Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Hi there. I'd like to appeal a ban made against me here, more specifically the TBAN. Wugapodes suggested I wait a few days before making an appeal, and I have waited a month couple months now, and even though the ban is over soon, it would be good for me to understand whether and why others agree/disagree with my suggestion. Additionally, WP:BANEX states that an editor should explain why their editing is excepted from the ban; I will be making reference to the banned topic and user here in order to address a legitimate concern about the ban itself in the appropriate forum. It's a complex case so I'll try keep it as brief as possible (which turns out isn't very brief), but I'm happy to provide more details if an administrator would find it useful as there is a lot more that I can say.

1. I don't believe a TBAN against me can be considered to be the just outcome from the discussion. Only one administrator suggested a TBAN, while the others suggested an IBAN. As Wugapodes wrote on ANI, there wasn't much debate on the ban. When I responded to that one editor's suggestion of a TBAN explaining why this would not be the just outcome, I did not receive a response unfortunately. Furthermore, as Wugapodes said, the reason for the suggested TBAN is that an IBAN could be hard to enforce against editors if we edit in the same topic. However, Isento said "I really don't have a deep interest in editing Beyonce articles" and admitted to editing in such articles more just because I was editing in them as well, so I don't think an IBAN would be hard to enforce if there is no TBAN. Additionally, the issue with an IBAN would only stand if neither editor has a TBAN, but enforcing a TBAN on one editor will produce the same result as enforcing it on both. Also, this will be a long story so I'm happy to clarify further if requested, but the claims made against me that were used as the basis of the sanction (e.g. wikilawyering) were unexplained and unsubstantiated, and I asked many times for these claims to be clarified, but no diff was ever cited for such behavior. I do not see why I should be banned because of unsubstantiated claims made about me that I repeatedly asked for explanation of and received no response.
2. Isento and I received the same sanction despite a significant difference between our previous behavior and between our receiving of prior warnings and sanctions. Isento previously received multiple constructive talk page messages about his behavior, a final warning from an administrator after he told me: "Don't ping me with your pseudoliberal horsehit, little girl. Do you know of any -ism I can throw at you for smattering your hypocritical, self-righteous condescension with fake manners and exclamation points?", and a block from Ivanvector after further personal attacks were made against me and other editors and also modifying another editor's comment on a Beyonce-related talk page which QEDK and BD2412 warned him about, and this block happened shortly before the ANI report in question. During and after that block, he continued to make personal attacks against me and other editors, such as when he admitted his personal intolerance of me, called the administrators "hypocrites" and called ANI a "kangaroo court", as well as repeatedly telling me I have mental health issues during the ANI discussion in question as explained here (and later inappropriate behavior is explained below). This explains why a strong sanction such as a TBAN was placed against Isento, as talk page messages didn't help, formal warnings didn't help, and blocks didn't help. On the other hand, I have not once received a polite talk page message from Isento. As explained during the ANI discussion, Isento just repeatedly places warning templates on my talk page, including two within 24 hours, and replies sarcastically when I ask him to clarify, such as here. Importantly, for the issue that the ANI report was on, there was not even any form of talk page message or dispute resolution attempted before as should have been done, with Isento going straight to ANI over an issue that could have and should have been addressed through several possible means before an ANI report was necessary. Further, as well as not receiving constructive messages on my talk page, I have not even received any formal warning or block for my interactions with Isento. I do not see why someone who has never received any formal sanction for this let alone received constructive talk page messages should receive the same sanction as someone who has received multiple sanctions from administrators for his behavior in order to provide him with multiple chances to improve his behavior, which unfortunately has not been successful.
3. Isento and I received the same sanction despite a significant difference between our behavior on Beyonce-related articles after the ANI report in question, as exemplified by the discussion on Talk:Beyoncé#RfC:_Should_the_subject_of_this_article_be_defined_as_a_songwriter_in_the_lead?. I always kept cool in this discussion and made constructive contributions, despite the fact that I faced several false accusations, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith by the few "no" voters. Worst of all, one of those editors (HĐ) made a false accusation about me to ANI citing solidarity with Isento, which Games of the world, TruthGuardians and HandThatFeeds all said was a false accusation that was highly inappropriate. The fact that I kept cool and did not make personal attacks even in the most severe cases where I was faced with strong attacks and provocation, means that I would never make such attacks, and so a TBAN is unnecessary. On the other hand, Isento hasn't made such changes to his behavior, and instead has also continued to make false accusations and assume bad faith about other editors during that discussion. He even made complaints to ANI about a "Beyonce-related coterie of editors" (Xurizuri and Israell) who disagreed with him about a Beyonce-related issue, also making false accusations and assumptions of bad faith against both of them, without even notifying them on their talk page. When Isento was told how inappropriate this was, such as by Binksternet, he did not take accountability for it. Such behavior shows that this isn't just a behavioral issue with me, but that this is a chronic issue that Isento has with editors who disagree with him on Beyonce-related issues. I do not see why someone who has learnt from their mistakes, is evidently trying to becoming a better editor and has not engaged in personal attacks etc since (even in the most severe of cases), should receive the same sanction as someone who - despite being on Wikipedia for 13 years and receiving sanctions for his behavior - does not indicate that he is learning from his mistakes or trying to become a better editor, and instead continues to engage in personal attacks etc specifically against editors who disagree with him on Beyonce-related issues. This is why I do not believe that the TBAN should be enforced against me. TBANs are meant to be preventative, not retributive, and my behavior since the ANI discussion has shown that I will only be making constructive contributions to Beyonce-related articles and discussions, no matter how much provocation I face.

Thank you very much to anyone who can help with this. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bgkc4444, are you able to offer a condensed version of the appeal? I'm just finding it prohibitively lengthy, so myself, I am unlikely to review it for those reasons alone. Thanks and good luck! El_C 18:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: Sure, sorry about that! Hopefully this is better. I believe that the TBAN should be rescinded because:

a) the TBAN was the suggestion of one editor and was not properly discussed and the consensus more indicated just an IBAN

b) the reason given for the TBAN isn't a strong argument (it was said that an IBAN is difficult to maintain without a TBAN, but the user I am in the IBAN with said he edits in Beyonce-related articles more because I do too, and also having one TBAN causes the same effect as having two)

c) the claims made against me that were used as reasons for sanction were unsubstantiated without any diffs given despite my repeated requests for explanation

d) the other user had received multiple constructive talk page warnings, a final warning from an administrator and a recent block from an administrator regarding his behavior towards me on Beyonce-related issues, whereas I received none of those (most importantly, the editor did not try the correct methods of dispute resolution and went straight to making the ANI report against me)

e) during and immediately after the ANI discussion where the other editor was blocked, as well as during the ANI discussion in question, he made multiple personal attacks such as calling the administrators hypocrites and repeatedly telling me I have mental health issues, whereas I did not make such attacks and yet we received the same sanction

f) since the ANI discussion finished, the other editor and I were in the same disussion on a Beyonce-related article. I was faced with personal attacks and false accusations, including a false complaint to ANI cited in solidarity with the other editor. Despite this, I did not make any personal attacks in response, which shows that no matter how much I am provoked, I will no longer respond inappropriately. The other editor himself, however, made false accusations about editors and made a false complaint to ANI about a "Beyonce-related coterie of editors" who disagreed with him, without writing a message on those editors' talk pages. This shows a clear disparity between how the other editor and I will edit on Beyonce-related topics going forward, and yet we both received the same TBAN. TBANs are meant to be preventative, not retributive, and my behavior since the ANI discussion has shown that I will only be making constructive contributions to Beyonce-related articles and discussions, no matter how much provocation I face. Bgkc4444 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bgkc4444, honestly, you may be right about the unequitable warnings and otherwise sanctions — or maybe not. No idea. But the point is that you are asking reviewers here to do a fair bit of investigating for a topic ban that, what, expires in 2 months? So, maybe just sit this one out...? I'm just preparing you for the possible consequence of how scarce volunteer resources may be, especially about a really narrow sanction that expires soon(ish), anyway. Still, I can see you wanting to clear your name or whatever, notwithstanding these more pragmatic considerations. But as an active admin, I, for one, would not treat you differently due to this sanction (like as a problem user), if that helps at all. Anyway, who knows, maybe reviewers who are familiar with the case, or ones who possess the time and inclination to investigate, will show up to opine, after all. Good luck. El_C 20:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow me to take this opportunity to add my thoughts on topic bans. Wikipedia has well over 6 million articles now, covering literally hundreds of thousands of topic areas. It is possible for any author interested in working on the project to spend all their available hours working productively in any number of these areas. Topic bans are rare enough that I would counsel any editor subject to one to find something else to do for the duration. BD2412 T 20:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, BD2412, thank you both for your comments. I fully understand both of your points and recognize the practical challenge. However, I was told that I can make an appeal "any time before" the end of the ban, as well as that I shouldn't make an appeal too close to the ban's initiation, so I still hope that the appeal can be considered even if I have missed the short period of time in which making an appeal would be the most practical. Still, of course, the administrators have the power and superior knowledge of bans here, and I guess I don't have a choice in what admins choose to look at or don't. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is simply a problem with English language knowledge but I feel, if a topic ban was imposed on "6 January 2021", saying "waited a couple months now" on 7 February is likely to be considered misleading. Yes it's very slightly over a month, but it's hard to call that 2 months. (I don't think 2 months or 1 month matters much in a case like this, but it's still better not to confuse or mislead.) To be fair, Wugapodes also confusingly set their 3 month topic ban to expire on 6 March, but I'm fairly sure I haven't either entered a parallel universe or suffered a head injury that made me forget that there's an extra month between January and February. Perhaps one of the sources of confusion is that the discussion itself started on 12 December and so I guess the stuff that lead up to it was even before then. Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, that's a great point - thanks for noticing that. I saw the three-month ban was intended to end in March and assumed it had been two months - I've corrected it above. I assume the end date was a mistake and it should end in April. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified on Bgkc4444's and Isento's talk pages that I'm bad at math, and out of fairness clarified that we should honor the end date I gave over the time frame since, when instructions conflict, we should prefer the specific over the general. to be clear, the sanction is now 2 months, still ending on March 6 as I told the editors, not three months as I stated in the close. As for the appeal, I don't have much to say beyond what I said in the discussion closure. Consensus for a TBAN was admittedly weak, but the reasoning was strong an unopposed: if we want to prevent disruption, pairing a TBAN with the IBAN would probably work best. If editors here think the TBAN is not WP:PREVENTATIVE then it should be removed. Reading the appeal, I'm not sure it makes the case for that clear, but I think point 1 in the OP which relies on this diff gets closest to answering that question. In my experience Bgkc4444 has been taking advice well, so I'm not really worried that lifting the TBAN will cause huge problems. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Thank you for your comment. Yes, that point is part of the reason, but I believe that the TBAN against me isn't preventing anything because I do not believe I have indicated that I will imminently or continually damage/disrupt Wikipedia. I may be misunderstanding these rules so please let me know if I am, but I read the sentence at WP:PREVENTATIVE which says "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition" to mean that a TBAN is only used when it is believed that an editor will repeat their inappropriate behavior if the TBAN isn't implemented. I believe that this is not the case for me. As explained in the last point of the appeal above, there was a discussion on Beyonce's article that both the other editor and I participated in after the ANI discussion died down and before the IBAN and TBANs were implemented, and to me our respective behaviors during that discussion are indicative of what our behavior would have been if the TBAN wasn't implemented, and so are indicative of whether a TBAN is necessary. I was constructive in the discussion and receptive to others' concerns. Other editors did not do so to me, and even one complained about me to ANI about a false situation cited in solidarity with the editor I am in an IBAN with. Despite this, I did not retaliate or show inappropriate behavior to this editor, and I believe the fact that I did not show inappropriate behavior in such a severe case shows that I would never do so no matter how much provocation I face. I believe that this is what shows that the TBAN against me is not preventing anything. Just having the discussion on ANI showed me the appropriate way of interacting with others (which is why I said above that instead of the other editor going straight to ANI when he had a problem with my edits, he should have used the correct methods of dispute resolution such as a talk page message), while a TBAN doesn't help me with this. I am not saying that the TBAN for the other editor should be rescinded as well, as he assumed bad faith about the editors who disagreed with him in that discussion and made inappropriate complaints about them to ANI, but of course that is up to the admins to decide. Thank you for your help with this. Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Sorry to ping you again, but in case you haven’t seen I replied above :) Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Bgkc4444[reply]

No worries! I had seen the reply but don't have much to add. It seems removing the TBAN may be worthwhile, but that requires more input than just mine imo. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBellaTwins1445:, originally blocked for sockpuppeting, then indefinitely blocked and ultimately 3X banned for repeated infringements of the same, has requested an unblock. Additional details can be found in the series of blocks/appeals on their talk page. Their unban request is included below, and I will copy across relevant follow-up messages they post on their talk page. If a CheckUser could confirm as far as logs enable as an opening step, that would be appreciated Nosebagbear (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a long time ago my account on the English Wikipedia was blocked because of sockpuppetering with multiple accounts. I know it was wrong, but all I wanted to do was to continue working here on Wikipedia and edit articles in a constructive manner, not wanting to commit any kind of vandalism. Also I was a kind a fool with Wikipedia, like yeah I have being editing for a long time, but it was just like some kind of part time thing, but now I do love to help editing articles, so certainly this time I am taking all of this in a serious way. TheBellaTwins1445 will be my only account forever, if someone can help me deleting all of the others, I will be really grateful. Hope this time you trust on me. Thank you and i'll wait for your response.

--

Support, assuming no evidence of recent block evasion. Six confirmed sockpuppet accounts speaks poorly, but WP:SO exists so users can turn things around and be welcomed back. --Yamla (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - I have serious doubts about whether this is an acceptable username considering that the editor worked on professional wrestling articles and The Bella Twins are two living people who are retired pro wrestlers. What do other editors think? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) If this were a new account I'd be right there with you. However, with 23K live edits dating back to 2015 AND who knows how many discussion-page references and other places that link to the name, I'm inclined to "grandfather" it in on the condition that the user page makes it abundantly clear that 1) this account is run by one person, not a pair of twins, and 2) there is no relation to any well-known person or group of people with a similar name off-wiki. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CU note I find no evidence of recent socking. As always, remember that the CU tool is not dispositive, they could be socking and just being clever about it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a chance to return to good standing. Trust that the editor has learned the perils of sockpuppetry. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• COVID-19 misinformation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (& see history), recent WP:POVFORK creation written by now-tbanned editor
• Wuhan Institute of Virology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This particular topic has been plagued with SPAs and POV pushing, the main one was recently topic banned, unbanned and rebanned (see: WP:GS/COVID19), and discussed at AN/ANI a few times. This is a long discredited conspiracy theory by consensus of scientists and all peer-reviewed publications, and most recently by the WHO. The SPAs are mostly relying on regular preprints published by two authors, Rossana Segreto & Yuri Deigin (such as this). It's all based on crappy sourcing (eg preprints & WP:OPINDIA [1]) and misrepresentations of existing sources. Today this tweet was published referencing the POVFORK page, which may explain the recent influx of newly created SPAs trying to push the theory, but they've been pretty relentless for months anyway.

There is an active GS in the topic. Can we get some administrative action here? This stuff is beyond tiring now. As soon as lengthy meaningless walls of text are debated on one talk page, folks move on to the next talk page and restart the conversation from scratch, or create new fringe articles. This isn't a legitimate content debate. It's just disruptive and tiring contributors out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: I don't have much time for paperwork at the moment, but I'm inclined to slap some sourcing restrictions on these pages as discretionary sanctions, and keep an eye on COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis for a couple days in case the edit war returns. I'm just not sure how much that would help since the primary issue is talk page bludgeoning. That's best dealt with by topic bans, but I don't really know the topic area that well, so if you want tbans handed out I recommend taking some time to present some representative diffs here or at WP:AE. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: I think sourcing restrictions would be helpful, for sure. There was, and still is, an effort on various noticeboards to get an opinion that MEDRS doesn't apply and/or that preprints and opinion pieces are as valuable as peer-reviewed pieces and scientist commentary. Such a sourcing restriction on the affected pages, along the lines of valereee's or Poland, would provide support to editors and slow down the overwhelming rate of talk page fluff and forum shopping. There's also a discussion at ANI currently re a particular editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol on Valereee's source restriction. My claim to fame. Given that it's currently at ArbCom, I'd say @Wugapodes would def be the better person to place it on those pages while I await my fate. Or doom, whichever. :D —valereee (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the issue with the Segreto paper isn't that it isn't peer-reviewed (it's been published), but that it's a primary source. Another MEDRS concern is the astounding lack of credentials of the authors and apparent lack of editorial oversight in the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series, which the Segreto and Sirotkin papers appear under. JoelleJay (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• There's also SPA disruption at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis (while the mainspace redirect had to be protected by Valeree). I did the instinctive thing, but that obviously came back negative... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have User:Billybostickson trolling User:Boing! said Zebedee... Would semi-protecting that MfD due to the issues of off-wiki canvassing and disruption help any of this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block and disrupting the deletion discussion, edit-warring back their attack when reverted. They have been recently blocked for similar behavior. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per this report of egregious off-wiki behaviour, a warning would be more than insufficient. Topic ban? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Radical solution: pinging an uninvolved admin... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCanadian, thank you very much for the trust expressed by this single ping.

Per WP:GS/COVID19:

• Billybostickson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been topic banned from all pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, until the general sanctions in this area are removed by the community, or 01 January 2023, whichever comes first. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  Billybostickson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked from editing for 2 weeks for violating the topic ban from all pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
• COVID-19 misinformation is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
• Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
• Wuhan Institute of Virology is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
• Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is semi-protected indefinitely.

Additionally, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis has been semi-protected for a month because of reasonable concerns about canvassing.

This can probably be closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much ToBeFree. This should aid with a bunch of the disruption, but I'm not sure all of it as some ECP users are responsible for some of the lengthier disruption, for example at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology. I still think ideally a solution should be devised for that, otherwise it'll almost certainly flare up again once this thread is archived. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billybostickson had not been formally notified about the sanctions in this area, so I have replaced the sanction and the block by a warning with a proper notification. I had seen a {{GS/alert}} regarding these sanctions on User talk:PaleoNeonate and User talk:Hemiauchenia, but Billybostickson hadn't received one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank User: SQLfor removing the block and ban which ~ ToBeFree used to unjustly (in my opinion of course) gag me at the behest of User: Random Canadian. However, I would also like to thank ~ ToBeFree for remedying the mistake and attempting to provide a relatively coherent justification and for answering my 6 questions about the block and ban. After a friendly discussion with ~ ToBeFree and in line with his advice I would like to add again what he deleted twice on this page (my response to a false claim by User: RandomCanadian and User: PaleoNeonate:

And now we have User:Billybostickson trolling User:Boing! said Zebedee... Would semi-protecting that MfD due to the issues of off-wiki canvassing and disruption help any of this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC) I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block and disrupting the deletion discussion, edit-warring back their attack when reverted. They have been recently blocked for similar behavior. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC) My Dear Paleo, you seem to have misconstrued something here, so let us review what you deleted and your reason for deleting it:

"I disagree with the comment by XOR'easter as the COVID-19 misinformation article seems to conflate the bio-weapon theory with the lab leak theory in quite a devious way. Not sure how this happened but in the meantime we should definitely *Keep this draft page as it helps shed light on the issue in a much clearer way than the current bizarre section on the redirect page.Billybostickson (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(You already !voted Keep once. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)) Dear Boing! said Zebedee If you came here because someone asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you for your attention!"

Now, Per WP:ASPERSIONS, I am not discussing editor conduct but instead I am clearly focus on content and processes, in this case the correct interpretation of "voting" on this page as per the heading on the page, neither am I discussing an administrator's conduct, WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM. My recent post in no way "attacked" Bong! as you bizarrely claim. Kindly explain why you think this was an "attack" and why you consider it "inappropriate". Finally, I am not sure why you mention "As for WP:SPA," here as I certainly did not mention or say anything about that.

Indeed, you are free to use your "widely used template" as you wish, but please explain what this means: "You also appear to be edit-warring back the attack" Firstly, there was no attack and secondly I merely reverted your deletion and politely asked your for a coherent reason, rather than "undid revision. will report at WP:ANI" which does not seem like a logical reason for deleting text.

To be honest your final comment, given your clear WP:POVEDITOR on this topic and related pages : "so I'm reporting you as promised" appears to be WP:HOUND. Kindly explain yourself calmly and clearly and avoid falsely accusing other editors of "attacks" so that through dialogue we may improve communication and understanding. If you are unwilling to do this then I will seek dispute resolution and arbitration. Also, kindly refrain from deleting my contributions for no logical reason.Billybostickson (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Billybostickson (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Per this report of egregious off-wiki behaviour, a warning would be more than insufficient. Topic ban? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Note to admins: The account has since been privated, so the information has been removed. But I can confirm that the "Billybostickson" was discussing the MfD on twitter, which is where all the socks were probably coming from. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia (talk), not sure if that is your real name (and I don't care) but what you are doing seems to be WP:HOUND especially in light of your clear WP:POVEDITOR on several pages related to this topic, even more so if you are trying to find out "who I am" by investigating social media accounts. If you wish to know more about me, please see my Talk Page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Billybostickson

Thanks to any admin who has read this response, hopefully we can now move on and ensure that a quite plausible "lab leak hypothesis" is not falsely conflated with bio-weapon allegations, which is the current state of affairs and the reason for some of the disputes on the Covid-19 origin pages. I understand it is hard work sorting the wheat from the chaff and trying to ensure the WP pages are neutral and factual. My respect for that work you do. Billybostickson (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Billybostickson: I didn't remove anything. ToBeFree undid the block that they had made, and as such, I closed out your unblock request. I haven't read anything associated with that block, and because of that, I have no opinion on it. SQL^{Query me!} 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if copying the above here was appropriate but would just like to clarify that I don't have anything to add and don't think it's necessary to defend my previous complaint. Thanks to ToBeFree for their advice at Billy's page and for the page protections. —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wall of text above should be collapsed or otherwise clerked, as it doesn't really further the discussion at all and seems to be an assorted mixture of grievances. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that ToBeFree, my mistake. I will ignore the arrogant response by Paleo I disagree with ProcrastinatingReader who seems to be attempting to suffocate a justified response to false claims by disparaging them instead of allowing them to be visible so that we all can learn from our errors.Billybostickson (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Just saying before anyone notifies me, I have seen the above message and chose to do nothing. The current heat is fueled by an incorrect block. No, there was neither arrogance nor disparagement involved in these messages. People disagree with each other, that's all.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "error" you're talking about. Afaics ToBeFree unbanned you due to bureaucratic requirements ({{gs/alert}}), not because the merits of the ban were wrong. Your first action since is to post this, which is another wall of text. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• User:ProcrastinatingReader has found two more examples of a very substantially similar nature to the draft at MfD mentioned above. I have bundled them with the original nomination since it's extremely unlikely the outcome would be any different if they were nominated individually; and also because they are substantially similar. If anybody here feels that the bundling is incorrect, feel free to undo that and start individual nominations. In any case, I don't think we'll want to be playing whack-a-mole with this kind of nonsense... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't find them. Did you mean PaleoNeonate? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

<humour>Phew I'm not an admin yet or I'd be blocking the wrong guys all over</humour> Yes, clearly, my bad. Anyway, the point I made above about whack-a-mole copies of the draft stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, User:Billybostickon has now filed a thread at DRN, here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story. This should also be seen in light of continued discussion/disruption on the Covid-19 misinformation talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DRN thread has been closed, as the filer has been topic-banned and also blocked for 2 weeks. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• We need several topic bans and/or WP:NOTHERE blocks in the area, rather than wasting more time, thanks for the progress, —PaleoNeonate – 22:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors sometimes open threads at DRN about disputes that are already also being discussed in another forum. They may, in good faith, think that DRN has a more extensive scope than it does. Sometimes they are being evasive or are wikilawyering. The DRN volunteers close such disputes if we notice that the matter is pending somewhere else. This was a relatively easy close, because the the filing party was blocked shortly after filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So: Please be aware that forum shopping is disapproved of, and you are encouraged to bring content disputes to DRN that are not pending in another forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion of related Wikipedia articles by pro "lab leak" conspiracy theorists on twitter, which has likely resulted in the recruitment of new and dormant pro-"lab leak" editors to talk pages and related discussions, see [2] for an example. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a someone covertly canvassing editors via email who have expressed favourable opinions in the past year to vote keep on the MfD. See Special:Diff/1006867793/1006871631. Seriously problematic. Which also explains for the rise in keep voters of late, some of which haven't edited for months prior to the MfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader Reported the blatant infringement at ANI. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Alert: It was ScrupulousScribe, who has been blocked for two months as a result. We would probably have never figured out the exact user unless the guy who admitted being emailed revealed who it was. Can someone make a section on the MfD to let the closer know about this? As it is likely to get lost in the walls of text otherwise (I have been asked to not make any further edits to the MfC discussion, and I will respect this). Also, there's nothing stopping ScrupulousScribe creating another dummy account and using it to continue to covertly canvass users via email undetected.Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Account creation should be disabled per the block log, unless he has a dynamic IP (but that would be block evasion, and let's not immediately go down the path of WP:ABF - they might be misguided/problematic, but let's hope they're not that kind of problematic). As nominator, I'll post an additional additional notice under the existing ones at the top. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, slightly off topic but might I recommend changing that link to Special:Diff/1006869407/1006871631? Your current link covers a few revisions too many which make it seem like you're the canvassed editor at first glance Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

note: an RfC has been started at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#RFC_to_fix_this_once_and_for_all. Given the sheer amount of SPAs and offwiki recruitment on the MfD and in general, it's possible that the RfC may see the same sort of issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If my spidey sense is anything to go by, we're already seeing it. Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discography article was created by User:Francis Schonken when RfCs were opened on the original article talk page to discuss the changes that User:Francis Schonken sought to make. The "discography" page is in fact a full duplication/rewrite of the original article including all the changes desired by User:Francis Schonken. This seems a blatant attempt at a POVFORK. I have nominated the discography article for deletion. User:Francis Schonken is however continuing to edit and expand it. User:Francis Schonken, in his reponse at the deletion, has speciously claimed that I support his initiative in creating this duplicate article. This is untrue; I simply expressed my view that a discography would be better as a separate List article. And I certianyl cannot support action of this sort being taken while an RfC (or two) is under way. I don't know what action should be taken here, but User:Francis Schonken's actions and 'defence' seem to me to be essentially holding up two fingers to the consensual WP process.--Smerus (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly not my intention to create a WP:POVFORK. If it is, I propose to merge, per the POVFORK guidance. The discography article is currently at AfD:

• this entails that a merge should probably best not be operated before the AfD is closed, and only if the AfD's closure mandates such merge.
• afaik, improving/extending references of an article while it is at AfD is normal, even recommended, procedure. These are also the only edits I did since the discography article was listed at AfD.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the status of the discography can be discussed at the AfD. I agree that the discography should be just a discography and link back to the main article. A more serious problem, which I was considering raising until I saw this entry, is the current edit war at Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53, with Francis (who has already been pinged enough in this section) and user:Nikkimaria. They are both also posting at the talk page but playing ping pong with 10k of content at a time. This must stop. --Mirokado (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I have not reverted Nikkimaria again (current mainspace content is their version), and limited myself to a talk page reply after their last revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "link back to the main article": fixed --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "the discography should be just a discography": I've now created a "just discography" version of the discography article (which I've self-reverted for the OP's suggestion of a restriction on me editing the article I created). The "just discography" version includes a three-paragraph intro, some of the images, etc, – I suppose it is more or less what other editors may expect of such a version, but am open to suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that Francis Schonken's comments above are disingenuous (shall we say). On 4 February FS added links to his sandbox version noting these changes in connection with the RfC on referencing. On 9 February he then without explanation or warning (afaik) moved the sandbox to WP as the "discography" article, without attribution to other editors and any proper edit history, etc. (And, incidentally, with many faults in the article, including removing the references to to the doubt as to the work's attribution). This is not I think consistent with FS's explanation above. In any case, the deliberate creation of an article B, in the face of an ongoing discussion about article A, followed by a proposal to merge to article B to article A shows, at the very least, a lack of understanding and respect for the processes of WP. --Smerus (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a notice about copied material to the talk pages of both articles ([3], [4]). For clarity, the discography page is, thus far, mostly my work, as well content as layout (most of it already being introduced by me in the BWV 53 article before being copied to the draft, and then to the mainspace discography). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C blocked User:Mathsci for iban violations at the BWV 53 article. Isn't this another violation of the iban, this time by Francis Schonken? Doug Weller talk 07:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Doug, I'm not immediately seeing it. What did the violation actually consist of? El_C 07:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I may be wrong, but shortly after you blocked MathSci for edits on the original article, FS creates this discography which had been part of a dispute between FS and MathSci on the earlier article. Given the nature of MathSci's ban stemming from his actions on the original article, I wondered if you might consider this also a violation of the spirit of the iban. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, briefly, because I'm a bit in transit at the moment: I blocked MathSci because, among other things, he had directly reverted Francis Schonken on the parent page. Not sure how this sister page actually connects to any possible interaction between the two, though I'm happy to review any pertinent diffs to that effect (later). Gotta glow now! El_C 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had some trouble with this bot recently. I posted details on the operator's talk page. But I now notice that this user has not posted since 26 July 2020. As the bot seems to be faulty and driverless, please can someone block it or otherwise resolve the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Davidson I don't think the bot is exactly faulty (or at least this is an edge case) - it is expecting text in the Source field and I am going to guess that it was (unsurprisingly) unable to evaluate the template that you used ({{citation}}) and therefore it thought it was empty. You'll see that now there is text in that field, the bot is happy. I think this is probably a rare event - 99.9% of the time people will simply fill in the fields with text (which is fine) or leave it blank (which the bot will catch). The rest of its taggings appear to be fine, as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A {{citation}} template is a standard way of specifying a source, which is why I used it and will continue to do so. It contains standard data items such as a date, author and URL which one would expect when specifying a source. If the bot is unable to parse these then it is not fit for purpose. If it is unable to make sense of what it finds, it should still recognise that there is something there and pass this as an exception to its human operator. It should not in the meantime go dropping misleading and hostile tags and messages.

A bot operator is expected to provide good communication per bot policy, WP:BOTCOMM. It seems clear that we're not getting it in this case. If this bot is now orphaned, it should be blocked or otherwise disabled per WP:BOTISSUE.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many, perhaps even most, botops are inactive or otherwise not actively maintaining their bots. For this particular issue, it's likely blocking the bot will result in its features being unavailable for an unspecified period of time, perhaps forever. An ideal resolution would be you adding the licensing information in the standard way which the bot can understand. It may also be worth contacting the botop by email. Your current way of doing things is not machine-readable anyway, which makes it problematic. See the various added categories such as Category:Files with no machine-readable source. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The policy WP:BOTCOMM states that "Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. ... This is a condition of operation of bots in general." If this and other bots are not compliant with this condition then they should be shut down. Complex software requires continuous support and so should not be launched in a fire-and-forget way. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to file an RfC to shut down the bots of any operator who hasn't edited in 6 months or a year. I imagine you will find a snowing consensus against. Even when the operators are active various bots are mostly unmaintained afaik, such as the GA bot. Various codebases are taken over from past operators who went inactive, and are mostly just maintained for stability. In any case, this still ignores the fact that your method of tagging images is not machine readable and thus is not the correct way of adding the data. I'm not sure why you're insistent on seeing the bot make a change, rather than just changing your wikitext into the machine readable format...? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Ignoring the what-to-do question] Andrew, {{citation}} is not a standard way of specifying an image source. It's a valid way, so the tag was a mistake and Wikiacc correctly removed the tag, but the standard way to provide an image source (and a good way of avoiding this situation in the future) is to describe the image with {{Information}} and to put the source in the |source parameter. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Andrew, there are no such instructions on the file upload pages (mainly, I suspect, because the issue hasn't come up previously). Of course the vast majority of users are simply going to provide text rather than fiddling about with templates so it's not surprising. Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: note that I didn't remove the tag, I just added some more text to accompany it, both for added context and to make ImageTaggingBot stop. Wikiacc (¶) 02:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImageTaggingBot expects source information to be in the form of free-form text on the image description page, or a filled-out "source", "author", or "artist" field in an {{Information}} or {{Image information art}} template (or a template that transcludes one of those templates, such as {{Non-free use rationale}}), or a filled-out "source" field in {{Non-free media data}} or {{Non-free audio data}}, or any of 23 templates such as {{self}} that provide boilerplate sources, or any of 114+ copyright templates that provide source.

{{citation}} isn't on the list of known ways to provide source information. I'm not going to add it, because it's fairly common for people to use that template in non-source-providing ways on image description pages. If you want the bot to see what you're writing, use a standard method (I recommend {{Information}}). --Carnildo (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not interested in servicing a false-alarm-bot – I improved an article with a valid PD image and then want to be left alone per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I'd still like to know why the bot tagged the image for deletion when its documentation explicitly says that it shouldn't do this: "ImageTaggingBot does not tag images for deletion." Reviewing the approval, the bot seems to be exceeding its authority by trying to make sense of the image description (and failing).

The more general issue of machine-readability seems to be a work-in-progress – see Phabricator: T194465: When the author/source is indicated with a template, it is categorized as "Files with no machine-readable author/source" ... Maybe the first step of resolving this issue should be some publication (or link to past publication) of machine-readable marking, expected by the software. At the moment those categories are useless, as they are filled with millions of files with correct templates and author/source info.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that this question was coming from someone new, but Andrew has been here since the 2000s. Let me be blunt: it was tagged for deletion because you didn't follow standard procedure, and it's not compulsory for the bot operator to change the bot's operation just because you want to use the wrong template. Since you've been here for this long, you know that plenty of deletions are done rather carelessly, so you shouldn't be surprised if plenty of your images are not only wrongly tagged but wrongly deleted. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open more than 24 hours and is unanimous, so @MBlaze Lightning:'s appeal is accepted. I'll update WP:AELOG momentarily. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive232#Capitals00

G'day all.

I am here to appeal a topic ban (hereinafter referred to as simply a 'ban' for simplicity's sake) that was imposed on my account on May 15, 2018. Limited in scope (it applied to 'pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan), the ban nonetheless effectively curtailed my range of editing. I must at the outset acknowledge the fact that this ban was put in place in the first place because my editing and concomitant conduct in the said domain was deemed to be battlegroundish and rightly so.

There was without doubt deterioration in conduct leading to the arbitration enforcement report that led to the ban in the said domain, which was most regrettable and something I never felt good about. It was rightfully nipped in the bud. There was a passive consciousness of this deterioration in conduct even then, and with the wisdom of hindsight things have only become more clear. Having said that, seen in the broader context of my editing back then, which was largely focused on content creation, writing articles, developing and taking them to high standards through sustained research, making DYK and ITN nominations and stuff, this was somewhat a stray, and, again, highly regrettable involvement in what I would say a very narrow set of volatile articles; it led to the narrowness in interest and detracted me from my larger objective of writing articles on subjects I knew about and stuff.

The ban came with a rider that 'that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block,' and this has been like a sword hanging over my head, and without doubt, to some extent was a factor that contributed to a significant decline in my contributions over the past two years,[5] though it was largely on account of a busy real life. Nonetheless, it has been quite stressful to edit under the constraint of this ban, with all its restrictions and injunctions, for even a potentiality of a minor overlap makes me think twice before continuing to edit in that direction. I made close to 6,000 edits in the year 2018 alone, after the ban came into effect, largely in the WP:ARBIPA domain, writing a number of good articles and DYKs such as DRDO Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon (), PSLV-C42 ( ), Ankita Bhakat ( ), and Baby Rani Maurya (), besides occasional but significant contributions here and there over these years in what might serve as an eloquent example of my bona fide intention to serve this project.

Three years is a long time and I truly believe that this ban has outlived its utility and has over the years become more of an impediment. Prior to the this whole episode, I had been working on articles like Vikram Batra (which I singlehandedly developed from almost scratch to B-class, adding tens of thousands of bytes in the process,[6] using a vast pool of resources) and User:MBlaze Lightning/Myra MacDonald. I had plans to eventually develop the former into my magnum opus and take the latter to at least DYK... I therefore ask, nay, request the community to kindly reconsider this ban and lift the same in light of my vastly reformed conduct, my eagerness to make amends for the past misconduct, and to continue to contribute to this project, particularly in the said domain, not under the constraint of any ban but with the freedom to choose and contribute wherever I want to. I shall forever be grateful to the community.

Thanks, MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. No need for this to be longer than it already has. WP:FORGIVE, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Having watched the edits from this user in the histories of South Asian military articles, I can safely suggest that the area will benefit from his presence. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rescinding. A cogent, heartfelt and reflective appeal. Also factoring abuse amelioration, with myself having declined a bogus AE complaint 2 weeks ago that falsely charged the appellant with contravening their ban (the filer has since been blocked by the Arbitration Committee). El_C 11:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive279 — did I really close 11 of 14 reports? I think Sandstein would be proud. Hum hum hum. El_C 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  El C, thanks, I guess? It's certainly good seeing somebody attending to the process. In my experience it doesn't really work with respect to the unblockables, and ArbCom doesn't seem to want it to work in these cases, so I'm now spending my time elsewhere. But I guess that's an experience everybody needs to make for themselves. - While I'm here I might as well also support lifting the ban based on the convincing appeal. Sandstein 15:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, let this user contribute to the topic area they want to improve. Nicely crafted appeal. enjoyer|talk 11:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support The user has had a couple of AE hits, one bogus, one out of scope, so clearly fine, and the other such a minor technical breach (that their own actions helped stop) that even AE decided the best course was no action. Given the timescale, I feel that only a support is an appropriate outcome, in lieu of evidence to the contrary. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment)Support If the user starts behaving battleground-ish again, then they can be re-TBANNED, but as long as they don't get into the same problems as before, unblock to reduce unnecessary discontent and because at most the damage done will be none or limited. 4D4850 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. How the system should work. Good appeal and evidence of them moving on. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very good appeal and a constructive user. I and all my socks support lifting the ban. Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Support. A good appeal, and a solid portfolio of constructive work outside contentious areas. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Everybody deserves a second chance.--Berig (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per everyone above. Hell yeah Sro23 (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MBlaze Lightning, would you please consider changing your signature to something readable? As it stands, it is very hard to decipher and probably fails WP:SIGAPP. Fram (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually never thought about it like that. But I got no problem, so I have done the needful. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Fram (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very clear cut case. Mblaze hasn't been sitting out watching the clock to pass $x months, or $x edits, or making excuses. Instead, they've become a better editor in every respect during this restriction, clearly demonstrating that restrictions aren't needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article has been under some possible self-promotion/advertising for the past few months, seemingly in regards to an audio technician by the name of John Krepol.

This has been going on since about October by now three different users: John V Krepol, Jesse Cute, and most recently Galbicsek. The first editor, John V Krepol, also had an page deleted back in October at User:John V Krepol (I had seen it myself before it was deleted, and it was basically the person's entire resume of work).

Of all the additions of Krepol to the article, the only one actually 'sourced' is this edit, but it is from the John V Krepol user, so it's just blatantly self-promotion at that point.

What should be done at this point regarding this? Not sure it really warrants a page protection or anything, but the article looks like it's just being used for advertising purposes through each Krepol edit. I'm also not going to rule it out as 100% impossible, but I don't think this is sockpuppet case, each user with a different 'way' of adding info about Krepol to the article.

Any help with this issue would be appreciated, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also probably worth noting that being an audio engineer on two shows doesn't seem to be notable at all... if there were something more to it/an actual notability for including information on the person in the article, then sure, but just pointing out that they exist and had this job on the show with no real notable information on them is seemingly just promotion of them. Magitroopa (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting, Magitroopa. Whether this is truly one person or not, it's clearly a concerted campaign and they're only here for promotion. I've blocked the accounts and semi-protected the article for a month. Fences&Windows 00:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The below is actually nuts! Doing a dude a favor to have him remembered for his work on the show. That’s it. All the assessments are pretty ridiculous*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01D:589F:40D9:5D0D:63D:EDFB (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I re-threaded this (was originally at the top of the section) so "below" is referring to "above" now. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An involved editor closed an RfC here - they had actually !voted in it. This seems to be a situation that can't properly be resolved by discussion, so if someone could just re-review the consensus reached, thank you! The involved editor will be notified. Full clarification: I'm also WP:INVOLVED. Samsara 17:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara: Could you provide a link to the discussion in question. Number 57 17:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Yeah, sorry for omitting, was going to come back to this after notifying. Here's the link: Talk:GameStop_short_squeeze#Request_for_comments and here's the notification diff for the record. Samsara 17:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara: Have you contacted them to undo their close? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara:, I think it was a fair close - definately on AOC and probably on Musk; obviously participants should not be closing RfCs they !voted on, but the RfC seemed to have gone dead for a few weeks, and the closer discussed their intention to try get closure on it. Wrong process, but fine in the end. Britishfinance (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it's not technically a formal close - only an uninvolved editor can do those - but it is a proper end to the RfC per WP:RFCCLOSE. The consensus there is clear and the meta discussion about the consensus is appropriate. Not every RfC needs a formal close to have done its job of showing consensus as part of the dispute resolution process. So at best we have a minor "maybe don't use the RfC close template" here but otherwise I see no problem that needs addressing here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Incredible article btw; great level of detail and fact-base on a complex subject in a very short time frame (even has the Citidel angle). wow. Britishfinance (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 thanks, that was my intent in the close. The wording on appropriate use of the "closed rfc" templates was somewhat ambiguous and I didn't err on the side of caution here, though I did not anticipate this close being controversial - or I would've requested a formal close. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a proper way to end the RFC per WP:RFCEND. This was nearly-unanimous, not a controversial outcome at all. Having an uninvolved editor close this discussion would have been a waste of editor time. What we call "involved closes" are OK if the outcome is clear and such involved closure should be encouraged, not discouraged, so as to save editor time. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that it's controversial, but that it lacks detail in covering the more complex issues that were discussed. The close covers at a rough estimate 1/3 of the issues that were being raised in the discussion. Samsara 10:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More than a decade ago, death threats popped up on my watchlist — two children apparently had a fight, and one threatened the other. I wasn't aware of emergencywikimedia.org, and I was in a college class and couldn't alert local authorities, so I found an active editor in the relevant time zone and asked him to alert authorities, and the authorities handled the situation. Some time later, another admin ran across these edits and revdeleted them, since they were definitely "purely disruptive material".

Has anyone ever asked for assistance with old edits that were emergencies when they first happened, but weren't anymore? If so, what happened? I'd like to ask whoever monitors emergency@wikimedia.org, but I don't know how to reach them except by sending an email to that address, and I don't want to make them think this is an emergency. Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: If I'm not mistaken, Trust & Safety monitor emergency@. You should be able to reach them via cawikimedia.org . SQL^{Query me!} 18:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Email sent to ca@wikimedia. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth (speaking with just my admin hat on) if the edits were severe enough to merit RD when they occurred, they should probably stay revdel'd; going through a page's history and seeing people threatening other people is rather jarring, even if the acts that preceded or followed those edits are well passed. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Most anything that needs Revdel today, needs it forever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of this AN discussion, User:PetroAntonio was indefinitely blocked by User:Jehochman. He is the author of a book that is critical of Bruce Pascoe and his book Dark Emu. PetroAntonio has made unblock requests, saying he wants to be able to use the article talk pages, giving the specific example of arguing for the use of another publication critical of the Dark Emu book. I declined the first request, and I have suggested that PetroAntonio is unikely to be unblocked without a topic ban (voluntary or imposed by the community) due to a conflict of interest and prior attempts to pursue a personal agenda. The details are at User talk:PetroAntonio, where I offered to ask the community whether PetroAntonio should be subject to a topic ban. I believe he should not be unblocked without we should impose a topic ban (whether PetroAntonio is unblocked or not), so my proposal is that PetroAntonio is indefinitely banned from the topics of Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu, broadly construed. (I will copy any comments/responses by PetroAntonio over to here when I can, but I'm off to bed shortly so could someone else please also keep an eye open and do it if I'm not around.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Modified - see strikes and underscores. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to stress, as I realise I was not as clear as I intended, I am not proposing an unblock here - that remains a separate issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support topic ban, but oppose lifting indef block - I respectfully disagree with this proposal I agree with a topic ban, but object to any removal of indef ban. I see no point in a topic ban, PetroAntonio should remain indef blocked from editing Wikipedia, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to attack BLP subjects, promote his books etc, it is a disruption only account, their appalling behavior is simply off the charts.

Looking carefully at the behavior that led to their indef block:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Serious_conflict_of_interest_issues,_blatant_advocacy_and_defamation

and in particular this op-ed PetroAntonio penned offwiki in order to attack other editors (they refer to me as a sub-category of human and a dog eating its own vomit):

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/

They should remain indef blocked, their behavior here and offwiki has been totally and utterly appalling. If they are to be merely topic banned then that should be broadly construed to include all topics relating to Australian politics and specifically Aboriginal Australians and the Australian culture wars, at the very least. Though I think their behavior here has been so far beyond the pale that they should remain indef blocked. They've made numerous unblock requests yet they still have not even began to address their problematic behavior, they have not acknowledged it in any meaningful way, instead they are still carrying on about WP:NOTTHEM. I have absolutely no faith what-so-ever that they will contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we will be back here in no time if they are unblocked. Bacondrum 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: I am not proposing a topic ban as a replacement for the current block (merely or otherwise), but independently of it and in addition to it (perhaps you didn't see the changes I made at 21:52?). As PetroAntonio is asking to be unblocked in order to continue editing in the same topic area, it would close that particular avenue of appeal, which I think would be useful. Whether PetroAntonio should ever be unblocked remains a separate issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee Thanks for clarifying, I see what you mean (and I'd hate for you to think I was having a go at you). In that case I support the topic ban, my opposition is to removing the indef block. Bacondrum 22:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool ;-) And no, I understand the initial confusion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban, since the editor's conduct regarding Pascoe and his book has been reprehensible and compulsive. It would take an awful lot of convincing for me to support an unblock - maybe they are also an expert in kangaroo biology and behavior or something, and could help in that topic area. But no way under the sun should this editor be allowed to edit regarding Pascoe. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Austhistory99 (talk · contribs) and PetroAntonio (talk · contribs) should be topic banned—no discussion or editing related to Dark Emu or Bruce Pascoe. If Wikipedia's treatment of the topic is as obviously wrong as suggested, someone without an attack agenda will propose changes backed by secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conny the Cow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandalism-only account on List of Dora the Explorer episodes. Already reported the user at AIV and requested page protection, but it's quit clear that a block is needed sooner than later. Quite clearly WP:NOTHERE. Magitroopa (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked. Feel free to close and/or remove this section (though page protection may still be needed...) Magitroopa (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again I am forced to have to resort here to report this and this. The behavior of the user in question seems absurd to me who in his eagerness to want to be the only one who creates articles about future films resorts to this type of maneuver. In Draft:Untitled Bong Joon-ho film that I have created, the development of the next Bong Joon-ho film is better detailed, without the need to lie in the title of the draft. It is unfair for me to take the time to write an article and then @Starzoner: with a page he created months ago with another title and try to replace my draft. In addition, the titles themselves are already a fraud since at no time is it mentioned that one of those two films is a sequel to Parasite. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here anyone can see a complete list with the thousands of subpages created by the user in order to later move them to the title he want. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins,

Let me put information here that explains the relationships between this user and me.

A While ago, I created a page at Draft:Spencer (film), which was deleted per G13. It was later re-created by another user. After I saw the news that it started filming (and subsequently was renamed to mainspace), I requested it be history merged with the now-deleted draft, but was reverted with this rather pointy edit summary. A subsequent request was later rejected.

That was only only interaction with him, when he immediately went to multiple admin talk pages behind my back here as well as here, and furthermore, and a further complaint here, to which was closed as a content dispute. (to be clear, I had self reverted my edits in the WP:AN dispute.

My second interaction was when someone elft me a talk page, and I removed it, intending to respond later, as I was rightfully called out over my a annoyance with being reverted by others. However, after I remove it, he comes on to my talk page with reverts such as this, this violation of WP:OWNTALK, and this threat of reporting to an administrator. For this, I’m sure he’s in violation of edit warring on my talk page.

I later tell him to stay off my talk page. He retorts by saying I am the unfriendly one.

Finally for 3rd time’s the charm, I had made this edit, querying a potential merge for the page, and immediately reverted, prompting the current message on this forum page. To address the initial sentence, I had batch created a bunch of pages back in July 2020, for plant pages that was listed in a prior revision of Eria, but lalter realized most of them are just simply synonyms of pages and I wasted the effort in making them, so I had decided it was worth repurposing them for other uses to create pages. As for the 2 Bong Joon ho articles, it was prompted by Bong Joon ho saying he is creating two films, one in English and one in Korean, which didn’t require him to be super aggressively bad-faithed about.

In brief, all my interactions with him is his assumptions of me in bad faith, all around, with no room of any positivity. Every single instance his painting of me as the vallain in his book.

Thus, I am requesting if possible 2 things 1) a one way interaction ban so he does not do anything to me again 2) a block for harassment and lack of civility.

Thank you. Starzoner (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Starzoner: and what happened to this interaction? You only remember what is good for you. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Another bad faith attempt to cherry pick, again. Any admin reviewing the abovementioned thread should go to Archive 329 and see the closing statement by an admin. Starzoner (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an administrator has not intervened does not mean that your action was correct, you yourself when I just reported your failed attempt to usurp my draft you deleted your draft to remove evidence. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Starzoner I have questions. First of all, why did you want Draft:Spencer (film) merged into the article, given that the one revision of the draft contains no useful information whatsoever? What on earth is the purpose of these subpages? Note: now deleted What is the point of Draft:The_Three_Musketeers_–_D’Artagnan? Or Draft:Trolls 3 (this doesn't even exist)? Or Draft:Little House on the Prairie (upcoming TV series)? Or Draft:Untitled Bond film? And Draft:2030 in film - really? I appreciate that you do eventually expand some of these hundreds of drafts, but why are you not waiting until there's something to actually write before you do? You're just making work for people who have to go through and G13 them when many of them inevitably come to nothing. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, Well, for the spencer page, I thought there was some edits there that is useful, but I can’t see them. I created some of them as I saw the news or so about people wanting to create a film or so, as you pointed out for the specific draft pages. If you want to delete them as G7 instead of G13. please do, as I do not want to burden anyone to waste their time in tagging and deleting them. That can be applied to pages such as Draft:2030 in film, and above. As for subpages, I guess I wanted to create a blank page so that when I do add content, the initial edit is from early on.

I apologize for all the necessary page creation, and do invite anyone who wants to see them deleted, to actually delete them, perhaps by G7, without hesitation. Starzoner (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starzoner from what I see your problems come from long ago (Starzoner mass page creation:32,000+ pages), it has been a long time since this report and you continue to have the same behavior. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for subpages, I guess I wanted to create a blank page so that when I do add content, the initial edit is from early on. And what would be the point of that, pray? It very much feels like gaming the system. And the only aspect worth gaming here that I can discern appears to be the retroactive usurpation of other people's drafts, by being able to claim the "earlier" version. Really, this is not a good look at all.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit proves your point Elmidae. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a little grotesque, really. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat it once more, since it was not clear from the messages on Graeme Bartlett's talk page. The page was in initially created by an IP, deleted, once again created by me, deleted per g7, and restored with the IP edit (that were a hoax) as initial edit. I tagged it so hoax ip edit can be chucked out, but denied by another admin, so I asked for it to be deleted and restored sans the vandal edit. So the question is, why are are fighting to restore a vandal edit? that is, if attitudes changed to vandal edits? To address the comment by Elmidae, I phrased it poorly. I prefer starting pages in my userpage rather than direct creation in draft/article space, so that it would not be tagged with G13 in the future, avoiding wasting any effort to tag as G13. Starzoner (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that you don't realize? It is not only your request to delete certain editions that gives you away, the fact of creating draft articles that will be relevant in 10, 15 or 20 years, by itself. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I've deleted 1,258 empty subpages from Starzoner's userspace. Which only leaves the 20,000-odd plant pages. Which I'd quite happily leave there per AGF, but .. this makes me wonder. Black Kite (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made this short list with a simple history search for Starzoner. Most deserve to be erased for their strategy of creating empty pages and then moving them whenever he want:

1. Draft:Untitled Parasite sequel 2
2. Draft:The Overstory
3. Draft:Tehek Lake
4. Draft:The Gilded Ones (TV series)
5. Draft:The Lord of the Rings (Season 1)
6. Draft:The Essex Serpent (TV series)
7. Draft:Untitled Jimmy Woo spinoff
8. Draft:The Wheel (American TV series)
9. Draft:Y: 1883
10. Draft:Untitled second Fantastic Four film
11. Draft:Untitled Gamestop documentary
12. Draft:Breakfast at Tiffany's (TV series)
13. Draft:The Serpent Queen Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you *really* want but I am starting to feel unwanted harrassment because you don't have a specified end goal. I think I want to report you to the Wikimedia Foundation staff. Starzoner (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do it, and maybe the one who ends up blocked is you due to your persistent modus operandi. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I am requesting an admin or the community to hand a block to Bruno Rene Vargas for harassment and wanting to block me for little reason other than his perceived slight. Starzoner (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Rene Vargas, you've made your point (multiple times over) so please step back for a bit and let the admins discuss potential next steps. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed. NAC. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

This is not a formal RfC, but it nevertheless needs someone to close it. It's overripe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've created WP:Two wrongs don't make a right, which may perhaps be of interest to editors and admins who read here. I'd like to particularly recommend it to admins who deal with complex and seemingly intractable disputes that generate walls-of-text. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Referring to the less common but simpler situation of a true boomerang that you mention, it consists of throwing that interesting weapon at a kangaroo that isn't there. I have seen that a few times recently. It is more satisfying than the complex situations that you describe. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several motions have been proposed on the Committee's public motions page relating to Case Workshops. These proposed motions change how Workshops are run and used, including making it optional. These motions will modify the Arbitration Committee's procedures. Editors are welcome and encouraged to make comments in the "Community discussion" sections for each motion. A running total of votes for each motion can be viewed in the implementation notes section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss the motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions § Case Workshops. Discuss this notice at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed changes to how Workshops in cases are run and used

Given apparently Middlesbrough isn't allowed a borough article according to the talk page. I think we should merge Darlington, Stockton and Hartlepool Borough pages with the town article and have villages and towns in them listed in a wards tab. Then that solves the argument. I think it is pointless and silly to say no to a borough article for Middlesbrough yet Darlington which borough article covers the town and surrounding suburbs can boast a wiki page and Hartlepool which has a small borough in size comparison to Stockton and Middlesbrough. It states the council were Middlesbrough Borough Council before becoming just Middlesbrough Council and so the borough exists. Just without its own article to mention the wards and council size of mps. An argument not worth having as there is plenty of evidence about the borough. I will only accept the census of if Middlesbrough loses its page for borough so does Darlington and Hartlepool. They unlike Stockton don't have any notable towns. So in theory only Stockton could boast a borough pages as it covers numerous towns. Yet not Middlesbrough, Darlington or Hartlepool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. May I suggest raising this at Wikipedia:WikiProject England? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same account sockpuppet of user User:Tokyointernationalschool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver1500 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked by administrator Red Phoenix. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ProcrastinatingReader has opened a discussion to request Edit filter manager access. EFM access is occasionally granted to experienced and trusted editors that volunteer to help in this area. Anyone interested is welcome to join in the discussion at: WP:EFN. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are two changes to Twinkle I wanted to make sysops aware of:

1. When blocking an IPv6 address, you should now have the option to just block the /64 range instead.​ It's a simple checkbox, so you've got the option to do so if you like. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
2. Thanks to GorillaWarfare, when protecting a page, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.

These changes should be live now. Please ping me if there are any issues; as always bug reports, suggestions, etc. welcome at WT:TW or GitHub! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Two very helpful features. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so excited about this /64 functionality. Thanks for all your hard work, Amorymeltzer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]