses sentence case (Independent legal reasoning in Islamic law) and redirected Ijtihad to that article again. @Shadowwarrior8: this is not the right noticeboard for this type of query. In the future, please consider using the teahouse instead. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the new page feed. Wasn't sure to mess with the article, but does this have a botched AfD? I am somewhat confused. Govvy (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A PROD got turned into an AFD by an IP, so they likely couldn't create the AFD itself Special:Diff/1072070171/1072070837. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A proper AfD has been created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artem Avetisyan using Twinkle. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear English-speaking wikipedians,

SPI detected mass socks on the article about Novares Group (on fr-wp) - there may be some on your side too fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Requêtes/février 2022#Novares Group - 16 février. I blocked them all on fr-wp and protected the page to stop them. Best regards, --- Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 23:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bédévore. Thank you very much for this report. The article here has been subject to disruptive editing by six newly created accounts. I have semi-protected the article for a month. I do not see much value in blocking the accounts. They seem to be throwaway accounts used once or at most three times, and then abandoned. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(knowledge about history of Wikipedia:Million Award preferred) Dear admins, please have a look at User:TCO/Improving Wikipedia's important articles 's revision history. After former wikipedian TCO's last edit to his opinion piece (23:16, 7 July 2012), there were some activities with a non-constructive result: IP 38.107.128.2 did some deletions and minutes later reverted himself. But 3 hours later 12.133.26.2 reverted 38.107.128.2's self-revert, seemingly/apparently not understanding what happened before. Since then 38.107.128.2's deletions are in the opinion piece. I do not know how to notify an IP editor in en wiki. (The other latest edits were constructive, i think: Two wikipedians corrected spelling mistakes. And the bigger adds were (as i suppose) made by an awardee who was allowed to add content. I do not intend to talk about these 3 editors.)

I think the revert-revert should be revert-revert-reverted, even after such a long time. The page is not protected, so i am able to edit it. But this should not be the task of an en-2 (de-N) 400-edit-beginner in en wiki like me. I suppose, this opinion piece is of some relevance for en Wikipedia's history. Thanks in advance. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, administrators.

While coming upon some unregistered usernames, I saw some MediaWiki messages saying “(insert username here) is not registered on this wiki. Please check CentralAuth to see if the account is registered on other wikis”.

However, I’m specifically bothered by the inconsistency. Two messages on these unregistered accounts have the Central Auth linked to meta (links are below), but one links to our local CentralAuth.

Also, just under an hour ago (as of the time of writing), Xaosflux edited one interface message, specifying clarity.

So now, here is the question: Should we make all in one format, where it links to meta and has that clarity message (“the account” rather than “it”) or do we link the CentralAuth to our local CentralAuth? Thanks.

(The links are below for courtesy.) MediaWiki:Userpage-userdoesnotexist - Links to meta, states “it” rather than “the account”.

MediaWiki:Userpage-userdoesnotexist-view — Links to meta, states “the account”.

MediaWiki:Contributions-userdoesnotexist — Links to our local CentralAuth, states “it” rather than the account”.

Note: This is not on the interface admins’ noticeboard, since these messages can be edited by all admins. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 15:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since these are already all local customization I don't really care one way or another and will process edit requests for small verbiage changes if opened. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is something that you can leave an edit request for and an admin can do WP:BOLDly. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article on this subject (a singer with a penchant for self-promo, IMHO) has appeared several times under slightly different spellings, so it's not immediately obvious; the latest one is awaiting AfC review at Draft:Emil Shahin. I've previously moved an AfD on this, which resulted in delete. I could of course just reject this draft and/or request CSD on it, but I think something a bit more heavyhanded may be needed, as otherwise this seems to just keep cropping up and taking more time and effort to push back. Any advice? Ta, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

scanning the Azerbaijani sourcing, same depth of sourcing issues remain from your AfD last year. I will reject the AfC, but agree that something broader is needed. Star Mississippi 17:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers @Star Mississippi: appreciated. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

happy to help. I did a little digging, and Ellali2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Simplellali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also have some overlap on Aybaniz Ismayilova. They appear unrelated to Rza835 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose deleted contributions feature a few versions of Shahin and was a part of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#Repeated_CSD_tag_deletion,_meatpuppetry,_et_al.. cc @Curbon7 in case they have anything to add based on history. Star Mississippi 21:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines are up for ratification in the near-future, and if they go through, "all advanced rights holders" will be "required to affirm (through signed declaration or other format to be decided) they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct:". This will likely be required as a precondition for becoming an admin, and it's expected that all current advanced rights holders make this affirmation at some point. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems to be saying that all admins will have to undergo compulsory training about the Code of Conduct. That's going to go down well. Hut 8.5 08:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The goal of preventive work is to make users of public Wikimedia Foundation wikis and others under the UCoC aware that it exists, and promote voluntary adherence to the code." (bold is mine) seems to be conflict there. VS "should be required to affirm". You can't have something that is both voluntary and required. Jeepday (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can. You're not required to edit, but if you volunteer to do so, you are required to follow consensus. You're not required to be an admin, but if you volunteer for the permissions, you are required to follow WP:ADMIN. Levivich 13:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, that brings up interesting (read: boring) philosophical questions: 1. Do I consider Wikipedia to be a public utility? Yes. 2. Do I consider myself to be a public servant? Sort of. El_C 13:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see it spelled out somewhere what parts of normal admin behaviour (threatening people with blocks unless they do what we tell them, checking people's contributions for problems) are going to be outlawed by the UCoC. So far I understand that Fram wasn't allowed to do that, but that T&S functionaries were allowed to do that to Fram. Any "training" should go through the Fram example in detail so we can all understand the UCoC. —Kusma (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: I am very confused by your request. The UCoC enforcement guidelines apply equally to T&S staff and enwiki admins. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I guess I am the one who is confused. I truly do not understand who (if anyone) would have violated the UCoC during the Fram saga, where I asked what hounding is. I still don't know whether the Fram case involved hounding. I do know that a lot of people left. So I would like to understand what happened in the light of whether UCoC could have help prevent any of it. —Kusma (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: Go to "Enforcement by types of violations". Then read "On-wiki UCoC violations" and specifically the part that mentions "Single-wiki UCoC violations". –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, hounding is defined by the UCoC as following a person across the project(s) and repeatedly critiquing their work mainly with the intent to upset or discourage them. If problems are continuing after efforts to communicate and educate, communities may need to address them through established community processes. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5: Since the WMF has not clarified what your mandatory political indoctrination will entail, I thought I'd grab some examples from the closest equivalent in the meta:Anti Harassment Program at meta:Community Development/WikiLearn/Identifying and Addressing Harassment Online. They offered this training as a pilot program for the large-scale UCoC training that is soon to be implemented. While the WMF didn't post those materials online (wonder why? they said they would on the talk page), here's the notes the French Wikipedia users took on the training: w:fr:Projet:Lutte contre le harcèlement/Formations WMF. Microsoft Translator has given an interesting quote, such as stereotypes including "bias towards young people (considering that a young person is too immature to contribute or become an admin)".

I wonder if !voting at RfA that a user is too immature to be an admin will be in violation of the UCoC? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merely suggesting that a core concept within sociology/social anthropology actually describes "meaningful distinctions among people" would appear to be a violation of UCoC, as it currently stands. [18] The document is a badly-worded and contradictory mess, and regardless of what it is supposedly trying to 'enforce', nobody who cares about elementary logic or the English language should endorse it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: I completely agree with you that the section you mentioned is very poorly worded (for me it implies that things like "caste" are meaningful distinctions one could make among people). However, the enforcement guidelines were written by a separate team of people. Sadly, the community is solely being asked to vote on the guidelines here. Voting against them won't change anything in the UCoC proper. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, the only appropriate response is to refuse to participate in any vote which might be seen as giving 'UCoC proper' legitimacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While I think the header of this post is certainly cute, it's very much misleading. I've just made a substantial comment about the matter here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: WP:VPM § WikiZedia: an organized influence operation at Wikipedia by the campaign of a candidate for French President

This is just a heads-up and a request to monitor a discussion at VPM concerning a developing situation that could have serious negative consequences for Wikipedia if not contained, and which I believe will inevitably end up at ANI, regarding the organized interference at Wikipedia by the digital arm of the Eric Zemmour campaign for President of France. Developing the diffs and evidence will take time, but notifying people about this is too urgent to wait, so I opened a discussion at Village Pump instead, so you can start to follow the discussion there, until such time when the evidence merits bringing it to ANI. Note that there are already at least ten articles in the French press already reporting on infiltration of Wikipedia by the Zemmour campaign. You can follow the discussion at VPM here. Thanks Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And there is already an active discussion underway at ANI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting an apology for blocking cluebot by accident. Seddon ^talk 01:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ongoing severe botnet disruption. Emergency captcha mode has been enabled. Seddon ^talk 02:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been disabled 🙂 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 16:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand its back -- TNT (talk • she/her) 23:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check Al Hilal F.C.–Esteghlal F.C. rivalry history. Thanks! Lyrische (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lyrische: First, this should have been filed at WP:ANI. Second, you must explain why you want us to look at a particular page. Third, although you don't mention the editor you are complaining about, it was fairly obvious after I did look at the article, but you should have notified that user of this thread. All that said, I've blocked User:AaliJenab for repeatedly removing the AfD tag from the article after multiple warnings.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Thank you for your guidance and action. Lyrische (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to appeal my indefinite AA topic ban per this report: [20] The reason for the ban was that I posted a link to a news site article in a talk page discussion. While I agree that the link that I posted was not a reliable source, I never used it in the article, nor did I propose to use it. It was only posted in the Threaded discussion, and you can check that discussion here: [21] The discussion was an RFC about the usage of the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" with regard to the city of Agdam, and I only posted that link to demonstrate that the analogy with nuclear devastation is used by sources outside of Azerbaijan, since it was claimed that the term was a propaganda by Azerbaijan. I admit that I should have paid more attention to check that the news article was a share of a post on Facebook. But everyone can make a mistake. I don't think that indefinite topic ban is an appropriate punishment for simply posting a link in a talk page discussion. The case was finally closed today by the enforcing admin himself after almost a month of deliberation. I would like to ask the community to look into this issue, and see if the topic ban was an appropriate action in this situation. Of course, I promise to be more attentive when posting links in talk page discussions. Thank you. Grandmaster 17:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could a steward remove death threats from my azwiki page? [22] Grandmaster 00:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be BaxçeyêReş a sockpuppet. Reverted. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose You were completely deaf to all arguments to the contrary. Your modus operandi is to deny, divert, deny, abuse, divert and deny again. Frankly I think that you should be slapped with a wider ban. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  responded here –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record: Laurel Lodged is not among administrators. Brandmeister^talk 20:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And why does that matter? The guide for appealing arbitration enforcement bans states that they can be lifted by (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA. There is no requirement that commenters here must be an administrator - if they want the ban to be reviewed only by admins the request should be made at WP:AE. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Laurel Lodged is not uninvolved editor. Grandmaster 22:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am uninvolved in this case. I did not participate in the AN case that imposed the ban. I am participating here because I have experience of Grandmaster and his Azeri-spinning tricks. Wiki is better off without him. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That does not make you uninvolved, and your uncivil comments are not helpful either. I hope admins monitoring this page will pay attention to them. I've been waiting for you to respond to my comment at Talk:Fuzuli International Airport since November 2021 to explain why you removed the link to Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh [23], while Fizuli town was considered occupied by UN SC resolutions, OSCE, PACE, and the rest of the international community. You clearly not a third party here, we have had previous involvement. Grandmaster 10:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose : You got banned by a consensus of uninvolved administrators for showing biased editing based on ethnicity, pretending to regret biased tendentious editing warring hours after being sanctioned for it is not convincing, courtesy pinging @Rosguill: as original sectioning admin. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like another comment from a user who is hardly uninvolved, as manifested by their very recent involvement in an AA2 topic on a BLP noticeboard. Parishan (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose an easing of the ban at this time. I didn't state an opinion in the Arbitration Enforcement but did mediate a dispute at DRN with Grandmaster and another now-banned editor. I can and could see that Grandmaster is an editor who focuses on one battleground border zone of the world, the war zone between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The appropriate response to the topic ban would be to edit in other areas for six months, and then appeal the topic ban. Appealing the topic ban the same day as it was finalized seems to show that they are not interested in any other area of encyclopedic coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I edit mostly Azerbaijan related articles, since I know this topic very well, and there are very few editors from that country here. But I also edit articles that have tangential connection with my main topic of interest. For example, in the last few days I created articles about White Russian officers who were briefly involved in the battle of Baku in 1918. Lazar Bicherakhov and Georgy Dokuchaev are both DYK nominated, but I need to make minor fixes to pass the nomination. Am I allowed to do that now? I have no idea if those are considered AA related. Also, I edit not just Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict related topics, I contributed pretty much to every notable Azerbaijan related article. For example, I have recently largely rewrote the article about Gobustan State Historical and Cultural Reserve, which is a world heritage site, and was in a very bad shape. Over the years, I have made tens of thousands edits to Azerbaijan related articles. So I don't think my contributions should be seen in a narrow context. Grandmaster 01:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I edit mostly Azerbaijan related articles, since I know this topic very well, and there are very few editors from that country here.

  Grandmaster forgive me for being blunt, but you were the organizer of Russian Wikipedia's pro-Azerbaijani off-wiki coordination list, official ArbCom case. It included 26 users, mostly Azerbaijani, all of them got blocked I think for various lenghts. If I'm not wrong, most of the people in that list have English Wikipedia accounts as well, two of them actually commented in this very case. Please don't make such statements again, I almost fell of my chair. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Russian Wikipedia is a separate project. What happens there has no concern to other language projects, including English Wikipedia. And that was 12 (!) years ago. Also, you are not uninvolved editor either. Last time we crossed our paths at the same BLP board, and it was only a couple of days ago. [24] Grandmaster 07:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure what you mean by “separate project”, I think my comment was clear enough and directed to your specific statement. And where exactly I claimed I was “uninvolved”? That doesn’t limit me of the right to comment. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You know very well that editors don't get sanctioned across different projects for what they do in any one language chapter. Yet you keep bringing up that more than a decade old case in every discussion involving me. For the record, I'm still a regular editor to the Russian wiki, and still contribute there with no sanctions and limitations for over a decade. Anyone can check my contribs there. And I believe reinserting slanderous claims with nonsense sourcing to a BLP article is a lot worse than posting a link to an anti-war article on a talk page discussion. Somehow one gets sanctioned, and the other does not. I have probably chosen a wrong place to appeal, as this place attracts also those who have axes to grind with me for preventing their BLP or other violations. My understanding was that only uninvolved editors will get to decide on this. Grandmaster 09:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no merit in you listing the areas that you have worked on that are unrelated to the topic ban. It's not like you had much choice. What would help your case would be examples of you curbing the excesses of editors with an Azeri bias. For example, if you had demonstrated that you observed an editor doing the same things that got you banned and gently suggested to that editor that he desist from such activity, that would help this appeal. But you have adduced no such evidence. Probably because no such evidence exists. Probably because this leopard has not changed his spots. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Grandmaster, I'm not sure you're helping anyone with your accusatory behavior. I'm also not sure why you bring up a BLP discussion in your appeal, since judging from my actions (or lack thereof), I was satisfied with the explanation given to my comment in that discussion. For the record, I'm still planning to look for better sources as I don't think it would be hard to find, but I didn't have the time yet because of irl responsibilities.

  I also don't think you understood me, I'll repeat for the last time: I edit mostly Azerbaijan related articles, since I know this topic very well, and there are very few editors from that country here.- You stated this just above, which I find ironic/laughable/untrue to put it lightly. I reminded you the ru-wiki meat case with whopping 26 Azeri users, most of which have English Wikipedia accounts and couple commented here as well. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Spend at least six months making neutral improvements to articles that have nothing to do with Azerbaijan and Armenia. Aggressive nationalism is incompatible with Wikipedia editing. Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While appealing after a substantially long period of exemplary behaviour and signs of accepting the systematically wrong approach he upheld for AA2 articles would qualify for a TBAN review, I am sorry to see Grandmaster's continued attempts of trivialising his systematic issue to a single "accidental mistake" and I am inclined to view this appeal as forum shopping / admin shopping - raising the same issue on another board, or to other admins, in the hope of finding one with the answer he wants. (a.k.a. "asking the other parent".) Two admins looked into the case - 1) Rosguill with his spotless record of being an impartial arbiter / reviewer of AA2 topics who concluded that Grandmaster's arguments belie a mentality that should have been unlearnt after 16 years of editing Wikipedia and 2) Ealdgyth, who, without previous knowledge of AA2 area, was able to support the TBAN based on the the user's overall contributions, concluding that when a topic area is contentious, the way to deal with it is to step up editing and behave better, not sink down into the mud further. --Armatura (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (the original AE report filer).[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the best venue to ask this, but I wanted to ask if an administrator was able to restore the The Eternal Castle article in my personal work space, the sandbox, in order to try to improve it. Many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NoonIcarus. That sandbox page was only three sentences long and was very poorly referenced. My suggestion is to start from scratch. Find several independent reliable secondary sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. Format those sources into references. Then, write original prose that summarizes what those sources say. That is the proper way to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Of course, I totally agree. I can't remember the status the article was in. Thank you! --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]