• Special:permalink/1097008915#Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request reopened from archive per email request

Whatsupkarren is requesting unblock/unban, and is sock of Tariq afflaq . Roy Smith noted in the prior unban request that user no longer has the original account password, and that he recommended requesting unban with this account. User is WP:3X banned as Tariq afflaq. This is, of course, a checkuser block.

• Whatsupkarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tariq afflaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Prior unban request
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq/Archive

Request to be unbanned

It’s been more than a year, I haven’t made any edit on English Wikipedia, used sockpuppets or anything like that since I was banned a year ago, I fully understand why I was blocked, and then banned, I admit my mistakes, I own up to my irresponsible reckless activities years ago, I apologize to all of Wikipedia community, and promise that will never ever engage in such activities again. the ban gave me a chance to acquaint myself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I think the ban is no longer necessary because I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions. 2. Edit warring and vandalism, my approach to dealing with fellow users was rather barbaric, I now know that disagreements should be resolved through discussing the issue on the associated talk page or seeking help at appropriate venues. 3.I also know that I should remain civil and should not use improper language and should avoid responding in a contentious and antagonistic manner. I also want to add that I've created more than 50 articles on Arabic and French Wikipedias in the past year. I hope this appeal addresses all of your concerns, if not, please point them out. thanks for your time.

Carried over from user talk by --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkuser needed for starters, as this is a CU block and can only be considered after a CU has looked at it. No comment on the merits at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Unlikely but it's a noisy range. @Mz7: had the most luck last time and I believe it's worth a second set of eyes here in case I missed something. To be clear, barring new evidence, my findings clear the checkuser part of the block and mean this unblock request may now be considered on the merits. --Yamla (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked into this appeal too deeply yet, but it looks like at the previous unban request, I provided a decent summary of the background here and why I was opposed at the time: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Whatsupkarren / Tariq afflaq unban request. I think at least this part of what I said back then probably still applies: If the community does want to extend leniency to this user, I would strongly suggest also attaching some unblock conditions, e.g. a topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the editting on other wikis, it appears to all be around Syria and people of Syrian decent, which appears to be part of the reason they were originally blocked. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm always up for a second chance. I do think that a TBan from Syria-related topics, to be appealed after a minimum of six months, would be necessary - on the understanding that they would need to demonstrate a capacity to edit constructively in that time, not merely wait for it to time out then appeal. There would also need to be an agreement to stick to one account. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock per WP:LASTCHANCE, with a six month Syria related topic ban and a one account restriction. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept under the conditions of a indef topic ban for Syria, and an indef one account restriction, with either restriction being appealable after 6 months of actual editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline until they show any interest in editing any other topic. When was the last time that Whatsupkarren/Tariq afflaq made any edit to a non-English Wikipedia that wouldn't have been a direct violation of their topic ban here? I mean, their most recent Wikipedia mainspace edits were a month ago on ptwiki, to pt:Moise Safra—where they were re-adding claims asserting Syrian nationality to a biography, as part of a slow-motion edit war on that article. For reference, he was trying to make essentially the same edit (since reverted) to enwiki's Moise Safra in December 2020, just hours before his original indefinite enwiki block. (And again as an IP evading his block less than a month later. And then as a sock two weeks after that. And then as another sock three months later.)
  This editor has not shown that they are capable of editing anywhere outside of their topic ban. Instead, they've spent their time outside of enwiki exporting the same 'Syrian-tagging' disputes to multiple other Wikipedia projects. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Non-plussed by user's feeing that edit warring is not edit warring if they have a good reason for edit warring. An opinion shared by many of the edit warriors I have encountered. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  edit for the bot to not archive before close --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Answered adequately. Comment struck Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Unblock per Girth Summit, Cullen328, and Dennis Brown above. Appealable-in-six-months TBan from Syria-related topics, agreement to stick to one account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Lift ban, unblock with Syria topic ban and one account restriction as suggested by others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (I actually started closing, thinking it was clearcut, before realising that it's only actually slightly in favour of an unblock at the moment). @Whatsupkarren: - can you point to recent activity on another project on a topic other than Syria? What would you do here if you were unblocked but TBANNED on Syria? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Whatsupkarren emailing a response isn't the best thing to do - answering on your talk page with a ping is fine. Am I fine to post the content of your email response? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Drat, just when it was getting good --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lift ban, unblock with a TBAN on Syria stuff. WP:STANDARDOFFER. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't exactly endorse unblocking, but I am not opposed either as long as the Syria topic ban is placed as a condition for unblocking. Am interested in reading the response to Nosebagbear's question above. Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 18 admitted sockpuppets used to deceive, threatening off-wiki hacking, impersonating an editor, and a nationalistic POV pusher to boot. They had almost a week to answer Nosebagbear's question & failed to do so. Timesink 101, can only harm WP. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply to @Bison X: carried over by me.

  I didn't fail to answer, I emailed the admin on July 18th. Thanks for your time Whatsupkarren (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As was noted by admin 1 week ago Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, thank you for that. I couldn't find it on-wiki so I didn't have much to go on. I don't see how a few dime-a-dozen vandal reverts (as noted on their talk page) counters the deception, the intimidation and the masquerading. Net negative. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Whatsupkarren: Re: your response (copied from your user talk):

  They’re not really a few dime a dozens,

  per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rollback "While there is no fixed requirement, a request is unlikely to be successful without a contribution history that demonstrates an ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism. Rollback is not for very new users: it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted.”

  i did more than 600 space edits, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Whatsupkarren&offset=20210222045519&limit=500&target=Whatsupkarren Whatsupkarren (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  That really doesn't clarify anything, other than turning "a few" into "600" and a quote from the rollback page. While looking into this, there are several pages of of tangled webs that were woven, what with the SPI page, the several sock contribution pages & talk pages, the last ANI, this ANI and your current talk page. Forgive me if I have overlooked anything, but I do not see where you directly addressed some concerns that were brought up by User:Mz7, specifically:

  You were accused of pretended to be Chris O'Hare, who had just been blocked, in order to try and trick administrators into thinking Chris O'Hare was evading their block. I could not find where you were doing this, but is this true? What is your response to this?

  You also also threatened to "hack" someone else's Facebook account. in this edit. What is your response to this?

  You continually say you didn't know the rules on Wikipedia, so you didn't know socking was prohibited. But, with the Sidoc account alone, you were trying to impose a chilling effect on another user so you could win a dispute. How can you believe that would be an acceptable action to take against another volunteer editor even if it wasn't against the rules?

  Again, since there are so many different discussions, and this was never directly addressed at the last ANI, it seems reasonable (even if you addressed these elsewhere) to address these here in this discussion. Please respond to the 3 questions. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User answered Nosebagbear's question on their talk. I asked them to chunk it down, and in a nutshell, "reverting vandalism."Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to BisonX carried over by DFO

1) Yes, it’s true that I impersonated a user and I admitted that in my appeal.

“ I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions.”

2) Yes, I admitted that I threatened a user to hack their account, it was all talk i don’t even use Facebook, but now I know that threatening is completely forbidden on Wikipedia per WP:HAR

3) I wanted to say that at first, when i was using Tariq Afflaq, I didn’t know that using another account after being blocked is prohibited, I did know later, and continued socking using sidoc, oxforder, whatsupkarren, OhioanRCS and the other later accounts until the ban was palced on me, and I completely own up to it,

for example:

When my main account Tariq Afflaq was blocked for 48 hours, I immediately created a sock ( George51725w5218 ), and returned to the same talk page that I was arguing in using Tariq Afflaq, this is some of that I said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/992247224

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/992248330

If I had known that was wrong, I wouldn’t have come to the same TP and continued the discussion as if nothing happened, my point is, AT THE VERY BEGINNING, what I did was out of ignorance and not out of intended abusiveness, but I'm not arguing that I'm not guilty at all, it was my fault not informing myself with the policies.

Regards Whatsupkarren (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem sincere and open about your appeal, but to me the deception you used shouldn't have been excused by ignorance; rather it shouldn't have been done out of respect to the encyclopedia and, oh yeah, the other people editing in that area. I don't know, to me it seems like a deal breaker, but several admins above are open to a T-BAN and a one-account limitation — they are the ones who would have to deal with any further disruptions. My gut says no, but I don't have to deal with it. I guess the reviewing admin can consider me a weak oppose on an unblock, but if unblocked, support an indefinite ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed, and a one account limitation. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• With some dismay that this has been open for so long, I support a last-chance unban, conditional on an indefinite Syria topic ban. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 17:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I have recently been on the receiving end of User:Doug Weller's wrath. I have been blocked from editing two pages and have been accused of attacking other editors in a personal manner, an accusation for which there are no grounds. Doug also doesn't like being called 'buddy' and apparently this was an issue even though he didn't tell me he didn't like it. Tell me Doug, how do I know that you don't like it if you don't tell me? Communication is key. I wish to be unblocked and I have used the unblock template thrice but to no avail! I also request that Doug retract his accusations that I have attacked other editors. I also believe that I have been treated unfairly by Doug and he has abused his administrative privileges to impose his wrath upon me. Please allow me to explain.

Firstly at Climatic Research Unit email controversy, I was happily going about editing and improving the article ([1], [2] among others) when I suddenly awoke the science goblins from their cave. Next thing I know, Tim, Dave and Mr Gadling had logged onto their computers and began their onslaught. Tim was at the time an undisclosed paid editor with a fat COI, something for which he barely received a slap on the wrist from Doug. Mr Gadling threw around accusations and got rather angry and uncivil ([3]) and deleted the discussion as a result of his actions. Dave was alright I guess, he could have been better. Anyway, along comes Doug and bang he blocks me from editing the page! Despite the fact that other editors were engaged heavily in some nasty edit warring, I am singled out! Can you believe it! Doug declined to elaborate on his reasoning (User talk:Willbb234/Archive 5#June 2022) and was very short with me.

Secondly, I then edit Dnepropetrovsk maniacs and I have a little edit war with Ian. We both do three reverts and so do not exceed WP:3RR and once again out of absolutely nowhere, Doug blocks me! I ask Doug on his talk page why he blocked just me but not Ian and I am ignored. Ian didn't even get a warning. If this isn't considered inappropriate behaviour by an admin then I don't really know what an admin can't do now. Ian's edits then get demolished by consensus proving that I am indeed correct, and Ian and Doug are wrong.

I am asking that Doug's actions are brought under the microscope as they are clearly inappropriate and that my blocks are reversed. That is all. Thanks everyone and happy editing :)Willbb234 20:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make an unblock request on your user talk page and it will be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Take care to read WP:GAB. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this on my talk page with the message “ Hi Doug. I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions. here's the discussion. thanks”. I’m in bed planning to read a bit and then go to sleep. See their talk page. Also User:Deepfriedokra may want to comment as they posted their about the unblock request. I don’t think Ian has been notified. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm, please see the final statement of my reasoning. This isn't just about an unblock. Thanks. Willbb234 20:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm curious if "Doug and his Lego" is the snide comment I think it is; is there another meaning I can't think of? If it is, then let's just close this as a time sink. Also, I realize that eventually a bot archived them, but aren't declined unblock requests supposed to be visible if you make a new unblock request? Reading recent edit summaries and comments, I'm inclined to leave both page blocks in place, and caution Willbb234 that they need to change their approach or blocks could start becoming sitewide. Keep in mind I know about this because I watchlist Doug's talk page, and am friendly with him, so I won't be doing any of what I'm suggesting myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm bemused by the title of this thread (and fairly unamused by "I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions"), so would appreciate being clued in here.. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Lego Group estimates that in five decades it has produced 400 billion Lego blocks". Doug is the Lego Group. Willbb234 20:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiight... well that doesn't make any sense does it :) I've renamed the thread. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's not your buddy, pal. nableezy - 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not your pal, buddy. Willbb234 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I declined an unblock. When OP complained on my talk page, I sent them here. I'll let the folks here decide if the partial blocks can be lifted. I think OP is overly invested in the articles in question. There are about 6,000,000 other articles to edit. I don't think the partial blocks are anything onerous.Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, the vindictiveness, the seeming seeking of revenge noted by Doug in " I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions", inclines me to feel I was right to decline. It suggests a battleground mentality not compatible with this project. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue with this comment. I believe Doug acted unfairly and used his administrative tools in a way in which they should not be used. Isn't it fair that I therefore believe that there should be consequences for his actions? Willbb234 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now, what was I saying about inappropriate use of terms of familiarity? Ah, yes. It was OP's talk somewhere. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the evidence or admission that Tim is paid for his contributions to Wikipedia? If there are none, you should strike that. I don't see much in Mr Gadling's comments that lead me to believe he is angry. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Tim's talk page, he says he works for the Climatic Research Unit which was targeted by the hackers. Also, I believe Mr Gadling's comments on his talk page sounded quite aggressive almost to the point that he was angry. Willbb234 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

working for Climatic Research Unit does not mean Tim is compensated for his edits (which is a much more serious issue). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that being paid by an employer regardless of whether it is for editing or not still consitutes WP:PAID. Willbb234 21:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Many editors are employed and receive some form of compensation for that employment. That does not mean we are WP:PAID because the compensation is not for the editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm not sure whether the two of you are talking about the same thing, but if you edit an article related to the organisation you work for, intern for or even volunteer for, you are WP:PAID with respect to that article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's WP:COI. You are only WP:PAID if your editing is directed by your employer as part of your employment. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a lot has changed on both WP:COI and WP:PAID since I first read up on them. Anyway, it's a distinction without a difference. You need to declare and you are strongly discouraged from direct editing, in both cases. Regardless, there's no call to call him a UPE in 2022 when he'd disclose his employment in 2011 (after, to my surprise, the most casual OUTING by an admin, ever). Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, now I'm confused but not overly. COI states (my bold underline): Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. How do you think it would pan out if your employer saw a comment by you that was out of line with their business philosophy? The financial part of COI is extremely important and could very well be what drives a person to assume a particular position. I have no dog in this fight, and what matters most to me is making sure we are all on the same page relative to PAGs. My question now is whether or not that COI creates an issue for the editor who commented on that article? I will also add that I did not see an issue in the diffs provided but if those edits led to PAs against the editor, then we have a problem. How it is handled is up to our admins to decide, and the latter is why I want to make sure my thinking is on the same page as our trusted admins. Atsme 💬 📧 15:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difference between "I'm going to clean up the article on my employer because I'm familiar with them" (COI) versus "My employer is literally paying me to edit the article towards a specific goal" (PAID). The former, while a conflict, is not necessarily in bad faith, while the latter is almost always meant to skew the article in favor of the employer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. --JBL (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, but I'm not convinced by that argument. It does not automatically make a COI go away. In order to eliminate a COI, it's important to have uninvolved editors approve/oversee what you've written, and if challenged, it can be discussed. Simply knowing someone does not make the relationship a COI, but earning a living from them most certainly does. People get fired for talking against their employer or the employer's philosophy. I don't think it applies in the same manner on Mars, or on the Starship Enterprise since they are out of the jurisdiction of WP:PAGs. Atsme 💬 📧 12:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to ask for a request for comment at Talk:Dnepropetrovsk maniacs because it was clear that we were going round in circles and going nowhere fast. However, I was unhappy about this edit summary. I would be happy to see Willbb234 unblocked, but only on condition that edit summaries and language like this are not used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Willbb234, you appear to have been blocked for edit warring as well as the use of intemperate language in edit summaries. Neither alone would be probably be enough for admin action but the two together is what has brought you to this point. I don't really see anything "unfair" in Doug's block and my suggestion is that you just fess up in an unblock notice, perhaps throw in a graceful apology to ianmacm, and see what happens. Complaints about "lego" blocks or leveling accusations of "wrath" are not going to be helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said on their talk page about an unblock, "The request doesn’t seem to show good faith and doesn’t deal with the personal attacks, so I wouldn’t. We need firm commitments on those issues and no attempt to suggest others may be to blame. " Doug Weller talk 07:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Willbb234 admits edit warring and even if comments like "what a load of shit, buddy. Are you capable of reading WP:ONUS?" [4] aren't personal attacks they definitely aren't civil. Would you use that kind of language in, say, a workplace with a colleague you don't know well? Probably not, and I imagine that if you did sooner or later your manager or someone from HR would tell you to stop. This block could probably have be lifted if Willbb234 made it clear they understood what was wrong with their behaviour and that they wouldn't do it again, but instead they reacted by claiming the block was down to the "wrath" of the blocking admin and opening this thread in an apparent attempt to get some sort of revenge [5]. I suggest the OP withdraw this, wait a bit, and then file an unblock request dealing with the issues in their behaviour. Hut 8.5 12:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• At Climatic Research Unit email controversy, the edits in question aren't egregious, and largely come down to some copyediting, removing "grossly" from "grossly mischaracterized", and swapping "climate change denial" framing for "global warming sceptics". These are recurring sorts of minor POV edits in the climate space on Wikipedia. The word choice of "grossly" is a perfectly valid conversation to have, but rather than have a conversation (Willbb234 didn't use the talk page at all), he edit warred against three other people. Edit warring isn't allowed here. When called on it, he went on offense: Or do you only ban users you don't like? I understand you might be a bit angry, but try not to throw your toys out the pram. You're a big boy now and we can all behave ourselves., followed by a couple pretty terrible unblock requests. Now we're here, and people are called science goblins, etc. Edit warring isn't allowed, even if you stay away from 3RR. Probably could've been a fixed-length block rather than indefinite, but it's the sort of thing that should be very easy to get unblocked from. "My bad. Shouldn't have edit warred and gotten angry. I won't edit war further and will use the talk page to find consensus" yada yada... bam, unblocked. Over at Dnepropetrovsk maniacs (oof, wish I hadn't looked at the content of the diffs), it doesn't seem like there's any POV issue -- it's mainly just edit warring again. You went past 3RR there. Being right isn't a good excuse. Doug would've also been justified blocking Ianmacm there, but i suspect what Doug saw was that you were engaged in edit wars on multiple articles, and even broke 3RR on that one. I'm surprised it wasn't a typical ~24h block at that point. Regardless, these are justified blocks. Just stop edit warring. Don't point at other people. If you see other people edit warring, that has nothing to do with whether you should be; just report them for edit warring and/or resolve it on the talk page. As above, this should be very easy to get lifted. Or, well, they should've been very easy. Now, with this thread and the lousy unblock requests, admins may want to see a more elaborate demonstration of clue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  👍 Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indefinite is not infinite. I could have unblocked yesterday had OP done as you suggest. Instead we are here. I find the bit about throwing toys out of prams to possibly be ironic. YMMV. Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I also agree 99.9%. Is that a first for us Rhododendrites? 😀 Atsme 💬 📧 15:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. JBL (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This all could have been avoided if Willbb234 had handled it the right way. Instead, what would have been a simple appeal has exposed a deeper behavioral problem and a combative attitude that is inherently incompatible with a collaborative project. Trying to play the victim, using condescending language towards others, and essentially tirading around WP is not the way to handle things. They have clearly been around long enough to know better. If they had bothered to take the appeal process seriously, they probably could have been unblocked by now. If they seriously do not see a problem with the way they flippantly approached the appeal process, then that's an indication that there is no recognition of what has gone wrong here and behavior is not likely to change. Past performance is indicative of future results. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been watching this post and it seems that Willbb234 has some issues with WP:CIV Seems to me the next action is to expand the block for the user until they can follow basic expectations of behavior on Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would hope that the frustration caused by the behavior Willbb234 encountered is taken into consideration because nobody's hands in this edit dispute are sparkling clean. Just my 2¢ worth. Make that $1.00 in consideration of today's inflation – which is really hurting folks on Bonaire, my little island paradise of inflate-the-price. Atsme 💬 📧 15:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorse Doug's actions and I believe Willbb234 needs to revisit their compliance with policy. Andrevan@ 16:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the contributions everyone. Firstly, I would like to make clear that I recognise that I acted incorrectly on the two articles in question both through edit warring and civility issues. What I don't believe editors here seem to understand is that I have an issue with Doug's conduct which certainly should be scrutinised in the context of a lack of action against other users. This is why I have an issue with Rhododendrites saying Don't point at other people. If you see other people edit warring, that has nothing to do with whether you should be. Sure, in the context of my block that is a perfectly reasonable thing to say but when considering the actions of Doug, this is wrong. How Doug decided to act in these two situations is important both through what he did to me and, importantly, what he did not do to other editors. If Doug was truly acting in the best interest of the project as a whole, and wished to uphold his endeavour to tackle 'battleground' behaviour on this project, then he would take action (most likely in the form of a block) against other editors, Mr Gadling and Ian come to mind. But no, he was not acting in the best interest of the project and singled me out. This is not fair.

I'm yet to see how I performed a personal attack. I lacked civility and as Atsme has said, I believe the language from other editors should be taken into account when reviewing my response; when someone acts rudely towards you, rudeness can be expected back even if it is not the correct thing to do. After all, everyone makes mistakes and loses their heads. Of course, consistent lack of temperament is a cause for concern but one off occasions can surely be excused. What I still fail to see, though, is how I made personal attacks against other editors. I do not enjoy being accused of things I did not do and I believe Doug made a mistake here. Basing blocks off of accusations that are false seems very flimsy which is why I came here after my latest unblock request was refused.

Alright, if users are questioning why I come back here then I will summarise: I believe Doug has unfairly taken sides in the incidents above and I am not satisfied that anyone here has justified his actions. All you lot have given him is a pat on the back and to me that doesn't seem right. Willbb234 22:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have used both this account and my legitimate alternate account, NotReallySolak, to revert TheCurrencyGuy's currency-related changes which do not have consensus (a rollback precedent done by Kashmiri is here). I would like to get a go-ahead before I continue using NotReallySolak as a TECHALT. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is of some significance since I have found around tens of these changes on a cursory glance. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging. I'd say, using an alternative account would be perfectly legit here – Wikipedia has no policy prohibiting multiple accounts as long as they are disclosed and not used for illegitimate purposes. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is creating an alt account purely for the purposes of reverting another editor. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: The NotReallySolak account was created in April 2021 (Special:Log/NotReallySolak). NotReallyMoniak (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using two different accounts to make reverts that don't meet the exceptions for WP:EW could appear to be attempting to evade the 3 revert limit. You should use one or the other. Schazjmd (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Regardless of when it was created, it (currently) specifically states "NotReallySolak is for reverting TheCurrencyGuy's edits", which is therefore (to quote myself) an alt account purely for the purposes of reverting another editor. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: I never used both account at the same time. I made two reverts on this account before switching to my alt. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think using an alt for a mass revert can be reasonable if that revert is non-controversial (I am admittedly biased, having made about 1,500 such edits), but agree with Schaz and Primefac that it should be avoided in the case of a bona fide content dispute. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:NotReallySolak (and User:'zin is short for Tamzin for that matter) fall into that grey area of "Not something you're going to get blocked for, but still kind of dubious" Why are those accounts needed? What legitimate purpose do they serve?

I've got an alternate account, RoySmith-Mobile. My legitimate reason for having it is I use it on my phone. If my phone gets stolen or lost, not being logged into it with my regular (admin) account reduces the security exposure. What's your legitimate reason? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I used my alt to make those 1,500 reverts because I felt that doing them on this account would make it harder for people to look through my contribs and hold me accountable as an administrator. Imagine you're trying to get a sense of if the newest admin is acting prudently, you get a page back in her contribs, and then it's 30 consecutive pages of the exact same edit. That seemed unfair. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm having trouble following this logic. How is curating your edit history making it easier for other people to understand what edits you're making? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Tamzin's alt, I can see the merit for that particular mass revert. Nothing controversial, just a large mopping up in user talk space. I'm not sure the same logic supports using an alt in mainspace for mass reverts unless community consensus supports the action and the alt is just serving as conduit(bot like) for the community. Slywriter (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, I understand that my "legitimate reason"s might be weak, but:

1. TCG did not have the consensus before making their changes; ergo, my reverts only serve to restore the version with consensus.
2. As I said in the original comment, there's already precedent with rolling back TCG's changes.
3. I am not a rollbacker, but if I were one, then item 5 of ROLLBACKUSE would come to play.

Thank you. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate notes:

1. A TCG RfC on Is it ruble or rouble? (and kopek or kopeck) has recently been SNOW closed with "no prejudice against opening a move request". The closer (HTGS) also left this message to TCG.
2. I see three main possibilities out of this thread:

1. I may continue using NotReallySolak to revert TCG. (see below - NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]
2. I may revert TCG but I cannot use NotReallySolak for the purpose.
3. I must cease reverting TCG altogether.

I contend that my reverts themselves are legitimate (if Kashmiri was rolling TCG back, I should be able to revert without rolling back), but I have no preference as to the above possibilities. Either way, both this account and NotReallySolak will hold back from the reverts until there exists clear consensus for me to continue.

NotReallyMoniak (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's three totally distinct issue here. One is whether the edits by TCG should be reverted. That's a content issue, which isn't going to be resolved at WP:AN.

The second is, assuming you do revert the edits, what's the best procedure. There's a few different ways to do that, such as manually reverting, using the undo link, or using the rollback tool. There's no huge difference between them, but rollback generally has the connotation of being used to undo problematic edits such as vandalism, and some people will object to using rollback for things that aren't strictly vandalism.

The last is which account to use. On that, I'll just repeat what I said above, but somewhat more emphatically. I suggest you use a single account for all of your edits. I don't see any legitimate reason to create a alternate account just to do rollbacks. You're being up-front about it, so there's no issue with it being considered socking, but I certainly wouldn't call it best practice. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: My alternate account was created a year ago. Other than that, I agree with you, especially your suggestion that I "use a single account for all [my] edits". NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While I share others' concerns about how this could be perceived as "hiding" one's edits, my understanding is that the editor, not the account, is behaviourally responsible for their edits. So it doesn't matter if, for a made-up example, they use 3 different accounts to revert a particular edit once each; that editor is considered to have reverted 3 times, and would be thereby accountable for their edits. Just be aware that using multiple accounts, even declared ones, could "colour" your seeming intentions as perceived by others, as - as some have done here - some may question "Why?". - jc37 06:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English language versions

In random-articling I came across a group of some 500 Bangladeshi placename stubs all sourced to GEONAMES alone and created in bulk over several sessions by one editor. I understand there might be the possibility of getting these deleted en masse rather either PRODding or AfDing each one. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not much use without details...? Which ones, who? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the circumstances. Probably there will need to be consensus to delete en masse. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we need significantly more information before we can determine what is the best course of action. Unless they meet a speedy deletion criterion there will need to be a consensus to mass delete (but given Mangoe is an experienced editor I presume they would have just tagged them for CSD if they did), and that will not arise without a clear indication both exactly what the issues are and what the scale of those issues is. The first thing to do is to look at a sample of them and determine whether they are mostly correct or not (GeoNames' accuracy is best described as variable) - if they are correct then we should probably look to better source them rather than delete them, especially if there is potentially useful information in there articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we seem to be doing these as regular bulk AfDs so I'll be going over there. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Irish news today ([6] [7]) it was noted that a research project at NUI Maynooth created 75 articles about Supreme Court of Ireland cases in order to test whether Irish judges were using Wikipedia to research case law when writing judgments.

It appears that most articles in Category:Supreme Court of Ireland cases were created in this project, coordinated by User:AugusteBlanqui. Most of the involved users can be found at [8] but this is not a complete or exhaustive list.

I'm a little non-plussed about Wikipedia being used this way, but the articles seem mostly OK. Just running it by my fellow admins to see if there are any views. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if anyone has questions. We had feedback from Wikiproject Law and NPP. I am familiar with WP:NOTLAB and these articles first and foremost are a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. Before this project there were only about six articles on Irish Supreme Court cases. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AugusteBlanqui, could you post links to the discussions you say took place at Wikiproject Law and at NPP please? Could you also describe your relationship with the project - I'm not asking you to give anything away about your private identify, but was this work done as part of your job? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Wikiproject Law outreach: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 23#Irish Supreme Court cases

NPP: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 37#Irish Supreme Court cases articles

This project was incidental to my job.

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I am not understanding what the issue is here? If we have decent articles due to the actions of this group, I don't see how their motivation is relevant. NOTLAB seems to refer to things like breaching experiments or test editing. It's also not our concern if Irish judges use Wikipedia for their research- it may be a concern to the people of Ireland, but not us. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the media coverage is missing a bit of nuance (shocker). The issue is not that the articles are poor quality, they are not bad to some quite strong; the issue is that the judges use the articles on Wikipedia for precedent rather than other cases that perhaps are as applicable/relevant but could lead to different legal conclusions or arguments but are not on Wikipedia. Regarding being immediately brought to Admin Notice board, I do find it peculiar. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, this experiment was based on the presence/absence of information, rather than putting potentially incorrect information up to see if it was used? That is probably the main concern here. If the intention included making accurate articles, which seems to be the case based on the Wikiproject and NPP discussions linked above, that seems fine. Perhaps the control group of articles may also see the light of day when no longer needed for research. CMD (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, exactly. The research looked at the impact on citations in legal decisions of a case having a Wikipedia article. The articles we created help fill a lacuna on Wikipedia--the almost complete absence of Irish Supreme Court cases. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an odd posting. If you read the newspaper article properly, the issue is that Irish high court judges – and/or their clerks – are quoting/paraphrasing from Wikipedia articles on historical major Irish legal cases. If anything, the Wikipedia editors who created these articles are to be commended for the quality of their work. 78.19.224.254 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing any problems here. I spot-checked a few of the students' user pages. They all seem to be totally up-front about disclosing the relationship (example: Chocolate2206) so no issues there. I can't find any policy that this violates. On the contrary, it seems like it was a net positive to the encyclopedia by getting some articles written about subjects we should be covering. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So there was "AN-scope" in the sense that if there'd been a major dearth of disclosure then we'd have to decide to waive any concerns (or not) due to the net improvement of the encyclopedia. Especially since it could be a paid breach depending on how it was done. But Roy's noting that the relationships were noted. In which case we have better articles and no worries, the ideal combo. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the preprint on SSRN fwiw — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 14:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is group academic use of Wikipedia done correctly. Ambitious undergrad college professors trying to organize miniature classroom edit-a-thons should take notes from this.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! We strove to put the encyclopedia first. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Many things motivate users to edit Wikipedia. This is one I’ve not heard before. However, there’s been no harm to the encyclopedia, we’ve got some quality articles from it and hopefully, we'll get more. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is great, thank you to the researchers for doing this project. I'm particularly pleased to see the team's transparency in the approach and the quality of the articles (good enough to be plagiarized!). Stifle probably should have talked to the researchers before asking for opinions at AN. Finally I'll add: how Wikipedia law articles influence Irish judges is absolutely something we should care about at Wikipedia, it's not just something of concern to the people of Ireland. For the people of Ireland, this shows their judges are relying on Wikipedia. For the people of Wikipedia, it shows the same thing: just how much influence these articles have on the real world. That's why our policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are so important. What we write here can change the world. It's paramount we get it right. (Non-administrator comment) Levivich (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Judges shouldn't be using Wikipedia this way, but it's outside of our realm. They should be using the existing law books, which take a little longer and is in the best interest of good law, but again, outside of our realm. As long as the articles are good articles, I don't see any problem with the creation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar to WaltCip, I'm wondering how we can get all the other universities to run their own even larger versions of studies like this. I learned about this from Ori sending me a link to <https://www.csail.mit.edu/news/how-wikipedia-influences-judicial-behavior>. It looks like there's also some coverage at <https://news.mit.edu/2022/study-finds-wikipedia-influences-judicial-behavior-0727> too, for anyone interested. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just going to plug the proposal for a new multilingual sister project (WikiLaw) since it's incidental to this thread. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There's very little written in the paper itself about conducting research via Wikipedia, the ethics involved, or about what apropos policies and guidelines we have in place about it. The authors do pay small service to saying they made sure the articles were notable and not plagiarized but this is just barely addressed and not within a dedicated section. I would have liked any person who reads that article to have a good understanding of what would be considered proper vs improper editing of Wikipedia and that this project operated within those bounds. E.g., It would have been good to have a link to m:Research:FAQ, Wikipedia:Student assignments, and any number of other policies and guidelines too. As it stands, I think it reads will encourage others to do research without much thought on the benefit or harm it might cause to Wikipedia itself, similar to situations in the past that caused large disruption. There's other issues as well. This kind of editing clearly has Wikipedia:Conflict of interest concerns and it seems to me that some of our best practices listed for WP:COIEDIT were not followed. E.g., the organizer was editing the pages themselves. Also, as far as I can tell, there's no "top-down" summary of the project on the author's page and Category:Supreme Court of Ireland cases itself seems to be the primary method to find the edits related to the project. I do see the messages that students left on some of the talk pages but this "bottom-up" approach is an unsatisfactory way for other editors to know the scope of the project. There should be a super easy on-wiki way to answer the questions like 'What pages were create/edited as part of this project?', 'When did it start/stop?', etc, and a summary of the research itself. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What a bizarre take. We don't ask any of that of anyone else who creates articles. I'm not sure if you understand what they did: they created articles. It's something literally anyone can do. And the articles were about court cases, not even a business or anything possibly promotional. And COI??? You think the students had some financial or other relationship with the court cases? And why wouldn't the organizer edit the pages directly? Furthermore, the articles were well-done. Is "thank you for writing good articles" too much or what? Just bizarre. Levivich 14:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned with @Epiphyllumlover's topic-specific and almost single-minded goal to add information to WP having to do with marriage equality bills amounting to polygamists getting married. These additions have been rejected by community consensus, including an RfC closed two days ago on the Respect for Marriage Act article. Epiphyllumlover's additions to the RFMA article included a section about polygamy, which the community agreed was UNDUE. The editor then added back the info to the lead, which I revered. They have been reverted on The Heritage Foundation's article just today by @Hipal, who said the info had "SOAP/POV problems" (with which I strongly agree). Other additions of polygamy information added to articles within the past few days include Mike Gallagher (American politician), Tony Perkins (politician), New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, the Wisconsin Family Council, etc. The list continues. WP should not be a soapbox for editors to add fringe views to multiple articles. Especially creating the perception that the Respect for Marriage Act will legalize polygamy, something that does not exist in the article or wording of the current bill whatsoever. While a long time WP editor, I don't hang out on the admin boards much and have never proposed a topic ban (at least that I can remember), but if this is the venue for it and is an appropriate discussion to have, I absolutely would propose and support a topic ban for Epiphyllumlover on polygamy information related to politics. Any input appreciated. --Kbabej (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, a quick note: No ownership issues about the RFMA article on my end. I was notified of the RFMA RfC on a noticeboard I follow. I have made exactly two edits on the article, both from this week, one of which was a minor copy edit. --Kbabej (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

• Epiphyllumlover (talk · contribs)

I hadn't looked into behavioral problems with the content being added to The Heritage Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Epiphyllumlover's revert to emphasize polygamy seems problematic [9].

Looking to other articles, I removed to Epiphyllumlover's addition to Tony Perkins (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There appear to be many more questionable edits. I think this should be taken to WP:AE. --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hipal! I was thinking that might be a good place, but in reading the four bullets of topics they cover, that reads to me as if there needs to be a previous community consensus. That is where I'm having trouble - where does that consensus start? --Kbabej (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions Epiphyllumlover has been alerted multiple time on WP:ARBAB and WP:ARBAP2. The American politics sanctions certainly apply, with the remedy being WP:ACDS. --Hipal (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal Thank you very much, I appreciate that! If the behavior continues I will open a discussion there. --Kbabej (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover is currently notifying WikiProjects about this discussion in a way that seems to focus on content-related discussion rather than user behavior. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

I'm not sure which type of responses to this discussion here Epiphyllumlover expects from the WikiProject participants. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree, I just saw the notice on a single WikiProject I follow, but didn't realize they were doing it to multiple projects. Would that be considered canvassing? The issue at hand is user behavior, so I'm also not sure why the widespread notifications are happening. --Kbabej (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If these talk pages have been intentionally selected to favor a specific type of responses to this discussion here, I guess that would be canvassing. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion too quickly, though; what seems more likely to me is that Epiphyllumlover genuinely believes that getting more eyes on this discussion increases the probability of a fair conclusion. And as they have recently been topic-banned from abortion, they may reasonably fear that a community ban would be the next step. Having an interest in a fair decision by as many experienced editors as possible about such a severe matter isn't canvassing nor necessarily disruptive at all. I just wanted to point this out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They've notified a number of individual editors as well as WikiProjects. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this has now extended to specific users' talk pages ([19]), I have asked them to stop for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asking sadly didn't help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the RFC, I haven't reviewed all of the contributions. I am neutral on the matters but there was a clear community consensus that emerged in the RFC. I think this user has been civil and thoughtful enough that simply warning them to abide by the consensus that this is fringe/undue material might be a good first step. Andrevan@ 20:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Andrevan. Thank you for the thoughts. I want to AGF, but I also think there's a concerted effort to push a specific agenda, especially as they're topic banned from other issues (abortion). The discussion on the RFMA was thorough, and they were notified many times about community consensus and about fringe material, but have simply ignored those notifications. --Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Andrevan. We're not at a ban yet. If just pushing on the same subject repeatedly in a short space of time resulted in topic bans we would have orders of magnitude more topic bans in place. Same with leaping to topic bans just because an editor has restrictions in some other topic area. PS: Polyamory is not a "fringe view". The view that the specific piece of legislation under discussion would legalize polygamy apppears to be an incorrect one, though; it is at least not well-supported in sources. That's a good reason to exclude content about it from the article in question, but not a good reason to summarily remove someone from the topic area without longer-term and more serious problems in this topic area from that party.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish. Thanks for the thoughts. It appears I may have jumped the gun if that is your assessment, since it matches @Andrevan's as well. When I say "fringe viewpoint", I meant that in relation to the Respect for Marriage Act, which I still believe. To connect the RFMA and polygamy is a fringe viewpoint in my view; only a few extreme unreliable sources discuss it. I am not saying polygamy overall is a fringe viewpoint. I think the distinctions between the two are neither here nor there, however. I have a concern with the repeated POV-pushing for a fringe viewpoint when it is connected to marriage equality; for now it seems editors will likely just need to keep cleaning up articles as edits are made. --Kbabej (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Incorrect" and "fringe" are not synonymous. Fringe viewpoints, in WP terms, are the subject of widespread organized PoV pushing, like the flat-earth hypothesis, or belief in healing power of inert crystals, and are by their nature anti-scientific, anti-truth, anti-fact. Being wrong about something is not the same as being inimical to the reality of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then, "incorrect" and "wrong" information. I don't see how that's any better to have a campaign to add incorrect/wrong information across a large swath of articles. --Kbabej (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content added to RFMA after the RfC might not be the same as in the RfC and it might have come with new sources. This is what Epiphyllumlover says, but I have not checked, because I already given much of time to help the situation and I have no particular interest in this topic. (I was summoned by bot). If that is true, then it's not at all a disruptive edit that calls for a warn. What I have seen is that editors in this talk page seems more interested in warning people, talking of bans, etc. than actually discussing the subject. There might be things that I do not see. I don't know Epiphyllumlover and I don't know much about the topic. So, I cannot judge what's going on, but, based on what I have seen, Epiphyllumlover is not at all the one to blame. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dominic Mayers, the information is the same information. The RfC focused on the content of the topic, not the particular use of sources. The RfC question was "Should the article include a section on "Implications for polygamy legalization"?" The answer was a strong no from the community. The information was then added to the lead instead of a section. Perhaps avoiding the technical definition of a "section", but obviously against the spirit of the RfC. --Kbabej (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion isn't helpful. A topic ban is a behavioral remedy. This isn't the venue to discuss sources or dispute content matters of coverage. The question is whether Epiphyllumlover will agree to abide by the consensus not to keep adding this polygamy fringe theory to the article and related articles, since there is clearly a community consensus that it does not merit such weight as Epiphyllumlover is trying to give it. Beyond that, the discussion should be discussed at the article talk page. If Epiphyllumlover doesn't agree, then a community topic ban may be proposed or take it to WP:AE for further enforcement. Andrevan@ 21:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict: I have't read the previous comment) I am not expert in RfC legislation, if that even exists, but I find it strange that a RfC is final even in the presence of new sources? This is especially strange given that much of the opinions in the RfC were based on the sources presented at the time. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dominic Mayers. The RfC is two days old, and clear consensus demonstrated the topic (including the sourcing) was UNDUE. That was brought up many times. Adding a paragraph to the lead two days after an RfC determined the information is not appropriate is not appropriate evasive of community consensus in my view. It should be taken to the talk page and discussed. It's not like any time has passed at all and things have significantly changed, either. --Kbabej (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict: I haven't read the previous comment) @Andrevan: but therefore one needs to know if Epiphyllumlover even failed to respect the RfC once. I don't think that he/she has, because most opinions in the RfC referred to sources and it seems that he/she used new sources. I cannot see how this is not relevant to this procedure that accuses Epiphyllumlover not to respect the RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC led to a consensus that the material was undue and not sourced appropriately. Epiphyllumlover could start a discussion about the new sources, but they should not just start adding the material to more places immediately after the RFC concluded. Epiphyllumlover must take to heart what the RFC result means for what they are trying to add. Andrevan@ 22:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Dominic Mayers three separate editors called the topic "grossly undue" weight with that exact wording. Not a single editor voted in favor of the information remaining. I think the discussion of new sources two days after a topic has been deemed undue weight by 100% of participating editors could be appropriate, if a discussion happens on the talk page. Adding information back seems intentionally evasive. --Kbabej (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict: I did not read the last comment from Kbabeh) @Kbabej: We both gave our opinion. I don't have anything to add. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would have been more appropriate to discuss the content in the talk page before adding it, especially given that the RfC was not against it, but indicative of possible oppositions. But, there is no rule that requires that to my knowledge. It was simply unwise I feel, but even that, it just my feeling. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the editor has a prior topic ban in another politically/religiously charged area, we should expect them to exhibit caution and follow the indication from the RFC was was indeed pointing out that this information was undue given the sourcing, new sources means a new discussion, not to disregard the RFC and community consensus especially given the other prior topic ban, Andrevan@ 22:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not comment on that. I speak about what I know. I don't know about the previous history of Epiphyllumlover. 23:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The ANI history of Epiphyllujmlover's topic ban issued this past May are archived here, here and especially here. Kire1975 (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed most of Epiphyllumlover's recent contributions re polygamy/Respect for Marriage Act. Is Epiphyllumlover repeating the behavior that resulted in the abortion topic ban? --Hipal (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this bit of soapboxing in a BLP particularly problematic. The edit summary used at Respect for Marriage Act [20], writing about both sides to maintain neutrality & better references to insure the addition is not undue demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of policy that is disruptive to topics under sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support a topic ban for Epiphyllumlover, for the reasons stated above and the fact that other methods haven't worked to get them to abide by Wikipedia's policies and !votes. Moncrief (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree a topic ban is warranted here. All this seems incredibly WP:TE from Epiphyllumlover. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best for everyone as a whole to postpone these proceedings until after the bill is passed, or until after Congress adjourns for August.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover, I think folks were hoping for you to say that you will abide by the consensus to stop adding this material, not that you will postpone until Congress adjourns. Andrevan@ 17:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover, I'm confused why this discussion should not move forward "until after the bills is passed..." The issue I have raised is you adding UNDUE content against consensus; it has nothing whatsoever to do with if the bill passes or not. Whether the bill gets shelved or passed with unanimous support is irrelevant to this discussion. --Kbabej (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... That isn't how it works here. That's such a nonsensical request that I am actually questioning your motives now. @Epiphyllumlover: You know that Wikipedia is not the place for us to share our opinions on pending legislation, right? Like.. whether this bill has passed or not really should have zero bearing on how we cover its contents. This really shouldn't be on your mind, and it gives the impression you are really here to stand on a soapbox. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you would make such a bizarre and unwarranted statement makes me think even more that you are either being deliberately obtuse, or you still even now don't understand the purpose and the policies of Wikipedia. We should wait until the bill is passed to write an article on pending legislation? What on earth are you talking about? Moncrief (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For context, Epiphyllumlover was an incredibly tendentious presence on abortion-related articles. His agenda-driven bludgeoning stood out even by the standards of that controversial topic area, finally resulting in a topic ban ([21]). I would view the current concern about anti-LGBT editing not in isolation, but as an extension of their disruptive effort to push a partisan right-wing agenda on Wikipedia. A broader topic ban from American politics, including LGBT issues, would be the minimum appropriate sanction in my view, although their extensive track record would more than justify an indefinite block for disruptive and tendentious editing.
  I know that we typically focus these discussions narrowly on the "rights" of the editor facing sanctions, but I would implore you to consider the good-faith contributors who have to deal with Epiphyllumlover, and to attach some value to the immense amount of their time, effort, and goodwill that Epiphyllumlover has wasted. (For clarity, I'm commenting here as an editor, not an admin, as I've interacted with Epiphyllumlover on abortion-related pages). MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Given their comments here and the comment from MastCell, I must now support the topic ban for Epiphyllumlover. Andrevan@ 20:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am struck by the straight-up dishonesty in this discussion (on top of the initial coatracking). --JBL (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am highly concerned by the earlier edit here about waiting until passage of the bill. That edit seems to indicate that Epiphyllumlover is unfortunately interested in POV pushing here, and I would support a broad topic ban on American Politics as suggested by MastCell above. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 04:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Moncrief (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. —Kbabej (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Manannan67 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I support a topic ban on whatever area is being suggested here. However, he already has one topic ban - see here, here and here - and is all but asking for a second one here. He is not willing to WP:LISTEN to anyone or change his own behavior. A topic ban as proposed will only be giving him what he's asking for. In order to prevent whatever agenda driven disruptive editing chaos he plans to inflict next, the only answer to the problem is a full WP:SBAN. He has been like this for years. A time limit on the sitewide ban won't be sufficient, imo. Kire1975 (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please be advised that Epiphyllumlover plays the long game. His first contact with ANI here was a request about how long silence becomes consensus on wikipedia. Multiple people came forward responding to that request resulting in a TBAN. Just because he has not made any posts since three days ago does not mean that he has learned his lesson by any means. As suggested by multiple more users above, this user is a partisan troll who refuses to stop being a disruptive editor until the end. My question is: does someone need to start a separate section with a subheading with the formal request for the SBAN and/or TBAN as here or will an administrator see all the support for it in the comments above and take action? My concern is that if it's split up then the discussion gets split between multiple posts in the archive and it becomes unnecessarily more complicated should this history need to be referred to again in the future. Kire1975 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for bringing this up, @Kire1975. I had the same question, as I have not opened a discussion proposing a TBAN before. --Kbabej (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  An SBAN is probably excessive, as User:Epiphyllumlover is able to edit constructively in other areas, such as with pages on Wisconsin. Still, a broad TBAN from American politics will help to stop the disruption. Most likely they have genuine feelings about the topic they are trying to impose on the articles, and are not just trying to troll us. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B15A:4ECC:3C0E:728A (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which other topics is Epiphyllumlover able to edit constructively in? Kire1975 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: There seems to be a consensus for a TBAN covering American politics. How can this be implemented and this discussion wrapped up? --Kbabej (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A valid question. An uninvolved admin can enact the community tban if they judge there to be consensus here. Or you could try WP:AE as well. Andrevan@ 15:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm reviewing the AE page and it seems (at least to my reading) there must be a current TBAN existing the editor has violated. I'm not sure where to get the actual TBAN enacted, though. Proposing a TBAN is new area for me! --Kbabej (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah yeah, well, this is the administrator's noticeboard, so maybe one of the watchers of this page would deign to enact the community TBAN as discussed above. I suppose you could also email the Arbcom directly. Or, perhaps someone endowed with the power to do so would wish to deny the request without prejudice to a filing of a new case. Andrevan@ 20:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andrevan:, before the topic ban sets in, a few thoughts. When I asked to delay the discussion, I thought August recess started with the month of August. Later I looked it up and learned when August recess really starts. Yes, that would actually be too late to be a reasonable request for a delay. As for staying off of Wikipedia, I felt betrayed because I thought I had assurances, which I should not have relied on. At the time I last posted, I had not read the discussion above (until now) because I did not feel too good about it. I assumed that this would be a case of mobbing, and thought that if I posted, I would be an enabler, but looking at it now, I see that SMcCandlish and Dominic Mayers (and also, at first, you) were supportive. I hope you can respect that not everyone is hardened to the furious pace of social media, and that it wasn't wrong for me not to respond at first.

Had this not been taken here, I would have been willing to submit to either a second RfC or a second discussion about the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article, the full, non-paywalled text which you can read here. I thought that a Representative talking directly would be enough to pass WP:UNDUE; also the pundit host who Rep. Gallagher made comments to is legally married to Adam Wise. He is not the sort of pundit who would make (or leave unchallenged), a fringe social-conservative proposition.

Some may wonder about my sudden interest in polygamy legalization; for me it was a new topic and I had never paid much attention to it. So it was a new topic for me and I got to learn. I also discovered that Wikipedia's existing articles were out-of-date, and could be improved. I continued researching it some after getting off Wikipedia; it interested me. Yet by now the excitement of a new topic is gone, and I am tired of it; there doesn't seem like much else to learn.

I still think that not being topic banned is a lost cause, but hope at least that you can all agree that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Guy Benson's show, and Mike Gallagher (American politician) are not fringe sources, and people using this website should not have to be afraid about adding their material to an article or discussing it on a talk page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC clearly decided the information was UNDUE. Given your past history of topic bans and extremely combative editing, you should have opened a discussion on the talk page about the contentious material. The fact you chose to not do this and thought by adding it to the lead instead of a section was not going against consensus makes me wonder if you should be editing at all, much less on contentious American politics. Whenever the recess happens doesn't matter; the topic at hand is your behavior in adding material that has been deemed by community consensus to be inappropriate. We do not need an RfC the day after the first closed, especially with you not even opening a talk page discussion.

What does this mean: "As for staying off of Wikipedia, I felt betrayed because I thought I had assurances, which I should not have relied on."? It seems to me you are implying an editor/admin/etc said if you stayed off WP for a few days you'd circumvent another TBAN? That seems... unlikely at best.

Your comment has only made me realize the TBAN for American politics is absolutely needed; it has removed any lingering doubt I have, as you seem to still be advocating your position instead of moving on to other areas. --Kbabej (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC clearly decided on content that was not about Gallagher, nor his position. Rep. Gallagher said something different than the social conservative groups. The social conservative groups were against same-sex marriage per-se, whereas Gallagher said, "All I'm asking is for the Senate to make a simple three-word fix, make the bill internally consistent" ... "Should that happen, I would vote for it if it came back to the House, and I think others in the Senate and the House would as well." Also, he rejected the slippery slope argument that the social conservative groups used. My assumption was that the new, different information could be added due to WP:BRD. That is why I used the talk page after you reverted it; I was on step "D".

I meant assurances, both implicit and explicit, from people writing at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act. The general, implicit social contract is broken by resolving content disputes with topic bans. Yet this is a form of social media; it seems that social contracts are broken more often online than in real life interpersonal interactions. My comments on this noticeboard are for this discussion, not for changing the article. As I said before, my interest in this topic has waned.

This proceeding and others like it are damaging to Wikipedia, in the same way that Congress would be damaged if the House decided that Gallagher should be censured for making the comments on Guy Benson's show. If Gallagher was punished somehow for it, that would make it hard for the legislators to talk through possibilities for bills in the future; even unrelated bills.

Generally, people trust green colored sources; and trust that by using them, they won't be accused of being WP:Fringe. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is very much like USA Today, since they have the same corporate parent, with the same print and web layout and many of the same articles. The Perennial Sources page states, "There is consensus that USA Today is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and its centrist alignment." The Journal Sentinel is similarly centrist. By affirming that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Guy Benson's show, and Mike Gallagher (American politician) are not fringe sources, you and others who are in the process of banning me can help reduce the risk of damaging people's confidence in Wikipedia's system of identifying and classifying reliable sources.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover, the information you added back was wholly polygamist in nature. While you're trying to obfuscate you circumventing the RfC, the information from Gallagher was a coatrack on which to make your polygamist points. You wrote: "Gallagher stated that the text of the legislation would require federal recognition for marriages between more than two individuals, should someday a state change legalize marriages for three or more people, which he thought could possibly happen someday."

So no one offered you assurances. Your "implicit and explicit" comment shows you do not understand how WP works. The community already discussed the topic and came to a consensus. If there was a contract that was broken, it was by your behavior by adding the information back a day later into another section. This discussion is not a content dispute. That was already settled. This discussion is about your behavior. --Kbabej (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gallagher's concerns about polygamy were different than those of social conservatives, such as Vought and Carroll from the RfC. Gallagher's concerns did not involve a slippery slope, and did not tie polygamy to same-sex marriage. The social conservatives used a slippery slope argument, and have ipso-facto tied polygamy legalization to same-sex marriage equality for years.

Another difference from with the RfC is between Gallagher and Somin. Somin interpreted the polygamy issue as something social conservatives were concerned about due to the slippery slope, whereas Gallagher stated that polygamy legalization was a realistic future possibility, even though he rejected the slippery slope. Gallagher's approach was a practical one, rather than the hands-off, theoretical approach used by Somin. Also, Gallagher dealt with Act & polygamy as the major topic in his appearance on the show, whereas Somin dealt with it in an article mainly concerned about constitutional issues. Earlier, concern over the article giving "more weight to the claim than Somin does" had been a major concern for IP editor 2603...

As of right now, I understand enough about how things de facto work to know that I will be topic banned, because turning content disputes into a behavior-issue accusation is an effective way of achieving a desired outcome. Yet because of the explicitly supportive comments made by Dominic Mayers and Andrevan, along with SMcCandlish's earlier affirmation that "Polyamory is not a fringe view", I didn't think my actions were harmful to the social dynamic, and felt betrayed when accused. The RfC was about adding the section which was linked to in the RfC itself, and about having a section devoted to the Act's implications for polygamy. The RfC did not address the question whether the article could mention polygamy at all. I hope you can understand that it took me a while to process it, and that is why I stayed off.

Your statement, "adding the information back a day later" is not correct. I added different information a day later. I would not have added the same sort of information back a day later out of respect to the RfC and its outcome. Can you affirm that Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Guy Benson's show, and Mike Gallagher (American politician) are not fringe, even though they talked about polygamy and the Respect for Marriage Act?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not engage in a red herring argument about polygamist info you claim to have "wan[ing] interest" in. If you still consider this a "content dispute" instead of a discussion of your behavior, I think that proves the point of the TBAN consensus obtained above. I'm going to leave this conversation with you at that, except for following up to request closure and application of the TBAN. --Kbabej (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover, please don't interpret my comments of giving you a chance and trying to be kind and understanding, as support for your activities. This is a lot hand-wringing about what is or isn't fringe, what is or isn't "part of the RFC" but the point was that you had an RFC, the RFC clearly said "no, stop adding this," and then you added a bunch of similar stuff. Can you promise to stop doing that? If so, there's no need for a topic ban. None of the stuff you want to add about same sex marriage possibly leading to polygamy should be added anywhere, unless you have a discussion on the talk page that editors support adding it. It's too similar to the RFC outcome for comfort, and what I didn't know when I was being kind and indulgent is that you have another similar topic ban. So, here's a chance to fix things. Can you promise to stop adding these political polygamy views altogether? If not, I do think the topic ban is merited. Andrevan@ 01:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even with your support, I expect to be topic-banned anyway. Yes, I will not add present-day related political polygamy material to the English Wikipedia articlespace, and will not advocate for the inclusion of the previously contested sources. Time frame for this would be six months or a year, whichever you prefer. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then the TBAN shouldn't matter when it's applied, as you wouldn't be adding the info anyway. Even with these assurances, it's clear from the above discussion the editor cannot - or will not - abide by community consensus. The circumvention of the RfC showed that, the combative editing showed that, and the other topic bans show that. The TBAN should still be applied, and despite these assurances from them, consensus remains above. --Kbabej (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Letting everyone here know that I submitted an SPI investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kbabej concerning the Respect for Marriage Act discussions mentions here. I still expect to be topic banned, though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, Epi, this is not a great look. I thought we were de-escalating, and now you're opening an SPI? I think maybe a siteban might be what the doctor ordered at this point. Andre🚐 00:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: In a clear and obvious case of abusive retribution and retaliation, Epiphyllumlover has filed an SPI investigation against me here. I am not surprised given the extremely volatile way in which they engage in editing and circumventing community consensus. I will try and look for the information, but if anyone is aware of any past retribution from Epiphyllumlover to editors who have started or engaged in TBAN discussions having to do with them, that would be much appreciated. Any help at all, actually, would be much appreciated. This is my first ever TBAN nomination. --Kbabej (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks to @Kire1975's post of the last TBAN conversation on abortion, I was pretty easily able to find Epiphyllumlover had also accused that nominating editor of that TBAN of multiple accounts and opened an SPI against them. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common pattern. If Epiphyllumlover cannot discuss their behavior without accusing nominators of multiple accounts and retaliates by opening SPIs, I'm afraid I agree with @Andrevan that a siteban may be in order. Admittedly, some editors may think I am too close to the situation as the TBAN nominator, although to be fair I had never interacted with Epiphyllumlover before these events. If a sitewide ban is not enacted, the American politics TBAN still has consensus. --Kbabej (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Instead of engaging with the merits of the vast number of complaints made against him, he is attempting to wear down his most vocal critics with alarming nonsense and threats of administrative with no basis in reality like this. Just another reason for an SBAN and not just a second TBAN. Kire1975 (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kbabej: please calm down. You cannot accuse someone for being stern with their "legal options" when he's facing a siteban. Nxavar (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed action

I can see that there is general agreement that a topic ban for American politics has some consensus here, but since then Epiphyllumlover has submitted an SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kbabej) against Kbabej, which the patrolling clerk has called a meritless, retaliatory report and closed it. This also happened during the discussion that led to Epiphyllumlover's topic ban from abortion, when they posted this SPI, which was closed "with prejudice" by SPI clerk and admin User:Tamzin. Given this, it is unsurprising that there are now calls for a siteban instead, because this is not acceptable. This will need to run as a specific siteban discussion. Please comment below with Siteban/Topicban/other.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Pinging all editors who have commented above. Black Kite (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• siteban Andre🚐 07:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• topicban I believe the problem here is partisanship, not general inability to be an acceptable Wikipedia editor.Nxavar (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• siteban: On the grounds of WP:RECIDIVISM. Nxavar (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I don't believe that the failed SPI attemps are actionable. Being just as aggressive in editing despite a recent TBAN and numerous protests by fellow editors about it: certainly. Nxavar (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• siteban: Epiphyllumlover has already been topic banned once - see here, here and especially here. If he's topic banned a second time, he will only find a new partisan pretext outside of American politics and abortion to be a disruptive editor. Fool us once, shame on him. Fool us twice, shame on us. Kire1975 (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WARNVAND. Athought this discussion is not about vandalism, it shows that we must take the tempered route unless absolutely necessary. Banning from American politics in general is already somewhat heavy-handed, but appropriate given that the recent topic ban is also on a topic of American politics. Nxavar (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover is not a vandal. He a Civil POV pushing sealion troll. Judgment was given the first time he was TBANNED. The suggested remedies on WP:WARNVAND only discuss warning templates on user talk namespaces. He has been warned that way at least six times here, here, here, here, here and here.

His attempts to jam up his critics with two unfounded SPI investigations without evidence were heavy-handed. Topic banning him a second time is inappropriately light. Kire1975 (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Siteban. Clear evidence above of civil POV pushing and battleground conduct. It's unwise to pile on additional TBANs when a user demonstrates a pattern of seeking out additional controversial topic areas and then pushing their POV. That said, I'd prefer a TBAN, as a distant second choice, if inaction is the alternative. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• siteban. Not here to work collaboratively; POV pushing/tendentious editing; malicious retaliatory conduct; previous TBANs. --Kbabej (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Siteban. Very clearly WP:NOTHERE per the above actions taken in this thread and at SPI now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "The IP address geolocates to a non-English speaking country, yet the writer is good at English. This indicates IP masking."^[22] Whatever. If there's consensus for a ban, please make it a sitewide one; I don't believe placing a second topic ban is helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Epiphylumlover seems to engage in civil POV pushing in a range of topics. I do note that they seem to have improved a a lot of Wisconsin-related articles apart from politics. I can't help but wonder: if the initial topic ban were from American politics, broadly construed, would we be here talking about a siteban? Seems like we just did a partial-ampol ban, and are now talking about implementing the rest. No boldtext !vote here, just wondering. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is a history of "POV pushing in a range of topics" an argument against a site ban? Nxavar (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nxavar, I don't see that anyone is advocating for a siteban simply for POV pushing. The POV pushing is the snowball that rolled downhill and became a hazard. The POV pushing, the battleground mentality, the previous TBAN, the refusal to acknowledge consensus, the retaliatory SPI tickets to redirect attention during AN discussions, and the hours put into cleaning up their edits - those are the reasons for a siteban when taken as a whole. To categorize their continued behavior as "POV pushing in a range of topics" seems very misleading to me. --Kbabej (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't oppose a siteban, but I do like to err on the side of exploring other options when it may make sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites, what happens when another editor doesn't agree with Epiphyllumlover's view? They have already shown they either cannot or will not abide by consensus, and will create a battleground mentality over not getting to add their POV positions. How much of other editors' time are we willing to waste on someone who refuses to acknowledge community consensus? First abortion, then polygamy - I'm sure this will continue, considering Epiphyllumlover is the topic on AN yet again. The hours put into discussing and trying to educate them have not worked; why just kick the can down the road? --Kbabej (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have they shown that outside of US politics? (real question -- I don't know). My point is, we're just finishing the job of the initial ban by broadening it to politics. Part of the justification seems to be that this is two topic bans, but the end result is a standard single topic ban. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the US? On April 6, Epiphyllumlover nominated the acquittal of a Finnish politician accused of hate speech as a candidate for WP:INTHENEWS. I haven't been able to find the full archive yet, but the nomination appears to have been universally opposed at the consensus stage. Abortion, polygamy, hate speech. Civil POV pushing inside and outside the US. I found that after about three minutes going back in his history. Kire1975 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Have you read WP:RECIDIVISM? The fact that he maintained the disruptive editing pattern after the TBAN on abortion is enough justification for a site ban. The restricted scope of the existing TBAN was a second chance that he blew up. Nxavar (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nxavar, have you looked at the history of many policies or guidelines here on Wikipedia? @Rhododendrites has edited and even helped write some of them. I would assume good faith that they have read them and proceed as if they are doing as they stated above and just weighing all options. --ARoseWolf 20:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the ping. If they are not site-banned, then obviously an AmPol topic ban is necessary. The absurd, retaliatory SPI reports are definitely troubling. --JBL (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Siteban. I was reluctant to reach this decision, because Epiphyllumlover had years of apparently productive useful edits. I couldn't find any indications of conduct issues until about 18 months ago. But the more recent conduct resulting in the abortion TBan and now the polygamy issues is wasting editors' time. Quibbling over consensus (the RFC was about a section, Epi didn't add a section) is disruptive, retaliatory SPIs is WP:BATTLEGROUND, and framing complaints about their conduct as a tactic (turning content disputes into a behavior-issue accusation is an effective way of achieving a desired outcome) is simply WP:IDHT. I don't think just an AMPOL ban will prevent these conduct issues from continuing; Epi recently decided Adolf Hitler isn't negative enough and wanted to start an WP:IAR RFC just to add more negative content about Hitler (Masem talked Epi down from that one), so no telling which content area might become a new battlefield for them. Schazjmd (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Siteban. I think it would be best for everyone as a whole to postpone these proceedings until after the bill is passed, or until after Congress adjourns for August, combined with the retaliatory SPIs, have ruined my good faith in this user. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 20:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh. Talk:Recession says it all — some additional, uninvolved (admin) eyes and watchlists would be appreciated — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 04:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clocking out here after most of the middle watch and part of the morning watch (Eastern time). Notes for whoever takes over next (as I go to sleep, the rest of the East Coast wakes up; enjoy!): Some reverting and hatting; indeffed StarkGaryen (first month AE); a round of revdels over a nasty link; and I put related List of recessions in the United States under an AE consensus requirement for addition of new recessions. If people continue to try to add the same claim without sourcing at Recession § United States, it might be a good idea to add the same restriction there, or say more simply that it has to mirror whatever is at the full list. I commented at WP:RFPP discouraging protection of the talkpage, but intentionally didn't decline; would rather that be someone else's call. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Don't be surprised if you have to use full protection for a week (with a note that you will lift if there is clear consensus on the talk page), which tends to piss people off, but forces them to work together. Not saying it is there yet, but sometimes it takes a big hammer instead of a lot of little hammers. For the record, I'm not a fan of "consensus required" on most articles like this because it ends up causing more AE/ANI/AN reports than it solves problems. Not always, but it can. Some will get very petty about it and keep filing over any addition. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also consider applying American Politics DS and its talk page header. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting idea, but it's such a broad topic that I'm not sure if that is appropriate. Would want the input from other admin before doing that. I'm 50/50 on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. The current disruption appears to have been driven entirely by political narratives and we have "...Brandon" comments and other political soapboxing on the talk page. We should only be so fortunate as to have this level of activity on any economics article, if it were directed to sourced economics content improvement. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the RFC there, will calm the waters. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes might also be needed at 2022 Recession and the associated AfD. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 22:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, word on the street is "Wikipedia changed the definition of recession [23] and then locked the page" (although technically the article was semi-protected 24 hours before that change). Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The original version was quite accurate. Many countries, and economists, use two successive quarters of negative GDP as a "technical definition" of a recession but the US does not, and instead relies on the NBER to define it. Restatements of GDP, which can be big (and will be big due to the current levels of inflation), mean that the -0.9% for Q2 2022 could end up being anywhere between -2% to +2% within 12–24 months. However, these two approaches are not that different as there has never been a period in the US where GDP fell for two quarters (and it remained as such post revisions), which did not result in a recession. That is the one interesting fact that is missing from the article, but I cannot add it as the article and TP are locked. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discrepancy between the definitions/approaches is purely timing. Yes, when all the GDP restatements are done, two subsequent quarters of negative growth is a recession, however, the need to wait the 12–24 months for the restatements (which are going to be big for 2022 due to high inflation), means that an "initial" print of two subsequent quarters of negative growth is not necessarily going to end up being a recession post all restatements. This is the nuance that is missing in the article. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. We don't discuss the definition of a recession here. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two users, Andrevan and Awesome Aasim are intent on creating a new RfC for Fox News. If either attempt gets off the ground, it is likely to get hundreds of responses, be very contentious and to need another panel close like the last RfC in 2020. Discussions are being held at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Second_Fox_News_RfC in order to workshop the format in order to minimise disruption. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a draft here where I have tried to address all objections and this user reverted the addition[24] while no specific objection has been substantiated to it. I started a thread on WP:DRN but I self-withdrew after this reasonable request from another involved user[25]. I do not understand why this thread now has been posted or this one [26]. I guess it's not really WP:CANVASSing but the user is currently ignoring my question as to what was wrong with the draft I posted. Andrevan@ 18:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened the RFC. Thank you all for the help and feedback and collaboration on improving it. I think the work made it much better. Andrevan@ 17:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's already created, and as bloated as the Goodyear blimp. It's pretty obvious that it's the 2nd verse of this song, including the same chorus lines; i.e., my politics are better than your politics, my sources are more reliable than your sources, yada yada.^[stretch] In the dog world we call it kennel blindness. I'm sure it has nothing to do with political bias, or the upcoming midterms in November in the US, or any kind of intentional plan to keep pounding away at FOX until the hegemony of the asshole consensus finally prevails, (a brilliantly expressed perspective by one of our own and well worth reading.) And there's so much more that I will spare our trusted admins by simply ending with my very best wishes, & happy editing! There's important work to do. ~ Atsme 💬 📧 18:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't mean the asshole consensus comment as a personal attack, so I am AGF, but note that some might interpret that less charitably. FWIW, there are serious concerns about Fox News' promotion of misinformation and failed fact checks. If you have concerns about other outlets with evidence that shows them failing fact checks, doctoring photos, pushing mis/disinfo, etc, please do inform us, so we can downgrade them appropriately. Andrevan@ 20:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you're asking for was already provided at RSN, multiple times, and it's ignored – do a keyword search in the archives and you'll find it throughout RSN. As for the hegemony...that phrase was absolutely not intended to be personal or accusatory of anyone or any particular side of the argument. It's just what happens. If you haven't read the article yet, I highly recommend it, if for no other reason than context and perspective. Following is an excerpt with the terminology: Minor quibbles about grammar is one thing, but these techniques are frequently used by political ideologues, ethnic nationalists, and conspiracy theorists. Professor Bryce Peake called this the “hegemony of the asshole consensus.” Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 20:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"If everywhere you go smells like shit, maybe it's time to check your own shoes." Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV is currently backlogged. There's currently 11 IP vandal reports, and 1 user vandal report pending. Oldest report is currently around five hours old. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything is under control. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently alerted to these pages:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Entrepreneurs&oldid=915137123
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Entrepreneurs&oldid=915134690
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Entrepreneurs&oldid=915189108

where slanderous and unsubstantiated remarks were made of publicly listed individuals and are available in Wikipedia's history.

It might be worth removing these pages to avoid legal sanction. 116.15.75.19 (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of IP block

I've temporarily blocked this IP for making legal threats. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I almost commented asking them to remove the one line, but I don't think it is really a legal threat. Note that the comments they were referring to where suppressed, not just RevDel'ed. I see their comment as poorly worded rather than a threat, but that is just me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The way it is currently worded, one might be able to claim that they are just "informing Wikipedia" of the situation, but it can also take the appearance of an indirect threat, along the same vein of "nice car, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it". Whatever the case, a full retraction of the wording is necessary and reasonable before an unblock can be made. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It might be worth removing these pages to avoid legal sanction" is not a legal threat. Some editors here take this concept way too far. Like anything that could in any way be construed as even a veiled reference to the legal system is considered a "legal threat". There is no point in blocking this editor. It's language policing gone amok. And this despite WP:NLT explicitly saying "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." Levivich (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you'd struggle to justify a legal sanction anyway, since the removed material doesn't appear to make any mention of any "publicly listed individuals", merely suggesting that the society itself had been involved in some unnamed scandal (apart from the single diff in 2019 which was suppressed, and isn't therefore in the history anyway). Reading through it, "It might be worth removing these pages" might even be right - the whole article is borderline notable at best anyway, with 90% of the cites bing about its alumni, not the society itself. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a huge difference between "I, or a person I represent, will take action against you" and "I think you should be aware that some third party who I have nothing to do with has cause to take action against you". This looks to me more like the second type, not the first. 93.172.250.2 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• What Levivich said. Also, one of the diffs leading to the linked revisions has been oversighted, so there may well have been something worth reporting here, and the wording used for the report may even have been accurate. Orangemike, I'd recommend unblocking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with User:Levivich. "It might be worth removing these pages to avoid legal sanction" does not mean "These pages have to be removed or I'll take legal action". Mentioning the legal system does not automatically constitute a legal threat. JIP | Talk 20:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire purpose of our "no legal threats" policy is to prohibit the creation of a chilling effect on proper edits by the use of threats of legal consequences. It seems to me (as WaltCip says) that the IP's use of the word "slanderous" (twice), the "urgent" tone of the header, and the general flavor of the post went beyond the informational to the threatening, especially given the rather broad U.K. interpretation of the concepts of libel and slander. I'd like to see a stronger consensus on this before revoking the block. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not warn before blocking? Why not advise before warning? Why not ask before advising? Levivich (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about your knowledge of "the rather broad U.K. interpretation of the concepts of libel and slander". -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still curious about OrangeMike's understanding of U.K. libel laws. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My writer friends in the U.K. have given me to understand that U.S. principles such as "truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel" and the "actual malice" rule do not apply in the U.K. Have I misunderstood? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very short answer to this is that historically this was true, so much so that the U.S. passed the speech act in 2010 to make foreign defamation judgments (with those from the U.K. certainly in mind) unenforceable in U.S. courts unless they basically passed muster under U.S. law. As a response to that and other criticism, the U.K. heavily revamped its speech laws in 2013, and today, they are much closer to the U.S. approach (and more protective of speech) than before (a recent anecdotal example is the Depp/Heard saga--no judgment in the U.K., but judgment in Virginia). I will say that truth as a defense is certainly a concept in the U.K., but actual malice, coming as it does from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, is obviously not. I'm certain that's more than was actually wanted here, but cheers nonetheless. Dumuzid (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clear you don’t know U.K. libel laws. You should not be using U.K. libel laws as (part) justification for blocking. I suggest you unblock now. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was a bad block, per Levivich and Malcolm. The IP was not making legal threats, they were alerting us to the possibility that old revisions of an article may mean Wikipedia is liable to legal action by a third party. In 2019 the article included a full list of leaders of the society and the oversighted revision added unsourced, potentially libellous allegations of serious wrongdoing about three of those people. As WMF legal explicitly say that libellous material should be oversighted, and that revision has been, we have nothing to worry about there. I don't see anything in any of the old revisions linked by the OP that requires oversight. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was carelessly worded by the IP but perhaps stopped short of WP:NLT. An inexperienced person may not know that anything that might be perceived as a legal threat on Wikipedia is a no-no.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, WP:NLT blocks aren't permanent. As long as an opportunity is given to retract the legal threat, it shouldn't be a huge deal. This isn't like when someone got blocked for using the phrase "legal matters" in a non-legal context. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• When I read the comment I get the sense that WaltCip refers to("nice car......"). Maybe it's just the way it's worded. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, for me as well. No admin or Wiki-expert I, admittedly. And, I generally agree with Levivich's overall take here, but this one strikes me as a reasonable block because I too read it as a thinly-veiled threat. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all> Dumuzid (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's true reasonable minds may differ, but I think it's worth point out something crucial about the "nice car, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it"-type of threat mentioned by Walt. When that sort of threat is being made, it's being made by someone who is simultaneously demanding payment of "protection money" or something else of value (and who is usually a known criminal), which is what makes it threatening. The statement, by itself without the other circumstances, would not be construed as a threat. If someone says, "you shouldn't park there or you'll get a ticket", that would not be considered a threat by anyone... unless it's spoken by a police officer. It's the circumstances that define the difference between veiled threats and good-faith warnings (which I've written about in more detail elsewhere). Levivich (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously not a legal threat. Bad block. DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• While it's not obviously not a legal threat, I do believe that it was not obviously a legal threat (very confusing phrasing, I apologise). In the absence of it being a clearly a legal threat, then it was not appropriate for the block to be issued directly. A warning with a "clarify or be sanctioned" effect would have been the correct action to take. The block should be overturned, and the warning then issued (rather than requiring an appeal first) Nosebagbear (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Blocks without any prior warnings should only be used in extreme cases, such as persistent obvious vandalism, which this is clearly not. Note also that this is only the IP's second contribution ever, the first one was thirteen years ago (and given that amount of time, it was not necessarily the same physical person). JIP | Talk 02:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For comparison purposes, here's a recent and obvious legal threat by a different IP: ALL .. I.D.s HERE WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE AUTHORITIES YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO THEM.. WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BE IN JAIL... WHILE THEY SCAN YOUR HARDDRIVES Note the difference... Levivich (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• IMO such statements should be avoided. While they may not be a direct threat of action, as others have said they can have the same chilling effect. There's rarely a good reason to talk about the possibility of legal action even if you aren't saying you yourself would be the one anyway since our policies and guidelines generally intentionally go beyond US law. As for the laws of other countries, for better or worse the official line is we don't care as a community. Individual editors do need to consider their specific situation but it's not something that should be discussed on Wikipedia. All that being said, IMO it was the talk of comment where education before blocking was the better course of action. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it down

Let us hope that the original poster was not making a subtle threat. It can always be restored. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on edits

• Furthermore, I find it peculiar that this entire discussion has only concerned User:Orangemike's block of the IP user and not the actual concern originally raised by the IP user. JIP | Talk 02:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Part of it may be the edits being from 2019, removed in the very next edit(s) made, and not being in the article at present so far as I can tell. Unless something is really wonky Google shouldn't be pulling up three-year-old revisions of articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's similar to people on social media saying that Wikipedia changed the definition of a recession. It did in some vandal edits, but this is water under the bridge as the edits have been removed. Some of the edits to Oxford Entrepreneurs had NPOV and sourcing problems, so more eyes are needed on this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with by Thryduulf in his comment above of 21:24, 30 July 2022. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we can reasonably deal with something that has been suppressed. Even if the editors who made the initial edits remain in good standing, if it's serious enough to warrant legal action it's very difficult for us as a community to discuss possible sanction of these editors when almost none of us can see them, not even admins, can see them. And for those who have already seen them, there's a strong risk they will say something serious enough to warrant suppression if they aren't careful when trying to describe them. And if they don't, it's still very difficult for us as a community to discuss whether we should sanction the editors involved. In other words, if someone feels sanction against the editors who added the content may be justified, it needs to be handled by arbcom not here. So there's nothing for us to do about it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern raised by the IP is that the edits are still in the history; it seems that Thryduulf removed the worst offenders but apparently (based on an email I received from them this morning) there might still be more in and around the diffs provided by the OP above. Primefac (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry looking into this more I realised only some of the edits were suppressed so maybe there is something we could discuss. OTOH, if it's something that happened in 2019 and it wasn't severe enough for suppression I question if anything more is needed than a severe warning at most which doesn't require community discussion, just an editor to talk to the editor if after reviewing the edits they feel it is justified and still useful nearly 3 years later. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding User:Geschichte has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in March to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Geschichte requested it within three months. Because Geschichte has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte#Motion:_Open_and_suspend_case_(1)_2.

For the arbitration committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.
• Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect.
• Lugnuts (talk · contribs) is warned against making personal attacks, engaging in battleground behavior in deletion discussions, and other disruptive deletion behavior.
• Lugnuts is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) creating articles that comprise less than 500 words, including converting redirects into articles.
• Lugnuts is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.
• TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee requests comment from the community on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing closed

SEO effort by paid COI account to distance one Carlos Hank González (businessman) (new page title created by COI) from Carlos Hank González (politician) (new article entry by COI) has generated this disambiguation issue. Also noticed that the original Carlos Hank González article has a history of critical commentary being removed by a single purpose account. Not sure, what, if any issue there might be with this kind of editing, but perhaps it warrants some attention. Acousmana 13:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Acousmana: perhaps WP:COIN would be a better venue? I'm undecided if the article names work better this way, or if the renaming should be reverted and the disambiguation solved by a hatnote (as is currently the case in eswiki). If the rename stands, the dab links to be fixed are less than 40, so it's not a too complicated task. As an aside, this is why I didn't name my children after relatives... –FlyingAce^✈hello 06:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FlyingAce, thanks for that, yes, WP:COIN probably better, will repost there! Acousmana 09:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a geonotice request for an August 13 WikiMeetup during Wikimania. I'm afraid I'm late to the planning party. Thanks for your kind attention! KarenJoyce (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the article Vijayanagara Empire, I'm afraid I have run into a now-subsided very severe edit war between a normal user (User:Jai14) and an admin (User:Discospinster). Both users have violated the 3RR rule, and the admin has blocked the user for repeatedly introducing unsourced content, though I'm mostly concerned about the reverts. The dispute in question, which regards to phrasing and languages primarily, should have been raised on the talk page of either of the users by either of them. From what I am seeing, this is a content dispute and not vandalism. I haven't taken a position on what is the right move here, but I do believe that this should have been brought on to the article's talk page earlier, and I'm questioning if the admin . I take a neutral position in this case.

I originally brought this up on ANEW, though my report was removed by a non-admin claiming my report was "malformed and ridiculous". InvadingInvader (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've indefinitely blocked Jai14 as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh he's a sock??? That explains EVERYTHING. Thanks for letting me know!!!! InvadingInvader (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Next time please read the blocking admins explanation as well. Reverting vandalism is 3rr exempt. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that, but the block reason for the initial block of Jai14 was unsourced content, not vandalism. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • InvadingInvader, please read what it says in WP:VANDALISM. Here is the second sentence: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." I think two things are in order: an apology to Discospinster, and I'm glad you did so on their talk page, and a re-reading of our various policies, if you are going to revert, give warnings, file edit warring reports. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

          Well said! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

          I understand...I was just reviewing what was happening on the edit summaries and log of changes, as well as what was being changed (I did not make any reverts at all), and I was concerned/questioning that this might not meet the criteria and might have been edit warring rather than vandalism. The realization that the account was a sock completely flipped my view on this incident. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users.

Discussion on changing the wording to that exemption. Since admin have to deal with that and other exemptions to edit warring, please join the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe @This Groovers: edit summary at Montreal Canadiens, went over the line, per WP:BULLYING & WP:NOTHERE. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this might be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1978 Los Angeles Ravagers. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. I checked myself over & it appears I'm still alive :) GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• In the mean time, a couple of admins have bumped into each other a little blocking them, reverting them, deleting pages, revdel'ing the edit summaries, and notifying WMF. I think all is sorted now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sincerely hope, the individual receives the help he needs. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "still alive"-- i'm glad. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain, but @Zach3430: might be a sock. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SunView-Desktop.png was originally 1,152 × 900, but a bot resized it in 2017 to an unusable 357 × 278 blur because the bot thought it was a "non-free image." However that might just be a categorization issue: the original uploader (in 2005) stated that they made the images and "all rights are released. Do with this as you wish." That original version has also been redacted from the history. Could an Admin restore the original version of the image? Thanks! - GretLomborg (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SunOS appears to have a proprietary licence so is non-free, so a non-free classification of the image would be correct.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but the image has been resized to be far too small to be useful for illustrating the software, so still thing the original needs to be unhidden. If that needs to be reduced in size again, it should be done by a human who can judge if the result is acceptable. GretLomborg (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've resized it manually (to the same size the bot did) so it's at least recognizeable, but. The actually-copyrightable portions of the image were already smaller than that. Does anyone who can view the original version have an objection to just restoring that and tagging it {{non-free no reduce}}? —Cryptic 14:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That bot's resolution is set way too low. That image is unreadable at 357x278, and 1152x900 is still under 1 megapixel. It doesn't need to be reduced at all. Levivich 15:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry if Im missing something obvious here, but what is the basis for the block of the reporting editor? Where is there evidence that Polycarpa aurata is World's Lamest Critic? Or is any user reporting John Pack Lambert to AN(/I) automatically a sock? Id think that after multiple DYKs there might be more than being summarily blocked and having talk page access revoked without even a single unblock request. nableezy - 20:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is something that has been going on for years. The user user:TompaDompa when makes an edition about Portugal, only has the objective of denigrating the country history, inclduing its achievements and its feats. Various examples can be found on the Portugal and Portuguese empire wikipedia pages where TompaDompa even replaced maps of the Portuguese empire with others with less territories. Other examples are denigrating the achievements of Portuguese explorers, including the voyages of David Melgueiro, even claiming that such person did not exist with few to no sources. Its commitment to diminish Portuguese history and feats is more evident on the "List of the largest empires" page. As can be seen in the archives, since 2018 TompaDompa against everything and everyone with only 1 outdated source, does not let any other user have a vote on the matter, insisting that his source is the only one that is correct. And of course the source he supports so much indicates that the Portuguese empire contained only a small part of Brazil at its peak. This is obviously not true, there are several sources that have already been provided by many many other users that clearly demonstrate that Portugal did indeed contain a very extensive territory in South America and had a bigger size than what is indicated in that TompaDompa source. TompaDompa due to its hatred for Portugal is constantly alert and ready to reduce any historic feat of Portugal among several Wikipedia pages. Even in Wiki pages that say little about Portugal such as African countries that contain information about the Portuguese empire, the same user appears out of nowhere always making some kind of edit to diminish any portuguese feat. I’m sure there is a lot more exemples in other wikipedia pages about Portugal and it’s history that TompaDompa has been trying his best to obscure. I even found out that in other Wikipedia languages such as German, the user also has the same goal in mind. In my opinion TompaDompa should be carefully watched and if he continues to do this, he should be banned from editing anything that contains information about Portuguese history. I could sent the links about some of the exemples I said above, but they are so many that it would take hours for me to sent them all. However, if an administrator takes a quick look on what the user is doing about anything about the Portuguese history, will very quickly find out his intentions. There's no single example of TompaDompa adding something positive to the country history. The easiest way to find this incredible commitment is of course in the “list of largest empires” page, and please don’t forget to check the archives. Thank you. Roqui15 (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIFFs please? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• TompaDompa's last edit to Portugal was on July 1, which was a good edit of reverting a sockpuppet. His last edit on Portuguese empire was today, with a detailed summary, just one edit, and his previous edit was back in June. Not seeing a pattern of heavy editing or edit warring. Noone has approached the subject on the talk page of either article. I also don't see you approaching him on User talk:TompaDompa before coming here. Sounds like a content dispute, which is not something admin get involved in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless I am mistaken, Roqui15 is topic banned from "list of largest empires" are they not? Does this include the mentioning of said "list of largest empires"? @Deepfriedokra: --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is my recollection w/o going back to look😭 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  sidebar I'm old. I'm tired. I have trouble seeing. That paragraph is ~450 words. tl;dr. This is not the first time that TompaDompa and Roqui have been at odds. That led to Roqui's TBAN. Maybe we can close this before someone looks up my unblock terms and a boomerang flies? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His editions about Portugal and it's history are not daily but when he does it, the only goal and objective he has is to diminish portuguese feats, not even trying to add something postive to the country history. The best examples of this can be found in the "List of largest empires page" (and yes I'm topic banned but not be allowed to spell the wiki's name page sounds a little bit too much), however if you really look at it, you'll find out that the user has several other editions in others wikipedia pages with the objective of obscuring portuguese history and feats.Roqui15 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

watching Battlebots. that lloks lot a lot of WP:ABF. done for the day. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see a single example of TompaDompa adding anything postive about Portugal anywhere in Wikipedia. I would forget about this and move on. But oh well, that won't happen. I'm just trying to help make Wikipedia a better place, there's no place here for personal tastes and personal problems against something.Roqui15 (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There was an interaction ban imposed on Roqui15 here: [30], which was closed as per Deepfriedokra's suggestion. Is this ban still in place? If so, this report is pretty much a reason for an indef block, given how many sock are in this drawer, plus the block log and other issues. If it is in place, it will be one hell of a boomerang. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like you are right about the IBAN, Looks like I was wrong about the exoanded TBAN. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since when I was banned from interacting with TompaDompa?Roqui15 (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it was said to me: "The discussion has concluded with an acceptance of your appeal subject to the conditions set above Special:Permalink/1051763803#Proposed unblock conditions/unblock discussion. While there wasn't consensus for a one-way interaction ban with TompaDompa you should be aware that any interaction may be carefully scrutinised for any sign of harassment. Happy editing". Roqui15 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The original conditions were laid out here: [31] and in the ANI discussion I linked at [32], DFO (Deepfriedokra) clearly said "Adding WP:IBAN with TompaDompa per TompaDompa's comment below. ". The discussion was closed by Cabayi with the statement "Consensus to unblock subject to the restrictions outlined by DFO.". The restrictions were outlined on your talk page and in that ANI. One of those restrictions was an interaction ban, due to your actions here, and influenced by the fact that you were blocked on another language wiki for harassing TompaDompa. This looks like a pattern, and I'm trying to figure out why I haven't indef blocked you yet. This report is completely hollow and looks like harassment to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may just let Mr. Okra do the honors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Me too! Seriously, without looking at the unblock log, I don't remember. Looks like we do need that IBAN. And the broader TBAN. Back to BATTLEBOTS! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, mat the honor be yours, unless we need discussion for consensus? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean we can just trout OP, clarify IBAN, and watch BATTLEBITSS! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where is the harassement here, I would not loose my time if this post purpose was to harass TompaDompa. Honestly, the real purpose of this post is to help this place (Wikipedia) grow, it still has too many flaws. But Jesus, this is incredible, I never expected this.. I'm out of words honestly.Roqui15 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not willing to just trout. A block is required, and this baseless ANI report demonstrates he is harassing him here, just as he did on the other wiki. I'm curious if there is some CIR at play as well. I'm happy to handle it, and he can appeal it if he wants. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Indef blocked for harassing and iban violation. The list of blocks and socks is just too much to not indef him at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OP gives me the appearance of some sort of COI or agenda, with TD in the way(?) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Welp, I have to agree with Dennis. Endorse indef block. Whether this merits a CBAN or not, I don't know. There just so many trips one can make to the well. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Apart from some edits about dinosaurs all of Roqui's contributions have broken or danced on the edge of the TBAN. The consistent hounding of TompaDompa... yup, this is a good block. Cabayi (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Next time I bring an unblock request here, please revert it and slap my fingers with a ruler. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse indef block. Why in the world they were unblocked to begin with is beyond me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Next time I bring an unblock request here, please revert it and slap my fingers with a ruler. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No good deed goes unpunished. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't lose heart, DFO. We need dreamers. There's more than enough cold-hearted bastards like me and Dennis. Here, you can borrow my 🐮 service dog. 🐮 El_C 20:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]