Template:Active editnotice

Hi, I requested a formal close for an RfC over a month ago on June 15th and it is still not closed. ProcrastinatingReader left a proposed close on June 23rd but never closed it. I made a post here previously, but it was never answered. Could someone please close it? It's located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#RfC on infobox inclusion criteria for candidates. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, that wasn't a proposed close but just a note (to whomever wishes to close) to highlight that the discussion wasn't properly advertised, or for a sufficient duration (having been delisted from the only place it was advertised after one week), for the broad change(s) originally requested. Aside from that, there's enough issues with that RfC (sockpuppetry etc) that I felt it would be worth noting any closer should take extra care to read that discussion, and the previous RfCs, before closing. Adding to these issues is the minimal participation, compared to the much wider participation in the discussion closed by SpinningSpark just weeks before, which was also open for discussion for 2 months (compared to 1 week of this one). Combined, I don't think it's appropriate to assume consensus to overrule the SpinningSpark close (from the two-part RfC, not the no consensus one) based on that discussion. As a sidenote, I also find it strange that the most popular outcome from the previous RfC, which SpinningSpark also outlined in his close statement and suggested testing in a future RfC, wasn't provided as an option in this RfC. Multiple respondents asked for that option again in this RfC as an option. I think this RfC was structurally flawed.

Deferring to WP:ACD: if the previous discussion was relatively recent or the newer discussion has much lower participation, it may not be appropriate to overrule the first one. If it were me closing it, I'd close it as no consensus personally, for all the aforementioned reasons. I think the messiness of that discussion has probably prevented sooner closure, and perhaps my response at WP:AN/RFC has also caused confusion (if people think I'm closing it and haven't closed for that reason, in which case I'll clarify there). Pinging SpinningSpark as the closer of the previous two RfCs for his thoughts on this, and perhaps he might want to close this one as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Do you think we'll need yet another RfC to settle this? I looked at the previous RfCs and tried to limit the options based on that, but the sockpuppeteer and another editor were irritated by that. I'm not sure how to proceed to get this cleared up. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 18:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: I'm happy to work with the other editors who responded to this RfC to formulate a better, longer-running RfC if you think that would be appropriate. If you think that is a good idea, it might be best just to close this one as being without consensus so we can move on. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan357, I'm not one for bureaucracy, but I personally can't see how a consensus can be inferred from this discussion, so another one might be needed. I also considered responses and the main points from the previous recent discussion and I believe they're still applicable currently, though those editors didn't participate in this discussion to reiterate them. Likely they didn't know this discussion was happening. Let's just wait and see what others think. SpinningSpark's thoughts, as the closer of the previous few discussions, would be particularly helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, the bureaucracy is becoming stifling here. While I am sure you mean well, continued attempts to get a magical consensus out of this mess are not helpful. This is one where there have been something like four RfCs on the same issue. There was also some sock puppetry which has made a mess of everything. The original RfC was closed noting that there was consensus for part B [inclusion of candidates who had won delegates] with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote. We are asking for a close that respects that as the status quo, without prejudice to someone starting an RfC to reconsider it (and hopefully tidy up this mess). In my view the discussions and events that have taken place since the first RfC has created some doubt whether the consensus might have changed (due to the second RfC and other discussions), the effect being that some editors might want to exclude some candidates who have won only a handful of delegates. It was a messy/difficult close to begin with, and the events since haven't made the consensus clearer. I do not see us establishing a clear consensus without a RfC that clearly addresses the "handful of delegates" issue (if someone wants to initiate one). Can we really not agree to the existing status quo as a baseline, with others able to start a new RfC to challenge that? That is the only way I see through this, but if you see another I think editors would like to hear it. Unless another solution is on the table though, dragging this on in the hope that the previous somewhat contradictory and tainted RfCs (here, here, here & here) and other discussions (including here, here, among other places) since are going to suddenly offer a clear consensus is not helping us build a better encyclopedia.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Kerrigan, a no consensus close would keep the status quo, which would be the result of the two-part RfC. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. I gather that you oppose my opinion that this should be closed with no consensus, but you also state that the status quo should be continued, which is slightly contradictory? I think you might've misunderstood my comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am a bit frustrated. This thing has become a mess and attempting to try to make sense of everything that has occurred and correct for sock-puppetry is not helping us here. I do not like the idea of completely blowing up the consensus that was initially reached. There seems to be consensus that Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg should be in (because they are over 5%, won significant number of delegates, or they won a state/contest). The lack of consensus seems to be about Gabbard (and possibly Klobuchar) which seems to revolve around whether winning 2 and 7 delegates respectively warrants inclusion. We have wasted so much time on this already, I would not like to see us simply declare that there was no consensus for anything and ignore general consensus concerning the other candidates there. But whatever we do here, it just needs to happen. A decision just needs to be made, because we have been discussing this over and over again since February. Debating this close, and holding it up does not seem to have been productive to me. Those involved agreed to close it on that basis I described above, lets just get on with it. If a no consensus close is where we are going to end up, so be it. But please can we close this? Delay and procedural wrangling here are not our friends.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I bear some blame in this, too, and for that I apologize. ProcrastinatingReader, the reason why I didn't include the "has >5% of the vote or has won delegates" option is because I thought there was no consensus on the matter at the time. My assessment looking through the past RfCs was that the complexity of the choices being offered was preventing a consensus from being reached. Because the most recent RfC before mine had had a large number of participants, and was closed by SpinningSpark as reaching no consensus, and because SpinningSpark did not say anything about a status quo consensus existing, I assumed that the most recent RfC had taken us back to square one. So, perhaps I don't properly understand under what circumstances RfCs supersede each other. In my mind, choosing a single metric was the clearest way forward, and having both the percentage and delegate metrics seemed unnecessary as it would be no different for who is in this infobox than having the delegate criterion alone. My only goal here is to have a clear consensus that we can point to, and to avoid ambiguous terms like "significant." So, I would be just as happy with the option Darryl Kerrigan is talking about as I would with the delegate-only option. Like Darryl, I really just want to move this forward in a timely manner, so I welcome any advice on how we can identify a clear consensus, whether that's finding a way to make it clear that the two-part RfC represents a present consensus or starting a new RfC. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Particularly, the following comment by SpinningSpark on the complexity of the options in the no consensus RfC guided my thinking when I created my RfC:
  

"RfCs work best when a simple yes or no question is asked, preferably after a discussion has teased out a proposal that might have broad consensus. Having "other" as an option is guaranteed to make the discussion a mess; it's an invitation to get as many different answers as there were participants." — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinningSpark: Could you please weigh in here? — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 21:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the “somewhat contradictory and tainted RfCs” noted by Darryl Kerrigan and which eventually gave rise to this last RfC is explained below. Humanengr (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Revised below in view of response by S Marshall — thx] NB to all including SpinningSpark: A close look at the 1st RfC solidifies SpinningSpark's conclusion that In my judgement (although this is too messy to be completely certain) there is consensus for part B with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote.:

It is critical also to note that Smith0124 — who was later (on June 12) revealed and banned as a sockpuppet — voted for "delegate or >5%" on February 26. Then on March 4, the day after Gabbard won her first delegate and while the first RfC was ongoing, the sock interjected this RfC. SpinningSpark closed that RfC on May 22 prior to the uncovering of Smith0124 as a sock. On June 7, the sock created a second RfC which S Marshall closed as This isn't a good faith RfC: it's disruptive sockpuppetry. I am unilaterally delisting and closing it.Humanengr (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not helpful to count RfC !votes or produce statistical analyses of how many editors said what. The process of closing an RfC involves weighting those !votes, and the range of acceptable weights is very broad -- there are circumstances in which a closer can give a !vote zero weight, or 0.0001, or 10,000. Best just to wait for someone to close it, and I do know there are long delays at the moment.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thx, S Marshall — I should have merely noted SpinningSpark’s close stated 7 voted 'yes' on part B (for the only criterion for inclusion being 'a delegate') and 11 others suggested the criterion should be 5% of popular vote or a delegate.
  • It is critical, however, to note that 1) Smith0124 — who was later revealed and banned as a sockpuppet — was one of those 11 votes for "delegate or >5%", and 2) all the above votes had been cast before March 3 when it was reported that Gabbard won her first delegate. It was on March 4, when it was overwhelmingly evident that Gabbard would be included in the infobox, that Smith0124 interjected RfC #2. (SpinningSpark closed that RfC on May 22 prior to the uncovering of Smith0124 as a sock.) On June 7, the sock created RfC #3 which S Marshall closed on June 15 as This isn't a good faith RfC: it's disruptive sockpuppetry. I am unilaterally delisting and closing it. after the sock was banned on June 12.
  • Again, it was only after Gabbard won her delegates and it was evident she would be included in the infobox that the sock decided to drum up objection to Gabbard's inclusion. That is not a good look for an encyclopedia. Humanengr (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently closed Talk:University_of_Pittsburgh#RfC_about_the_description_of_the_governance_of_this_university as "no consensus". ElKevbo has questioned this close on my talk page, essentially arguing that I did not properly accept the expert nature of the sources he proposed as definitively settling the RfC question. I had weighted the arguments in favor of "public" as somewhat more persuasive than those for "state supported" but there was a clear plurality for "state supported" and I felt dismissing those !votes would amount to a supervote. I have explained this but ElKevbo still remains unsatisfied with my responses. Posting here to open this to wider review. Thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not a fan of these self-requested close reviews. If you do not have the faith in your own judgment to discuss and defend your rationales, you should not be closing discussions. Just because someone challenges and argues with your close does not mean you need to go running for a review. A close review is not the same thing as a review about your judgment in a close, or if a participant is in the right or wrong for being unsatisfied with your close, it is a review as to whether the close was objectively in the wrong due to some obvious factors that the closer missed. If Kevbo has such an argument, he can bring it to us, but simply disagreeing with you is not grounds to do so, so I'm not sure why you're bringing this here. I'll bite, but for future reference, you don't need to come here and eat up our time simply because an involved user disagrees. That's not a grave outcome, that's par for the course. Defend your closes and stand behind them, or don't make them. If a user really wants to make a close challenge, they can do that, or they can simply decide to cut their losses. Don't go out of your way to challenge your own closes. Regarding the close, I count votes 7 for "state-related", 5 for "neither" or "other", and 4 for "public". It's true, Kevbo provided a strong source-based argument, and a closer should assign greater weight based on it. Even giving full acknowledgement to the sources provided, it did little to convince the community, and it was less popular than even a new approach of simply including no descriptor at all rather than one supplanted by all these sources. A closer is to heavily weigh policy-based arguments, and the availability of sources is literally one of our core policies. You should have given significant weight to the user who based their argument from sources. That being said, the support for "public" was so low that doesn't make a difference. Even with such a strong, source-based argument, it was still the least-popular option. Maybe if views were split, 7-8 or 6-9, I could justify a reading of consensus in favor of the argument that has the sources on its side. But we're talking 4-11, an overwhelming consensus against "public", and that's in spite of a large number of sources. So given that, it's disingenuous to suggest that a closer should read a minority consensus in spite of overwhelming community opposition. Close wasn't wrong, and the challenge doesn't even have much credibility. Please learn from this, explain your assessment and thought process with closes if challenged but don't automatically bring them up for review. You need to not back down and immediately succumb to a drama board timesink if someone disagrees with your judgment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I agree this is a reasonable close. I do want to strongly disagree with Swarm here on the "strength of argument" thing. If 100s of sources say that George Washington had wooden teeth, we don't write that he does if it's not true and reliable sources that address the debate all agree it's not true. In the same way, we don't claim Jesus's birthday is December 25th even though the vast majority of sources may claim that. In this case it isn't a public school and I believe that every reliable source which does more than just give it a label (and so actually discusses the issue) acknowledges that. I think going with "state-related" would have been the correct close (because that's indisputably correct), but NC is within discretion. Hobit (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your endorsement of the close, Swarm. It might have been enlightening to read the prior discussion with EKB I had been having for multiple days on my user talk. It was handily linked for your convenience in the same post above where the close was linked. I have been closing discussions for years and I have never backed down from explaining the reasons behind the close to anyone who asks. If you had looked at that page, there was also a prominent link to a log of closes I maintain, and please tell me, how many of those have I "automatically" sought review of? The one and only reason I sought review to "eat up your time" was because EKB went to that article and was unsatisfied with the response and then created an RfC and was unsatisfied with that response and then went to my talk page and I could see they were clearly unsatisfied with my response there. There was a high likelihood that there was going to be some further discussion somewhere that would "eat up time" and why not bring it to the notice board that is actually designated by the closing policy as the venue for review? But, hey, what's a little admin condescension among experienced editors? That's clearly what we're all here to provide. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if "100s of sources say that George Washington had wooden teeth" and a majority of participants support including that, then we should include it. Hopefully that never happens, but there will be cases where the closer believes the majority to be "wrong" but so long as they make policy-based arguments, the closer may not substitute their own judgment over that of the participants (WP:SUPERVOTE). (Of course various things need to be considered, like if contradictory evidence is presented late in the game, whether the other side simply hasn't had a chance to review it or they have reviewed and rejected it.) If you believe the result to be so hopelessly wrong that you cannot in good conscience close it in that direction, then you should participate in the discussion instead of closing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case at least, the majority went with the true thing rather than the "popularly said, but wrong" thing. My point would be that strength of argument isn't by a count of sources, but by the sources which actually address the issue. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta be honest, @Hobit:, it's pretty damn petty and annoying that you're even wasting our time with this line of argumentation. When we speak of sources and verifiability, it should go without saying that we're referring to reliable sources. You've presented a disingenuous straw man argument invoking a situation in which unreliable sources are stating a belief of popular folklore, and suggesting that I am saying that I would "count sources" in this situation. Give me a fucking break, you know damn well that isn't an analog to this situation, nor am I saying unreliable sources should be weighted to numerical count. Policy gets weighted over personal opinion, and an argument supported by reliable sources gets weighted over an argument based on a personal view, that's how this works, that's what I'm saying, and frankly it's lame that you're making me repeat this because of some bizarre pedantry that you want to force me into an argument or some thought experiment over. Knock it off. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Popularly said [by virtually all of the published experts] but wrong [according to some Wikipedia editors]" would be a much more honest and accurate assessment of the situation. It's rare that we have such an alignment of high quality, published sources that are seeking to answer the exact same question - how do we best summarize the governance of this institution? - as we are trying to answer and it's extremely frustrating that many Wikipedia editors are substituting their own judgment for those of the experts'. ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm, I'm sorry you see it as a waste. My argument is that while we've got sources, like Newsweek, that label everything as "public" or "private", we don't have that constraint. Most all of the press that addresses the issue sticks with "state-related" when it matters [4],[5]. It calls itself a "public-private hybrid" [6]. From our article "...the university remains a private entity, operating under its nonprofit corporate charter, governed by its independent Board of Trustees, and with its assets under its own ownership and control". [7]. To say it is a "public" school is, at best, a gross oversimplification. At worst, it's just wrong. We have the word "public" at other schools linking to Public university, but here it links to Commonwealth System of Higher Education. So yeah, I firmly believe that the strength of argument and numbers are on the "state-related" side. My choice of analogies were poor. I was trying to find examples of "commonly said in reliable sources but wrong". I probably should have either found better analogies or just dropped it. Hobit (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's extraordinarily problematic that you (a) cite Newsweek as the sole example of sources that use the "public" label when virtually all of the experts (e.g., Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, National Center for Education Statistics) use that label and (b) can cite only publications written by the subject to support the "state-related" label. It's incredibly frustrating that you and others persist in ignoring the vast number of sources, many written by experts, to focus almost exclusively on the small number of sources written by the subject. ElKevbo (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said ..we've got sources, like Newsweek, that label everything as "public" or "private"... That includes both the Carnegie Classifications (which are the gold standard here) and the NCES. I used Newsweek as the example because more folks would be aware of it. Realizing this probably belongs on a talk page, I stick it out here a bit longer and check to be sure we are on the same page about what the underlying disagreement is. I think we agree that "state-related" is accurate. Do we agree that it is a more precise description than either "public" or "private"? I *think* the issue is simply if we use the fairly imprecise term "public" or the better understood, but less precise term "public" in the lede. Do you agree with all that? And for the record, I do think that picking either just "public" or "private" is misleading, though I agree many very good sources uses exactly those terms (usually public, much more rarely private) to describe these schools. Also wiki-linking "public" in the lede to a different article than the vast majority of other public schools is a troublesome WP:SURPRISE. But all that (in small font) I don't think we'll agree on. I'm mainly curious if we are on the same page for the other stuff. Feel free to continue this discussion somewhere (talk page of the article, my talk page, your talk page) if you wish. Just leave a link here to wherever that is. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors substituting their own judgment over that employed by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources is a problem. The question that should be answered is not "How would I label this institution?" but "How do the sources label this institution?" And the answer to that is overwhelmingly clear. We don't allow editors to substitute their own preferences and judgments over those used in the sources we cite but that's exactly what is happening here. ElKevbo (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry we can't seem to have a successful discussion--I feel that you are just repeating the same things and not engaging, perhaps you feel the same. You certainly didn't address my points, and I feel I've at least tried to address yours, but maybe I've not succeeded. I think we ended up in the wrong place with this article (perhaps the only significant point here which we agree on), but frankly it's a minor point in the scope of the entire encyclopedia and I just don't see a way forward. I wish we could have found something everyone was happy with. Hobit (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the close is reasonable, and that this is a fuzzy question where an atypical arrangement makes it difficult to classify the topic according to the categories most commonly used in the field. I strongly disagree with User:Swarm's opinion on seeking review of the close. Any editor should always be comfortable asking for a second opinion here on their closure of a discussion. BD2412 T 20:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn is, of course, welcome to ask others to review the close. However, if I thought the close were so flawed as to warrant a review by others then I would have asked for one. ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's never wrong to request feedback, outside opinions, or review of one's actions. It's when we believe that our actions are beyond review that we are treading dangerous ground. And if one's actions are being questioned, it's right to ask for a review here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are loads of templates that list members of deposed royal families as if their positions still existed, which I think is absurd, but my question is, do entries on templates need some means of verification? Just as an example. please look at Template:Ducal Family of Parma, about living members of a family who lost their positions as rulers of the Duchy of Parma in 1860, when it ceased to exist. It lists about 60 people, about 50 of whom have no articles about them, it just lists them as "Prince" or "Princess" somebody or another, which is ridiculous imo since there have been no Princes or Princesses of those territories since 1860, but that's a (never ending) argument for another place. What I would like advice on, is is it OK to remove all those entries like "Princess Marie-Gabriella" or "Prince Erik" that are not blue linked to articles and therefore we have no way of verifying them? I feel all these templates about members of abolished royal families should just be deleted, but that takes time, in the meanwhile is it OK to remove the listings (there are hundred of them) of "Prince" and "Princess" whosiwhotsis that have no citations, no articles about them, no way to check if they even exist or are possibly hoaxes? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they are living, WP:BLP is your friend here. If they are dead, well unless there is a reliable source it can still be removed. It just may take more time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat75, good question, we don't do inline citations in templates but there's no reason they could not be sourced on the template talk page, and any that can't be sourced, removed. Guy (help!) 22:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen this thread before removing all the unlinked names in the Austrian archduchesses template, but I (obviously) agree that such information is unverified clutter that potentially violates BLP privacy. It also directly contravenes the standards of WP:EXISTING, which says unlinked items should be avoided in navboxes. JoelleJay (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A similar discussion regarding this concern is at TFD (others may see the current discussion where both I and Smeat have commented).

I have removed the unlinked content in this particular template per WP:NAVBOX/EXISTING. If these templates generally are unsalvageable in any meaningful sense, you can take them to TFD. If they are instead salvageable, consider opening a discussion on one of the village pumps or perhaps MOS:BIO to consider how best to deal with these. I see in the archives there that someone cared about them enough to have an RFC.

This otherwise isn't really an issue for WP:AN as no administrator action is necessary. I would recommend closing. --Izno (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were recently some disturbing edits to Lynching of Wilbur Little, which could have been anything from WP:FRINGE to vandalism to good-faith edits. We're a long way from needing any kind of administrative action, but if some more people could add Lynching of Wilbur Little to their watchlist, I think that would be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account was blocked for being a vandalism-related account and I noticed that he created redirects to multiple NHL teams. There is an IP who removed vandalism on "Pittsburgh penguins". There are some other NHL redirects with hidden text vandalism, and since he got blocked for vandalism, I request an admin to take a look since being blocked indefinitely can cause an account's created pages to be deleted. Some redirects are improperly capitalized as "REDIRECT" should be in all caps or no capitals at all. If they can't be deleted then I wonder if it's okay to fix it to proper capital letter usage. I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a blocked user's contribs were entirely problematic, we don't habitually delete all of their contribs. If their contribs have problems, you are more than welcome to fix them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal withdrawn, but in fairness, it was going to be closed as declined in a short while, anyway. Many defects were pointed out to the appellant concerning it: the excessive length (above all other things), the WP:NOTTHEM, the beyond stale timeline. Hopefully, some lessons will be drawn for any subsequent appeal — it is strongly recommended that such an appeal be filed in no less than six months. El_C 01:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Appealing my topic ban

 – ​— Newslinger talk 04:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing for my topic ban while reporting PatCheng/PCPP/STSC/LucasGeorge being socket puppet, and Bloodofox/HorseEyeJack being POV editing

A. The AE report against me was launched by PatCheng who seems to be socket puppet accounts of User PCPP and User STSC circumventing topic bans

1. PatCheng was active before summer 2006, turned less active in summer 2006 and stopped editing in Sep 2006. But in Jun 2019 PatCheng suddenly showing up reporting me in an ANI case and an AE case after failing in the ANI case, while PCPP created the account in Jun 2006, made first edit in Nov 2006 and was topic banned on Falun Gong in Feb 2011. The editing interests of PatCheng in 2006 and PCPP in 2007 and later are extremely similar. Both editors focused extensively on video games and popular culture, and on Falun Gong and the Epoch Times (these 2 articles are in both editors' top 5 editing pages). Both accounts seemed to edit from the same POV on topics related to China.

2. PatCheng and PCPP edited Template:Blizzard Entertainment: PatCheng's:4 April 2006, 4 Apr 2006, and 23 Mar 2006‎ and PCPP's edits:4 Aug 2007‎‎, 22 Mar 2007, and 14 Mar 2007

3. PCPP edited Template:Command & Conquer series: 14 Feb 2008, 14 Feb 2008 PatCheng edited Template:Command & Conquer: 2006-03-21, 2006-03-18, 2006-03-18, 2006-03-15, 2006-03-14

It's very strange that two unconnected accounts would edit the same video games' template pages, AND that they would also both primary focus on editing Falun Gong/Epoch Times pages (exhibiting the same POV), AND that one account was created when the other stopped editing. Statistically, the chance this is a coincidence is very low.

4. on 28 Jun 2009, Simonm223's message to PCPP about editing FLG article, AND PCPP's message to Simonm223 on editing FLG article, and on 16 Jan 2010 PCPP reverted Falun Gong article to the state that Simonm223 edited. Before PCPP’s ban in 2011, he worked with user Simonm223 on FLG topic.

PatCheng's message to Simonm223 about the FLG related article ET. PatCheng was the first user who posted the NBC reports against ET on August 20 the same day when NBC released the report. On the same day, PatCheng notified user Simonm223 who subsequently went to the ET page and did many questionable editing after PatCheng's notice. Here are 2 examples: 1 and 2 As there isn't any record that PatCheng communicated with Simonm223 before, suppose PatCheng is unrelated to PCPP (who had worked with Simonm223 before), how could PatCheng inform Simonm223 in editing FLG topic after PatCheng’s return in 2019 just re-starting his editing on Epoch Times?

5 STSC created his account in Jul 2006 and was inactive - edited 125 times before 2011. PCPP was topic banned in Feb 2011. In 2011 STSC turned to be quite active - edited 1535 times in 2011 alone and was topic banned on Falun Gong in Apr 2016 The account LucasGeorge was in Jan 2012 after PCPP was topic banned in Feb 2011, turned to be active in June 2016 - 2 months after STSC was topic banned. Recently LucasGeorge removed reliable sources related to CBC reports from ET article in the same way PatCheng did before he was topic banned using undue weight as the rationale.

Two of PCPP’s top 10 edited pages are Kilgour–Matas report and Criticism of Confucius Institutes while among LucasGeorge’s 10 edited articles, there are two very related ones to PCPP’s two: Organ transplantation in China, and Confucius Institute.

6. PCPP was topic banned in 2011 from Falun Gong and so was STSC in 2016. Both violated the ban multiple times. 3 examples for PCPP: User_talk:PCPP#January_2012, User_talk:PCPP#Are_you_deliberately_courting_another_ban? and User_talk:PCPP#July_2016. 2 examples for STSC: STSC was warned for violating the topic ban in June 2016, and STSC was warned again in July 2016 since at that time on PCPP's talk page, STSC attempted to help PCPP get unblocked by framing an admin as being involved. BTW, as PatCheng and PCPP worked as Simonm223 (mentioned in point 4), STSC also had communication with Simonm223. STSC left a message to Simonm223.

B. Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox were conducting POV editing in Falun Gong article

I was trying to address the issue Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox brought the article before being reported by PatCheng. Please allow me to go over the context of all related edits this year, as it was not explored by the admins reviewing the complaints from PatCheng.

1. In mid-May 2020, Bloodofox did a major change without prior discussion to the lead section of the Falun Gong article, which had been stable for over 1 year and has been under Discretionary Sanctions for many years. Multiple users（excluding me）complained the edit on the talk page. By the beginning of June, I notice that Bloodofox's edits were problematic. One main issue was that Bloodofox had misrepresented his sources. The following lines were added into the lead section of the article. a) “The Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad...” b) "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun…" but these lines were not supported by any of the 6 sources provided. C). Also, the NYT source and NBC source were further misrepresented by Bloodofox. [8].

2. From June 3 to 5, I tried to address the issue by discussing and editing in good faith: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#The_Last_Paragraph_of_the_Lead_Section, Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#"Extreme-right". In my edits, I cited the following reliable sources that addressed Bloodofox's misrepresentation issue a) and b), and then expanded the content.

a. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Behind-the-blitz-Falun-Gong-practitioners-spend-14966684.php "Shen Yun was formed in 2006 by followers of Falun Gong"

b. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/CULTURE-AND-RELIGION-Dissident-media-linked-to-2587555.php

c. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-21/what-is-the-falun-gong-movement-and-does-china-harvest-organs/9679690

d. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340868/ns/world_news/t/falun-gong-thrives-us/

My edits did not touch contents supported by Bloodofox's sources, but modified their unsourced lines into a line like “Falun Gong practitioners formed performing arts company Shen Yun and Epoch Times”, based on the new sources. I said to User:Horse Eye Jack on the talk page that he is welcome to add any RS supported contents. Please note WP:NOR should be followed. But User:Horse Eye Jack kept reverting without reasonable grounds and multiple reliable sources in my edits were deleted. Here are Horse Eye Jack’s reverts from June 3 to 5: [9] [10] [11] and Bloodofox's revert on June 5: [12]

Meanwhile, Horse Eye Jack accused me of having COI and being a SPA, he then reported me in an ANER case (failed). I responded by providing real-life examples of what COI would look like (discerning myself from COI persons). But Horse Eye Jack misconstrued my words as attacking him.

3. On June 10, I did two edits:

a. [13] As per the discussion Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#"Extreme-right", at the same time, I fixed the issue that NBC was used twice for the same line.

b. [14] with a summary stated that ”It was not reasonable to put the info of overseas FLG follower groups ahead of the "Origins" section. I am moving it to the section called "Falun Gong outside China".

For the edit b, my concern was that the re-organization was undue, as it places the fringe aspect of overseas Falun Gong organizations in the very beginning, obscuring the introduction of the group. (My concern was later addressed, as Bloodofox's problematic reorganization was substantially undone by another user, without disagreements from the community). Despite my reasonable objection, my edit was still reverted by Bloodofox [15] without giving any explanation, which I felt was ungrounded and disruptive.

After Bloodofox reverted my edit b, Horse Eye Jack then reverted my edit a: [16] ignoring the consensus on the talk page 5 days ago, which had agreed to specify that it was the NYT and NBC that had reported the Epoch Times of associating with right-wing politics.

Bloodofox and Horse Eye Jack’s reverts were unjustified. At that point, feeling that there were bully users who wouldn't allow any constructive edits that addressed the disruptive WP:OR issue, I restored the article to the state prior to Bloodofox’s major edit in May in the following day: [17] with a summary stating "the page is also under WP:discretionary sanctions. WP:ARBFLG shows activists tried to promote their views here. The significant change made to the relatively stable article in May by one user had no discussion consensus. Since then the article has been not stable. I am restoring back to the status prior to the change in May. "

C. One very possible reason that I was reported by POV editor PatCheng three times

I have never met PatCheng in Wikipedia editing, nor had any conflict with PatCheng, yet I was reported by PatCheng three times (one ANI case and two AE cases). Esp. last year PatCheng showed up first reporting me after 13 years’ retirement was very surprising. I notice POV editor STSC (Falun Gong topic banned in Apr 2016) seemed to be the connection between PatCheng and me. PatCheng's reports against me seem to be revenge in response to my 3RR report against STSC.

WP:ARBFLG shows other two anti Falun Gong activists were topic banned in 2007 as attempting "to use Wikipedia for ideological struggle and advocacy on FLG related articles. I fully agree with the following Wikipedia principles that were applied in WP:ARBFLG:

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.
• Neutral point of view: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
• Point of view editing: Users who engage in disruptive, point of view editing may be banned from affected articles or in extreme cases the site.

I respect human rights and paid attention to human rights topics. In the beginning I edited the article Zhang Jianhong (a poet and human rights defender who died of CCP's human rights abuse). and completed the creation of the article Xu Pei (a poet and human rights defender in Germany) this May. Both figures are human rights defenders. The China's Communist Party's persecution of Falun Gong turned Falun Gong an international human rights issue and FG related pages often were not following WP:5P2 mainly because there were anti FG activists who often promoted their narrative in their POV editing while disregarding Wikipedia policies and WP:ARBFLG. Thus, aside from my interest in refrigeration engineering related articles, FLG became my one focus.

In 2015/2016, I tried to prevent STSC's POV editing in FLG topic. STSC warned me six times and reported me for 3RR violation but he was the one violated 3RR, not me. So I reported STSC for 3RR as well. While in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse to PatCheng’s AE report, I had refuted PatCheng’s fake accusations one by one, one of PatCheng’s accusation in his 3 reports against me saying “launching a 3RR case against the user who reported him” looks esp. unusual. Reporting STSC’s 3RR violation is not an offence by any mean. An unrelated user to STSC is unlikely to mention this in AE reports. Aside the evidence in section A, This also indicates that PatCheng and STSC seem to be related.

D. PatCheng's POV edits spread in Wikipedia Falun Gong topic

After to the Epoch Times article on Aug 20, 2019, when it was just released, a lot of other RS supported contents in the ET article that were not in line with the view from PatCheng and the like-minded POV users were censored and removed - one example: a previous edit from one reviewer on PatCheng's AE report against me. PatCheng even removed content from a CBC report by falsely claiming the quoted as Original Research. Some users or even admins could have been misled by the POV article.

It was Bloodofox who promoted the NBC report that PatCheng first introduced to Wikipedia in August 2019 to Falun Gong related articles in May 2020 and June 2010. In the process, WP:OR contents without the support of NBC or any sources were added. It is evident that RS-supported views sympathetic to the victims of the persecution were censored, but info accusing FLG were stated as facts rather than NPOV descriptions that include who the accusers were. Although on articles under Discretionary Sanctions Bloodofox conducted major edits that violated WP:V and WP:NOR many times, there was one involved user often showed up for reverting and warning other users who tried to address Bloodofox's damages to the articles. Here are 2 examples: 1 and 1. The reverting of my 7th edit and the subsequent warning against me were in the same pattern.

I believe that both criticizing views and praising views should be fairly and proportionally represented without bias in an article. For any sourced views not failing WP:RS and WP:Due, I would have no problem to see them being posted. But for contents failing WP:V or WP:NOR, I believe they should be corrected. All my this year's 7 edits in the Falun Gong article reflected WP:NPOV spirit. POV editors PatCheng/STSC, Horse Eye Jack, and Bloodofox seem to reject any RS supported views that were different from their POV. Thus I became a barrier for anti-FLG POV editors. It seems to be because of PatCheng's pro-CCP POV and my effort to address POV edits, that he kept attempting to get me banned since last year.

In his AE report, PatCheng distorted my words for framing me being personal attack. The evidence presented against me did not show evidence of policy violations, aspersion-casting, or disruptive editing, as claimed. Please review my evidence in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse, since the admins reviewing the complaint did not appear to carefully review my evidence before deciding to ban me.

In summary, it was Bloodofox and Horse Eye Jack who were engaged in disruptive POV editing, and I only tried to correct those questionable WP:OR content. It was an involved user's erroneous revert & warning seems to be made use of by the Falun Gong topic banned PCPP/STSC’s sock puppet user. As such, PatCheng's AE report against me should be considered as being invalid and the topic ban enforeced on me should be canceled.

For any valid criticism, I will improve. I note that English is not my native language, which sometimes might have made my discussion hard to understand. I will try to improve in this area. I will continue consult with other editors first before making significant content change. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 27 July 2020

Response to the users who have commented

Thanks Newslinger for notifying those users who were reported and for moving the appealing/reporting from ANI to AN. This is my first time for launching a case here. Sorry for being not familiar with some rules for posting on ANI/AN.

Thanks so much to Pudeo for reading most part of the section A and launching the WP:SI case to investigate PatCheng/PCPP. I appreciate you spent time investigating and finding a lot new evidence that shows PatCheng and PCPP are sock puppet.

Many users commented that the post was too long to read. I acknowledge, yes, it is too long. It seems even Pudeo did not finish reading the first section. In the end part of section A more evidence on STSC and LucasGeorge were provided, and the end part of section C addressed the connection between STSC and PatCheng as well. If it is possible, i hope you can also include this part in the SI case.

My point in appealing was clear:

1. I was wrongfully reported in an AE case by a user who seems to be sock puppet of a topic banned user PCPP.

2. All my 7 edits on the Falun Gong articles before being reported were explained in detail one by one in section B. Many users commented that i did not explain my own edits. This is simply not true. It seems that nobody even finished reading the first section, let alone about section B and other sections.

3. All the accusations from PatCheng and others were refuted one by one with detailed evidence in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse. Again, this was too long, nobody would care to read it through.

I believe in simplicity and had no desire to write a long appeal if I could make it short in any way. Aside from my mastery of the language is not so adequate for making a concise and effective case, the matter that PatCheng's plot to report and get me banned ran deep in many years involving multiple possible sock puppets.

Before this year's AE report, I was following NPOV spirit for addressing WP:OR content brought in by Bloodofox. I am innocent to the accusations of being disruptive and casting aversion. I was the one who was attacked by POV editors. I did not cast any aversion here or anywhere. My topic ban was a huge mistake, so i intend to appeal in the hope that the existing mechanism in Wikipedia would correct mistakes. I worked for a few weeks in order to prepare the detailed appealing post that includes numerous evidence.

In reality, as nobody wants to read a long post, CaptainEek's advice to withdraw makes sense to me. I will consider to withdraw the appeal. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 18:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @CaptainEek:: can you teach me how to withdraw the appeal? Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 20:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just say here that you want to withdraw it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

!voting unban of Marvin 2009

Link to Arbitration Enforcement Request, which was June 30th

Marvin 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is extremely lengthy and convoluted. This looks more like an indictment against other editors than an appeal of one's own sanctions. One must address one's own prior editing, show examples of constructive editing in other areas, and explain how they will edit constructively in the area applicable to the restrictions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Opposeper Newslinger --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I am gravely concerned that this appeal looks like a massive casting of aspersions, which was a problem for which user was TBANned. The criticisms in the DS discussion continue to hold true in this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unban. This appeal does not adequately address any of the issues (disruptive editing in the Falun Gong topic area) that led to Marvin 2009 being topic banned in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268 § Marvin 2009. Appeals need to focus on the appellant's own behavior, not that of other editors. — Newslinger talk 05:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've notified LucasGeorge, Bloodofox, and Horse Eye Jack using {{AN-notice}}, as required by the noticeboard instructions. The other editors are either inactive or topic banned. — Newslinger talk 06:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. When someone writes a 7000-word appeal about how everyone else was the problem, the author was usually the real problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• OP: I highly suggest you withdraw this request, and write a far more concise version that deals with your editing, not that of other people. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is good advice for the next appeal, but I highly recommend waiting at least six months before appealing again, and using the time to make constructive contributions in other topic areas. — Newslinger talk 06:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I second Newslinger, you should probably wait six months, this appeal has left the community with a bad taste in its mouth. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose lifting topic ban. This mind-numbing TLDR opus fails to explain why this editor should have their topic ban lifted and instead goes back 14 years to argue that six other editors are bad actors. I believe that this is the worst appeal I have ever read. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per everyone above (and possibly below). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was pointed out in the AE thread that led to the topic ban that PatCheng returned from a 13 year hiatus to file a report on Marvin on ANI, and this was acknowledged in the uninvolved admin comments. As a result, PatCheng was also topic-banned. However, Marvin's own conduct was also independently found to be problematic, so focusing on that only is unlikely to make the appeal successful. I don't think there's much evidence for connecting any other accounts than PatCheng and PCPP (Editor Interaction Tool). Both accounts have a relatively low edit count (~3,000), but besides a lot of Chinese politics related articles they have also intersection in videogames like PC PowerPlay, Template:Handheld game consoles, Xbox 360 technical problems, MapleStory, Unreal (1998 video game), Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood, which is highly suspicious. So it is possible that there is one editor who has FLG topic bans on multiple accounts, and PatCheng edited in violation of one. But again, unclean hands from him is probably not enough to exonerate Marvin 2009, although if he really is PCPP, he made 1 ANI and 2 AE reports in violation of his topic ban. --Pudeo (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I opened a SPI for the connection between PatCheng and PCPP which is the right place to process it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PatCheng. --Pudeo (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the request needs to be made more concise and it needs to focus on your behaviour, not other people's. Whether other people were acting appropriately has little or nothing to do with whether you were. Hut 8.5 07:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and I strongly stand by my assertion that this account has COI issues and they were in fact a SPA even if they later tried to diversify their editing pattern in an attempt to shake the label. There are also a half dozen major inaccuracies and at least a dozen minor inaccuracies in their description of whats been happening on FG related pages but I think thats besides the point, this is a diatribe against those this FG account feels has wronged them not a legitimate request to lift a topic ban. We regularly see this sort of thing from the little pinks so its not super surprising to see it from the other side. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This is possibly the worst unblock request I've ever seen, at least in the category >500 words. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. WP:TLDR and what everybody else wrote above in the !vote section. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a textbook example of how to NOT get your appeal approved. Everyone else is not the issue, you need to review your own behavior. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - A screed against others, not a legitimate appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from the implementing administrator I was never notified of this thread which seems odd. Further, the community should keep in mind that I have had to implement additional editing restriction on Falun Gong to try to stop the continual edit warring. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I overlooked notifying you, because you weren't mentioned in the appeal at all. Apologies. — Newslinger talk 19:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, due to WP:NOTTHEM violation. Guy (help!) 21:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Marvin 2009 keeps abusing the sectioning/subsectioning feature by placing every post he makes in a separate subsection. This clutters the TOC and gives his posts - especially the section titles -- undue prominence. I have corrected this twice, once at ANI and once here. Could an admin please ask him to stop this behavior? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Brian McNeil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I heard this evening from Bastique on Facebook that Brian McNeil has died of COVID-19. He was active more on WikiNews (sysop) and Commons, but a lot of us here knew him on Wiki and via social media. Brian was a thoroughly decent man. Guy (help!) 20:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please save me from Hatchens. I am afraid. I came here after suggested by Adamant1. I just want to put in to the notice of Wikipedia's admins. I don't know why Hatchens is so offensive on me. He nominated all the articles created by me. Even i never face this user in past in any edit war or something else. After all this, I have checked Hatchens account and found some intersting facts, please refer below.

Hatchens is nominating the articles for deletion without checking the references. Most of his nominations are false and those articles saved as "Keep" or "Speedy Keep" or "Soft Delete". Such as IILM Institute for Higher Education, Care Hospitals, Krishna Shankar, Ansal University, Radio Mango, Zambar Restaurent, Baseer Ali, Liam Brennan, Dinesh Parmar, Biplob, Rachel Goenka, Pramati Technologies, Sayantani Guhathakurta, Shivin Narang, Artech, Audrish Banerjee, and there is a long list of "Keep" results. Please help! Randfiskin (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens's AFD stats look fine. Only 3 AFDs relate to the OP, none of them listed above, and all still open (though all going off-topic), Cyber Peace Foundation (CPF), V-NOVA, and Vogue Institute of Art & Design. The OP's outrage seems to have been triggered by an allegation of paid editing which they have tried to remove but not addressed. Cabayi (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I think Hatchens is probably on the nose with the WP:PAID thing, I am tempted to concur with Adamant1 suggestion that as it's pretty there's something off about both of you and you obviously have a problem with each other that needs to to be worked out...Maybe these nominations should be put on hold for and you should take it to ANI, because I don't think this is the place to litigate your personal issues ([20]). FTR, I already voted in one of them (which brought me here). Incidentally, can I also suggest that both Hatchens and Randfiskin cease bolding their every reply to each other?! It doesn't give the comment any more authority, but actually distracts from what you are each saying, as well as making the page near-unreadable. ——Serial 10:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ——Serial, your concern has been duly noted. Will follow your suggestion to avoid any such distraction. Thank you. -Hatchens (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unbolding performed successfully at other two AfD discussions - V-NOVA and Vogue Institute of Art & Design. -Hatchens (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait are the previous CEO of Moz (marketing software)? I saw this on my watchlist and thought this might be in relation to my deletion nomination of that page. But looks like it has nothing to with that. Are you in any way related to Special: Contributions/Randfish? I don't know how much WP:IMPERSONATE applies since Rand Fishkin is a public figure but not *that* public; he had also requested that his Wikipedia page be deleted. Also, your page creations do look very suspicious from a paid editing angle. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the articles - the overall editing pattern is also suspicious. MER-C 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following a request to the committee, the Oversight rights of GB fan (talk · contribs) are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 22:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to Oversight team

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently, I was asked to fix problems in the reference formatting of an article nominated for DYK that is classified as ARBPIA, as shown here, but because of its ARBPIA classification, I could not do anything to that article.Davidbena (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Sir Joseph: Paleo-Hebrew alphabet: just look at its talk page. There are disputes on whether the script or exists independently or is an Israeli nationalist re-branding of the Phoenician alphabet going back over a decade. Davidbena participated extensively in a contentious merge discussion about it a couple of weeks ago. The Madaba Map, as Guy has already mentioned, is an important piece of historical geography used in contemporary territorial claims: Although the original Madaba Map was part of a Christian edifice situated outside Palestine, it was highly regarded by Zionist archaeologists not only for its universal significance but as a remnant of the Jewish national past in Palestine. The Zionist rhetoric used it to verify the important role of the city of Jerusalem in the Jewish narrative of place. The idea of creating modern maps of Jerusalem, in the spirit of the Madaba Map is best exemplified by Naomi Henrik's mosaic decoration (Figure 7), originally installed in 1957 outside the entrance to the Jerusalem Municipality building and later transferred and reinstalled at the Mount Herzl complex in Jerusalem. [24] Anyone working on the history of the Southern Levant would agree that there is practically nothing about it that isn't politicised. – Joe (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment. The scope of the current topic ban has come up above, and I'll comment here to avoid fragmenting any other conversations. It's not a DS ban, but as "ARBPIA" was specifically mentioned, I don't think it's unreasonable of Davidbena to have interpreted it as covering only the I/P conflict itself (even with "broadly construed" - that's such an nebulous concept that what might seem like obvious coverage to some will seem different to others). Yes, it could have been interpreted more broadly, but I don't see Davidbena's interpretation as obviously implausible, and I do see it as being in good faith. If the community wants to tighten the definition of the topic ban scope then that of course can be covered here. But I think any sanction for allegedly breaking the ban through a good faith interpretation of its scope would be wrong, and I would strongly oppose any such move. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I never understand exactly how broadly is "broadly construed". If I am topic banned from AP2, can I edit United States of America? Christianity? American English? United States Constitution? AR-15? Mass shooting? North America? If I am topic banned from PIA, can I edit Hebrew or Arabic? Islam or Judaism? Military occupation or terrorism? Middle East? If I am topic banned from The Troubles can I edit Britain or Ireland? Catholicism or Protestantism? What if I just edit the portions of those articles that don't relate to the conflict? I'm glad I'm not topic banned from anything because I'd have no idea. Without clear lines, sanctioning editors for editing at the edges of a topic ban strikes me as an unfair "gotcha". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]