Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) has been unblocked by ArbCom for the purposes of making an unblock request to the community. I have taken the liberty of copying his request here, as per the instructions provided by the unblocking administrator. The text of this request follows below. RGloucester — ☎ 18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upon unblock I will continue contributing to the encyclopedia as before: Working RSN, providing translations from other Wikis, and working biology articles such as Hadesarchea, though my activities have shifted more toward Hylidae. I have a list of articles from other Wikipedias that I plan to translate. I've spent the past years at the Simple English Wikipedia with only positive incident. I've been awarded several barnstars and participated in many editing events. I was given patroller rights there long ago. All is going well. I've started many articles there, including Alberto Santos Dumont, Green-eyed tree frog and Trolley problem. I was on the team for two Good Articles: simple:Tropical Storm Arthur (2020) and simple:Sento and helped a little on simple:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I helped organize Simple's branch of two edit-a-thons.

I recently witnessed a block experience on another website, and it gave me insight into how my posts must look to other people. The disciplinary system is more complicated than it looks on the surface, and that's not the worst thing in the world. I accept that it is the admins' job to interpret policy. I asked ArbCom about their decision to block me in 2018 as I was appealing a lesser sanction, and they answered me. I consider it asked and answered. I plan my next appeal of said lesser sanction to be qualitatively different from my last, as stipulated, and to continue to obey said topic ban until it is lifted. As I have always sought to do, I will work completely within Wikipedia's posted rules. If there is anything else that the adminship wants me to do or not do, they need only post on my talk page with my instructions.

I have never attempted block evasion in my life on this or any website.

What I want most of all is to put this in the past where it belongs. I realize that will take time and work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog24 isn't able to edit here currently, so I'll add the timeline that was requested of them here on their behalf. Operator873 ^connect 02:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two parties at the thread have asked for a timeline of events and more information. I put this together today:

In assembling this timeline, I realized I'd actually forgotten a lot of this. I don't think this timeline has everything but it does have most of the major parts. To address Ivanvector's point about Wikinews, the answer is no, the situations are not related. What happened on Wikinews during the early days of the pandemic in 2020 was that I criticized an admin action by saying "it's overkill." This statement was deemed to violate WN:NEVERASSUME. If you want to read just one link that shows the core of my case, I recommend this ArbCom appeal from 2018: [1] What I did wrong and kept doing wrong was grossly misunderstand Wikipedia's system for handling blocks and other sanctions. I thought that appealing a block meant providing an elaborate, detailed, multi-part proposal for solving underlying problems ("I'm ready to be part of the solution!") with tons of links and diffs explaining why the original sanctions were wrong, and that is absolutely not how the Wikipedia system works. In fact, by trying to do things that way, I was driving people nuts! As one user put it, I was writing a "call for the annulment of the sanction, not a showing that it's [not] necessary." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In early 2016, I fell under a topic ban for part of the Manual of Style. I don't know how to give more detail on that without saying anything that could be interpreted as relitigating it. Do I agree with the topic ban? No. Have I always done my best to obey it anyway? Yes. The site can't function otherwise. After the topic ban was placed, I thought the right thing to do was to ask the enforcing admin question after question after question about what was expected of me, what was and wasn't allowed, on and on. I thought that was establishing, "See? I'm willing to follow the rules and be a team player!" but what I was actually doing was exhausting the patience an already overworked volunteer. I'd actually planned to make monthly reports to him about what I was doing elsewhere on Wikipedia, as if he were my parole officer because that's what I thought was going on. At my formal appeal of said topic ban, I thought the right thing to do was to provide evidence that the original accusations were wrong. Again, that's not how we do things here.

In 2016 I was topic banned from the manual of style over WP:LQ, a rule that has to do with whether or not we're allowed to use American rules for quotation marks. As you can see from the Manual of Style Register this has been a subject of contention going back to long before I joined Wikipedia.

• Initial complaint placed by RGloucester: [2]
• Another complaint: [3] I don't really remember what this was about and I'd rather not reread it.
• Another complaint by RGloucester. I remember this one. Someone invited me to a discussion involving my banned topic and I said what amounted to "I can't go because I'm under a topic ban," but I did also include a link that the admins said was a violation: [4] Like I said earlier, if the admins say it counts as a topic ban violation, then I have to treat them like a referee in a sports match. If I remember correctly, the part of my post that they considered a violation was visible for forty seconds before I reverted it myself, without being asked, before this complaint was filed.
• Now the AE block... [5] I thought that WP:BANEX meant I was allowed to talk to the enforcing admin about these things, but the admins and ArbCom have decided it does not mean that.
• Since it was an AE block, I appealed at ArbCom once in late 2016 [6] and again in 2018. But AE sanctions automatically become normal sanctions after one year. In my case it was a little longer, but I appealed again in I want to say 2017 through the normal unblock system.
• I then spent the next six months working RSN and generally contributing to parts of Wikipedia that I hadn't been to before, staying fully away from the Manual of Style. I remember that time passing without incident.
• I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [7] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised.
• I appealed that block to ArbCom, and the appeal was declined.
• ArbCom invited me to appeal to the community in 2019. I did, and it was unsuccessful. [8]
• It has been two years and seven months since my last appeal. I've spent that time constructively contributing to other Wikimedia projects and practicing being a team player. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock Darkfrog24 has become an integral part of the Simple English Wikipedia community and garnered the respect of that community and the sysops there. I hope my support of this editor, without hesitation, may speak somewhat to that end. While simplewiki is not enwiki, I believe Darkfrog24 will prove to be an invaluable asset to the English Wikipedia when granted a fresh start by the community. Operator873 ^connect 18:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've collaborated with Darkfrog24 on the Simple English Wikipedia, where they are a very helpful, trusted, and community-involved editor whose volunteering is highly valued. I am in support of an unblock. Vermont (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock – Regrettably, this unblock request shows the same lack of acknowledgement of the reasons for the initial block that has been displayed in previous unblock requests, and is laden with the same quasi-legalistic arguments about the procedure by which the block was enacted. Any unblock request must acknowledge the original reasons why Darkfrog24 was blocked, and show at least a modicum of contrition. Anything else is opening up the encyclopaedia to the same sort of incessant disruption that Darkfrog24 wrought upon the encyclopaedia years ago. RGloucester — ☎ 18:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC) - struck, see below.[reply]

Just looking over the standard offer, I see a requirement to avoid the initial behavior that led to the block as the only stipulation regarding past issues. I feel Darkfrog24 addressed this in their request. Additionally, I'll further point out that the stand offer specifically mentions "Apologies and other expressions of remorse aren't necessary, but basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively are." Not only has Darkfrog24 distinguished themselves on other projects, they have specifically expressed the willingness to move forward productively on this project. I think this is an excellent opportunity to AGF and allow a chance to reintegrate. Operator873 ^connect 19:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, Darkfrog's case is anything but 'standard'. We're well past that point. We've had eight years of appeals, all of them tone deaf wastes of the community's time. While I agree, no one should be forced to grovel and beg for forgiveness, nor is that what I'm asking for here, this unblock request itself is an example of the 'initial behaviour that led to the block'. I do not believe that Darkfrog understands what Darkfrog did that lead to the block, and therefore, I have no reason to believe that they will actually abide their topic ban and avoid such behaviour in future. For Darkfrog to be 'productive', they will need to express a clear understanding of the topic ban that was issued, and why it was issued, without asking for endless clarifications. RGloucester — ☎ 19:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support their work on Simple does the thing that we literally always ask for: demonstrate the ability to work collegially and without disruption on another project, and assuming that CU corroborates that claim, I think it's an easy decision to unblock per ROPE. I note, in passing, that neither WP:SO, WP:BLOCKING nor WP:UNBLOCK demand any kind of grovelling "contrition", and I do not think it is necessary to make people crawl to see that they know where they went wrong. I also think that it ill-behoves those that supposedly non-partisanly move an editors unblock request here then begin WP:BLUDGEONing the same discussion. What gives? SN54129 19:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit rude, don't you think? I have Darkfrog's talk page watched because of our previous interactions, and noticed no one had copied the request to AN as was requested. BLUDGEONing? Sometimes, I wonder about Wikipedia. One comment, a bludgeon. In any case, I will withdraw, if not for yours or Darkfrog's sake, for my own.RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @RGloucester: I apologise for Assuming Bad Faith as I did; I've seen that kind of thing happen, and it's offensive when it does. But, I admit, one edit does not a bludgeon make. Sorry! SN54129 20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed my comment...[9] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If we want thoughtful participation from more people than just those who have had past dealings with them, there needs to be some background here. As someone unfamiliar, I have no idea what topic DF is even topic banned from, no idea what led to their topic ban, no idea what they did in violation of the topic ban to earn a block, and no idea why multiple previous unban requests have been rejected. There is no way to find all this without some detective work. Is the theory that every single person who comments here is supposed to spend an hour and do this research for themselves? Since @Darkfrog24: is the one requesting an unblock, here is the minimum I'd like to see from them:
  • Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to the topic ban
  • Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to their multiple blocks
  • Links to the previous unblock requests.
• If someone besides DF wants to compile this instead, OK I guess. But until then, this is an insufficient unblock request, and I conditionally oppose it until it is fleshed out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Sorry, I never circled back on this. Info was provided a while ago. If I have time I'll review and opine, but if not, the reviewing closer shouldn't consider this an oppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  DF has written their timeline on their talk page. Operator873 ^connect 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I don't expect a forced apology for past wrongs but I do expect that those past wrongs are at least acknowledged in an unblock request. I'm not familiar with this user, but from what I can gather from links in their extensive block log, they were topic-banned from a particular subset of the manual of style, I cannot discern for what reason, and some time later were indefinitely blocked with talk page and email access revoked (as well as UTRS eventually revoked) because they just would not stop wikilawyering and attempting to relitigate the topic ban. The fact that they were also indefinitely blocked on WikiNews for the same type of behaviour (allegedly also over that project's style guides), and the fact they've explicitly stated their intent to relitigate the same sanction again in their unblock request, does not sit right with me. I both commend and applaud your contributions to simplewiki, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To quote from the 2016 Arbitration motion: "She is very strongly advised to focus that appeal on her future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of her topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas." I interpreted Darkfrog's comment about appealing lesser sanctions to be in line with previous advice, aka to work on editing constructively in other areas prior to trying to immediately re-enter the sanctioned areas that caused issues last time, and to abide by those sanctions so long as they are in place. And yep, I've had a hard time trying to sift through all of the archives, it's a rather annoyingly complicated set of discussions. Regardless, Darkfrog is certainly capable of contributing constructively to community projects, and I don't see how this block is preventing disruption by continuing. Vermont (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Then, as Darkfrog has not done so, tell us what the [expletive deleted] ban or block (it is unknown whether it was one or both, as the title of this section refers to unblocking but subsequent comments talk about a topic ban) was for and link to the relevant discussions. How can anyone independent come to an opinion without this information? And having to spend time digging around for that information will inevitably end up biasing people against her. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough information has been provided for anyone to have an opinion. User:Darkfrog24, you are the one asking to be unblocked, so you need to tell us (with links) why you were blocked. You can't expect others to do any detective work to find out. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The following provide some background to the later portions of the situation: 2019 AN unblock appeal, 2018 AE appeal closure diff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• And here's a link to the 2016 ARCA motion declining the appeal of the original indef block and topic ban. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of thoroughness, I'm going to say here also that DF has posted their timeline on their talkpage. Operator873 ^connect 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock. Those demanding some sort of act of contrition are on thin ice for actual policy. All that matters is that henceforth Darkfrog24 promises to be a positive contributor, and has the work at other projects to show that they are capable of it. DF's work at Simple is absolutely all the evidence needed. (Those asking about a timeline of events can see the one DF24 placed on their talk page, being that that is the only place they can currently post.) oknazevad (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this time. The failure to provide links to the discussions that led to the imposition of the sanctions and the previous discussions that declined to remove the sanctions is a very bad indicator, and to me, shows disrespect to editors trying to evaluate this unblock request without wasting editors time in conducting detective work. This editor has had many years to study and learn what is required to formulate and submit a successful unblock request. I looked at a unblock request from 2019 that is linked in this user's block log, and noticed that I had opposed the unblock based on comments from TonyBallioni which I agreed with at this time and still agree with today. Then, I checked out a block related conversation from 2016 which included comments from Drmies that gave me great pause. That was eight years ago. Some may argue that this was all quite a few years ago, but that argument is only legitimate if we have solid evidence that this editor has abandoned that disruptive point of view. I see no such evidence. The editor's supporters point to their good work at Simple English Wikipedia and I suppose that is a point in their favor. With no disrespect to thar project, I consider it to be relatively minor in comparison to this project, and I am sure that pageviews will back up my claim. So, perhaps this editor's best niche is as a contributor to that project, where they can make positive contributions to that offshoot project, but are unable to disrupt the flagship project of the Wikipedia movement. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: DF is unable to post their timeline and relevant links here as they are currently blocked. But they have posted the requested information on their talkpage. Operator873 ^connect 02:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Operator873, thank you for providing a link to where this blocked editor says After the topic ban was placed, I thought the right thing to do was to ask the enforcing admin question after question after question about what was expected of me, what was and wasn't allowed, on and on. I thought that was establishing, "See? I'm willing to follow the rules and be a team player!" but what I was actually doing was exhausting the patience an already overworked volunteer. That amounts to additional evidence that this block remains necessary. What we need to see for an unblock is evidence that this editor has completely and definitively abandoned this type of disruptive behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I think DF is specifically saying they see this was a mistake and a part of the problem. Hence, they do not intend to repeat it in the future and, at the minimum, are requesting WP:ROPE. Blocks are cheap. Operator873 ^connect 03:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, that's them describing their past misconceptions from almost three years ago. See the last sentence of what you quoted. Vermont (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I don't care about apologies or statements demonstrating understanding; I don't pretend I can judge a stranger's mindset based on written correspondence. What I care about isn't what's in their head or heart but their actions, specifically whether they can contribute to Wikipedia without disrupting others. I believe they can after skimming their Simple Wiki contribs [10] and talk page (2021 is a year of what appear like productive collegial conversations), and their Wikinews contribs since being unblocked there in December [11]. Maybe I missed some recent red flags but absent evidence of recent problems, if they can edit without problems at Simple for the last couple years and Wikinews for the last couple months, they should be fine here. And if not, they'll get blocked again. Levivich 03:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally rather oppose due to extensive off-wiki experience with the user that led to me leaving #wikipedia-en back in 2019 when this user was allowed to "help" others with their policy questions there during their block. I believe they have always had the genuine intent of helping, but reading their name here again brings back bad memories. They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It pains me to see someone say any reason made them walk away from Wikipedia. Indeed, that is, perhaps, the worse outcome of any conflict on Wikipedia. However, with respect to you and not intending to offend, but... isn't They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. the precise embodiment of assuming bad faith? I understand some folks expended a lot of energy in 2019 regarding DF and the incident they were involved in. However, in 2022, I hope those same people can see the amount of energy DF has put into re-earning enough trust to be given a chance. Operator873 ^connect 23:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  From the IRC channel, not the English Wikipedia itself. I assume good faith, but it was clearly combined with incompetence back in 2019, which may have changed. Assuming that this might not have changed is not an assumption of bad faith, it's just pessimism. That should be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a fair statement and I think I understand what you mean. While I can't speak for Vermont, I can say my reason for being here supporting her is that I am witness to her improvement and will put my name on this statement: I know the troubles are in the past and she's ready to move forward. Operator873 ^connect 23:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I also noticed that and had a similar concern. Though, it looks like that should hopefully no longer be applicable with the unban discussion. Naleksuh (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Moving to support based on the responses and timeline. I do think the user understands why they were blocked by ArbCom on their last topic ban appeal, and acknowledges that rationale such that those particular issues won't recur. From the appeals of the block, it seems we as a community have pulled a "gotcha!" each time they appeal: if they acknowledge the topic ban we say "they're relitigating!" and decline; if they don't mention the topic ban we say "they don't acknowledge the ban!" and still decline. Well we can't have it both ways. They're a user whose past productivity on this wiki has been noted and who has remained active on sister projects throughout their block here, which is what WP:SO asks for. They're here committing to respect the topic ban even though they disagree with it, which is how topic bans work. They should be given the opportunity to comply.

Regarding the topic ban, which is not being appealed here; Darkfrog24: in each of your requests where you've noted the topic ban, you've made a point of also noting that you disagree with it. You need to refocus; saying you don't agree with the ban kills your appeal before you even get started. Successful topic ban appeals start with the sanctioned user acknowledging that their own disruptive behaviour led to the sanction, and that the sanction was necessary to stop their disruption; that's how you convince the community you won't just do the same thing again. It seems you've appealed many times already on the basis of the propriety of the ban, and each time those reviewing agreed that it was appropriate and necessary. You will not successfully appeal until you also acknowledge that it was necessary. Nobody here has any moral authority to demand contrition or apologies, and that's not how any of this works, but a successful appeal does sound something like "yes I did these things and I was sanctioned because I would not stop." Best of luck. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Unblock I recognize DF's name, but I don't know that we have had any substantive interaction; still, for me, this seems an easy support. They are clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and should be given the chance to do so. I also don't mind a stance of "I believe this decision is wrong, but I am willing to abide by it" (but note I am not an administrator). I would however, urge DF to be less litigious in general--I think the original block was appropriate. That said, all the best, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [26] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised"--that led me to two comments by Thryduulf, this and this, and those comments are still valid. I also agree with comments by Cullen328. I'll add that the way this request is going, starting of vague and partly in denial and then moving into minutiae is exactly how earlier conversations/appeals went, and it's exasperating. On the other hand, Levivich makes a valid point and who knows, it's been a while. Putting all that together with my own memories (which bring back a sense of failure and frustration on my own part), I find it impossible to choose one option over the other, and will wait and see what the community says. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I wasn't aware of this until seeing Drmies' ping above. I still have strong memories of just how exasperated I was by Darkfrog24 (which is significant given that it was years ago), such that I don't wish to spend any time evaluating this request so I will not bold any opinions. However I will encourage not unblocking without a short leash such that, should they return to their previous behaviour or anything else disruptive that a block can be swiftly reimposed without wasting yet more of the community's time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I wasn't sure if I should ping you or not: I know this was as much a time sink for you as it was for me. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Just felt I should briefly chime in again to explain my thinking--which is mostly about the nature of DF's transgressions. They were, as far as I can tell and somewhat recall about being an administrative time sink and aggravation. I don't mean to make light of that as an issue; as I said above, the block was deserved. But it strikes me that if anything like that were to reoccur, it would be instantly obvious by its very nature. I think we all agree DF could be a worthwhile contributor, they just need to make sure their behavior doesn't make them a net negative. I believe they should have that chance, though, as ever, my information is only partial and I fully appreciate how others (especially admins!) could reasonably come to the opposite conclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I said I would not comment further, and I wish that I could do so, but it seems there is a real problem in terms of institutional memory here. Perhaps too much time has passed, as some others have said. I take Ivanvector's point that, in order for the topic ban to be acknowledged, it needs to be discussed. However, one must take care to note the specific way in which it is being discussed. Please see this comment that Darkfrog has added. I would like editors here to draw their attention to one particular remark, specifically the following sentence: In 2016 I was topic banned from the manual of style over WP:LQ, a rule that has to do with whether or not we're allowed to use American rules for quotation marks. As you can see from the Manual of Style Register this has been a subject of contention going back to long before I joined Wikipedia. This may seem to benign to anyone here who is not familiar with the dispute, but I can assure you that it is not. The initial topic ban was issued precisely because Darkfrog continued to advocate for a position that quotation style is an ENGVAR issue. Contrary to community consensus, and a pile of reliable sources that were brought up each time it was discussed, Darkfrog would argue that there are 'American' and 'British' quotation styles, and that Wikipedia needed to acknowledge this fact.

Because this argument was repeatedly rejected at the main MoS page, Darkfrog moved the dispute to a few subpages, one of which was subsequently deleted Wikipedia:Manual of Style/External support, and one which was userfied User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register (please note the creator's comment at the top of the page). Darkfrog's reference to the 'Manual of Style Register' is in fact not benign at all. This page, previously at the title Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register, was used by Darkfrog as a PoV fork of the MoS, despite the fact that it had no community consensus behind it. Darkfrog used the page to compile random stuff that Darkfrog deemed useful ammunition in disputes, and its previous shortcut of MOS:REGISTER gave it an air of legitimacy. Please note very carefully that Darkfrog linked directly to a section of this page that Darkfrog had compiled for this purpose, without providing any of the background information about the page, and with continued reference to it as if it had the authority of an actual MoS page. This is the exact sort of behaviour that led to the original topic ban, and is proof that Darkfrog has not 'dropped the stick' as people are wont to say here. The advocacy campaign, and the attempts to legitimise Darkfrog's position, continue...in this situation, how can an unblock be justified? This really will be my last comment, and I do apologise if my participation here is deemed a nuisance...but it seems like I am one of the few people that actually remember what happened here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My view on this as I said above is that Darkfrog is not appealing their topic ban which covers all of these past disputes, they're stating that they intend to respect it. Even though they explicitly disagree with it I see no reason not to believe that they're capable of abiding by it. It seems to me that has always been the case, with the exception of their nagging of a relevant administrator (which they now acknowledge was both "testing the edges" and harassment) and their crossing the line in an AC appeal. I think they also understand that if this request is successful and they then violate the topic ban again, the resulting block will be quite permanent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if, as Thryduulf says, Darkfrog is truly given a 'short leash', and Darkfrog truly intends to abide the restriction, then I suppose I can withdraw my opposition to an unblock. In order for such a 'short leash' to be enforced, however, it is important for administrators to familiarise themselves with the specific nature of the behaviour that led to the block. I will strike my oppose. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm very dubious about unblocking this editor. The response to my simple request to show why they were blocked/banned was not to provide a few links with a brief factual account but to give a rant about how hard done by they were, which is exactly the kind of behaviour that led to the block in the first place. If the editor is to be unblocked then I hope that those who want this are willing to take responsibility should anything untoward happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: Apologies, but I was hoping you could clarify your message. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems you're saying DF has gone on a rant but, they're blocked. They literally can't participate here and have only provided a brief synopsis on their talkpage with links to the requested information others have asked for. I'm just confused about you talking about their behavior where DF can't actually participate? Operator873 ^connect 23:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This does appear to be their edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And I copy/pasted that edit here. But, I think it's a bit of a reach to call that a rant. DF was specifically asked for all of that information. She provided as requested. Operator873 ^connect 23:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a rant. There's loads of self-justifying commentary there rather than just a statement of the facts that she was specifically asked for. That's exactly what she was blocked for. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is very clear sysop misconduct + one-way IBANs are a problem; unlike anything here. I was not familiar with the Arb matters at the time, but it does not appear to be necessary as of right now. Darkfrog24 can use common sense; even in times when many editor editors do not, and I hope to see good contributions from Darkfrog24 in the future, and improve the encyclopedia. Naleksuh (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NeilN isn't around to answer to that accusation, but I strongly disagree - this was a measured and appropriate warning to a user violating a sanction imposed under the authority of arbcom, who was in the process of talking themselves into a total block. NeilN warned them at least twice more after this to stop before pulling the trigger, and then their UTRS access was also pulled because they still didn't stop. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I wasn't aware of that. I also didn't really have a problem with the talk access being removed when it was eventually, I was more concerned with the specific diff alone. I've also just now seen that NeilN is not around (ironically, their last edit is telling everyone they will be more active after a two month break, then took a 3.5 year break :/). I still think it was not handled perfectly, but I remove my statement about very clear sysop misconduct. Naleksuh (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Naleksuh, that is not sysop misconduct. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This right here is why 1-way IBANS are a problem. If Editor X is banned from talking about or interacting with Editor Y, but Editor Y is not such restricted, and then Editor Y makes uncivil/abusive/inappropriate/baiting/whatever comments about Editor X, it's essentially a trap. If Editor X reports the abuse being directed at them, they are technically violating their restriction (at least by the letter), because it's impossible to report abuse from another editor without mentioning that editor. That what appears to have transpired here. It takes two to tangle - it doesn't matter who "started it" or who was more "at fault" - if two or more users are problematic with each other, then round robin ban all of them, or ban none of them. IBANS are relatively trivial compared to topic bans, so even if one editor was "more to blame" then the other, sanctioning them both with an IBAN is hardly excessive, and prevents this very situation. In this particular case, the "ridiculous suppositions" definitely didn't help their case, but the admin in question was also rather aggressive considering that the question appeared to essentially be asking for the ban to be made 2-way. Even if such a request is violating the letter of a ban, it should be allowed under most circumstances as a specific exception. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:C4E0:11CC:3658:77A0 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is being appealed here? The title says that its a block, much of the previous discussion was about a topic ban, but now you people are going on about an interaction ban. Can we get some focus here for us uninvolved editors who shouldn't be made to spend hours digging through histories to find out what this is all about? And I mean simple facts, not people's opinions about those facts, which can come separately. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of layered sanctions involved here, many of which resulted from DF24's problematic behavior while appealing existing sanctions. The inciting sanction was a TBAN from discussing quotation marks and quotation styles imposed in Jan 2016. This was later expanded to encompass the entire MOS, broadly construed: [12]. Shortly after, she was blocked for a week at AE: [13]. Finally, at the end of February 2016, she was indeffed for wikilawyering the TBAN: [14].

She was unblocked December 2017, but the MOS TBAN remained in force. In June 2018, she attempted to appeal the TBAN, but as a result of further wikilawyering at that appeal, she was blocked for a month and given a one-way IBAN with SMcCandlish (June 2018). This apparently upset her to the point of making the comments that NeilN admonished her for in the above-noted now-struck comment. Later that day, NeilN upgraded the one-month block to an indefinite block, as a result of the now-suppressed comments on her userpage. Other appeals via unblock request, UTRS, ArbCom, and a community request like this one in 2019, have followed and failed.

All three sanctions - the TBAN from MOS, the IBAN with SMC, and (obviously) the indef - are still currently in force. I believe the current appeal only concerns the indef, but naturally the other sanctions have come up in discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of clarity, ♠PMC♠ is correct in that this conversation is only regarding the indef and not any of the other sanctions. DF will abide by the TBAN and other sanctions while reintegrating into the community and rebuilding the trust with the community in general. Further, DF has fully acknowledged rebuilding that trust will be a lengthy process: I realize that will take time and work. Operator873 ^connect 21:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Unblock - It appears that Darkfrog24 has not only complied with the indefinite block but has contributed to the Wikipedia project in the Simple English encyclopedia, where they have made positive contributions. It appears that Darkfrog has learned from their mistakes and is ready to edit collaboratively in the English Wikipedia, subject to the same restrictions as had earlier been imposed. (That is, I am supporting the unblock, not any lifting of restrictions.) (As I explained yesterday in another case, I have a particular strong distrust for anyone who engages in block evasion or sockpuppetry, and this is not such a case.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock...with conditions - I feel a bit qualified to speak about DF's unblocking request, as I have had substantial interaction in the past with the editor, all of it extremely negative. I was blocked due to my interaction with this user on an article (DF was blocked, as well), and at the time I considered them pretty much among the worst Wikipedian I'd ever worked with. In short, I fucking loathed Darkfrog with the heat of a hundred suns; very few other users have ever made me feel that way, or could make me lose my temper the way I did when around them. There was tendentious editing and - I am still positive to this day - socking. I was close to walking away from the Wiki-EN forever, all because of the user.

But that was over 5 years ago. It took a near indef block to get me to change my own problematic behavior, so maybe the block that Darkfrog has been subject to has changed them for the better as well. I am not saying that I am never tempted to lash out; I am saying that my desire to edit collaboratively has since outweighed my need to be right. So, in that way, I suspect that I have actually changed.

I suspect that DF is in this same position; the impulses are still there, but maybe the user has begun using the correct tools to interact with others better. They seem to have found a better place for themselves in the Simple Wiki (which I consider to be just as vital as the regular Wikipedia), and while I have not looked at Darkfrog's interactions there (though someone should if only to confirm that they are better at editor interaction), I want to believe in Second Chances; I am a better editor because I was afforded a second opportunity, and it follows that DF might be as well.

It is because of that history - and my own reflection on it - that I would support a conditional lifting of the block. The possibility of change does not mean the implementation of change. I think a second chance is warranted. If they mess it up, they mess it up. Give the user a chance at their own redemption. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The conditions to be what? I've looked into the archives and diffs at some length -- more than might have been wise or good for me, in hindsight -- but I'm still in two minds as to what to comment on it, or indeed even whether to. (And yet, here I am.) In particular it'd seem unfair to the user to get into the weeds of the MOS stuff when they're enjoined from commenting on that at all on this projecct; other than their several prescriptive-grammar userboxes. Frankly my heart sinks to read that they "will continue contributing to the encyclopedia as before", "plan my next appeal of said lesser sanction", and their compliance is framed in terms of "until it is lifted". I know that Hiberno-English is if anything over-supplied by use of the subjunctive, but a "would" or three would go a long way here for me. But from their activity on both simple: and on wikinews, it seems like an issue they're still very invested in, and see it less as a style-guide choice, but as a great right to be wronged in the form of overturning the "ban" of "correct" "American English". (To SYNTH some descriptions they've previously used here, and more recently at those other WM projects.)

But surely if they're to have any further "conditions" (much less any sort of (IMO rather unfortunately phrased elsewhere) "short leash"), it should be something clear and transparent, not just something ominous-sounding but vague. And conversely, if they're not unblocked at this time, it would be a minimal service to them to indicate what they should do to be so in future. Rather than as seems to have happened in the past to be essentially told "you did it wrong this time, try again next year", which would surely be deeply frustrating for anyone. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Sebastian, I'm looking at closing this since it seems everyone who wants to comment has said their piece, but before I do so, if I do unblock are there any specific conditions you have in mind? Bear in mind that this request is only to lift the block not for a full amnesty, so if I (or anyone else who decides to close it) decide there's a consensus to unblock, it won't stop any other topic or interaction bans from remaining in place. ‑ Iridescent 18:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent, Not having any interest in Darkfrog's contributions since my unfortunate interactions with them, I can only offer an informed outsider's view. In the past, DF has been determined to enforce their view of an article on the community; the idea of collaborative editing was utterly lost on them, as they considered everyone else to be intellectually stunted. Then there was the very strong indication of socking, which I am hoping was a one-time flirtation that I voiced to an admin at the time. And of course there has been the MOS content issues which eventually led to their indef ban.

Maybe they have improved, having switched over to the slower pace of the Simple Wiki-en. Maybe their patience with others has grown, and their need to win an argument eased. Speaking for myself, those would be the only reasons to let them back in. Taking into consideration the views of others who have had more interaction with DF, I would submit that the user be limited in the following ways:

-a permanent ban of anything related to MOS. This is intended to be all-encompassing; any attempt to wiggle around the rules should result in massive damage from the BanHammer.

-A one-revert rule for the first 3-6 months, to encourage them to use the article discussion page to build consensus. As above, any attempt to mis-characterize a revert as a content edit should result in a BanHammer beat-down.

-Mentoring with someone that admins feel is completely opposite to DF. This might not be fair to the mentor, but it would provide DF with a 'devil's advocate' and someone to talk to that could provide an alternate view of a situation the DF might find personally frustrating.

-a review of the user, sort of like probation, at the 6-month and 12-month point, post-unblocking, to be conducted by an admin fully aware of DF's tactics used in the past to 'pretzel' the rules. If the user should pass these two probationary reviews, we should allow the user to free range - but maintaining the permaban on MOS and MOS-related topics.

It's important to keep in mind that we cannot change Darkfrog's personality; we are here to try and channel her usefulness to the Project into effective editing - and thus better articles - in the Wiki-En. She has shown she does quality work when her ego is removed from the equation. Once she accepts that the manipulative aspects to her personality are only detrimental here, she will likely stifle them, as she has seen the results of her failing to do so in the past. That's my two cents' worth. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, DF does have an active topic ban related to MOS, that is not being appealed here. And speaking as someone who works with her relatively frequently and has only done so for under two years, your description is far from how I would describe her today. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, an indefinite topic ban, applied prior to the indefinite block. I was going to say they weren't allowed to appeal the former until some time after any lifting of the latter, but I might have formed that impression incorrectly while trying to navigate the twisty history of this. But at any rate an ArbCom member "strongly advised" them to wait before re-appealing that. Jack Sebastian, I've got some sympathy for your suggestions, but I doubt any of them are fliers. "Indefinite isn't permanent" seems to be something of a rule of thumb, so I don't think an exception will be made here. And technically there's a competence issue here: I don't think this noticeboard is empowered to deny a user any possible future appeal. Perhaps an interval of a year (as was previously applied) or two years (as previously suggested but not adopted) would work. A 1RR restriction might be seen as harsh, as none of their earlier sanctions seem to related to that sort of activity. Mentoring has been strenuously opposed by the bannee in the past, there seems to be a distinct lac of volunteers, and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Likewise for the "probation officer" approach. And on a more mundane note, given how late-on these are being suggested, we'd have to considerably extend the discussion to allow others to chime in again before adopting them, which again seems unfair to the user if there's an apparent (if trepidatious) consensus to unblock otherwise. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will readily admit that I am of the personal (and perhaps minority) opinion that an indef block'd person has a large-type problem with conforming to the rules by which the rest of us agree to follow. Given a second chance to work with us should mean that a salted version of AGF is applied until the formerly-blocked person proves that a solid lesson has been learned. I (truly) love the fact that we give second chances and often even third ones, and that we are careful in doing so.

I do think that DF has intentionally misapprehended/misinterpreted/exhibited selective blindness - and that, more than anything else, gives me pause. Looking at her defense of her MOS back and forth was just plain maddening; she actually thought she was smarter and cleverer than not just one or two of us but all of us combined.

I don't know if that her perception can change/has changed. Even now, that dark part of me that wonders if DF is petitioning to get back in just to see if she can. And that is the same part of me that wants to boot her down a well if she gets yet another chance and squanders it by resuming the same sort of behavior that got her where she is now.

I think we have to insist on some braking controls with DF, and if that means re-opening the discussion to see if at least an 1RR and a ban on MOS-related topics, then so be it. DF has been blocked and warned for edit-warring issues in the past (full disclosure: I was a party to at least one of those blocks as well).

Do I think Darkfrog is irredeemable as a contributor? No. I myself am a bit of a reformed asshole editor, and I was allowed another chance - with conditions that have since expired. It would be unwise to let DF free rein without at least similar conditions, if not more. Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out, again, that this discussion is only for the block and all other actions, such as the MOS Topic Ban, will remain in place. This discussion is solely about whether DF should be allowed to demonstrate they are able to successfully integrate in other areas of Wikipedia similar to how they've integrated and become a trusted part of the Simple English Wikipedia community. I think the concerns that DF will "go off the deep end" are a bit excessive since, even if that was the case, a new block is but a click away. I, personally, don't think that would happen and I'm willing to back that statement up with endorsement, support, and advocating for DF. I'm not one for putting my name on something lightly; but DF has earned my support the hard way. Operator873 ^connect 20:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{ec)Jack Sebastian As Vermont and I said there already is an indef MoS TBAN in place. Having read chunks of the history of that stuff, yes, it comes across exactly as you describe. Like the punchline of a bad Sheldon Cooper joke, only even less funny, and in even poorer taste. I already said more than I originally intended to, above, but candidly if I were Wikidictator -- or had the casting vote on yet another Arbcom appeal, just as implausibly -- I think I'd want the next one on that to come a year after the user had been on a descriptive linguistics course (i.e. any actual proper academic one at all, as opposed to the Traditional Prescriptive Grammar ball of smoke), and had desisted from throwing around the "ban on correct American English" nonsense, on any Wikimedia project. Sure, they're not TBANed from it there, but it goes to apparent state of mind (your honour), and this request has very much stressed their work on simple:. Much indeed as their previous one stressed their work on Wikinews, something that ended up in this also fairly appalling exchange, which the appeal really seems to minimise in favour of said credential-burnishing even when asked about it directly. But I'm not in either of those positions -- fortunately for all concerned -- and I think that's beyond the scope of our desired input here. It's certainly entirely plausible they might have greatly improved their skills in seeking to resolve such disputes, even if of the same (frankly dogmatic) views concerning them.

I wasn't aware of the EW warning and blocks, and don't really want to take a deep dive into that too, so I offer no further comment on the intrinsic merits or procedural details of that idea. I certainly don't agree with the user's self-assessment (paraphrasing from memory and not having the link to hand) that they do "professional-quality work for free", which sounds like it'd be infinite gain. The quality is glaringly lacking in some areas, and it clearly does have a cost: in the terms of the toll it takes on other participants. (True of most of us, I don't doubt for a moment.) Whether it's better or worse than zero-sum is a harder call to make, but on the evidence of simple: and WN:, there's a strong case to be made that it at least can be positive. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond passing comments about her time at WikiNews, the thoughtfully provided link indicate that DarkFrog has not altered her approach to editing since my own interaction with her in 2011. There are just too many red flags here, and I am a bit disappointed at DF's lack of commitment to change. I think I have to alter my opinion to Opposing Unblock. I think we'll be back here in less than a year debating this same sort of thing, and that seems like a tremendous waste of time. Let her stay at the Simple Wikipedia, where she seems to be able to function there. I don't think she can manage without major drahmaz here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider using a other than your real name may caused to editing your talk. Please review for contributions. Wrugtrab (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by BotNL, talk page access removed by me. Just trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting a closure review for my RfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79, topic # 7. It was a wide-ranging discussion that affects a policy concerning WP:FILMPLOT. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was never formally closed. I think you want WP:CR to request a close. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 12:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested:I'm afraid I don't understand the procedure over at WP:CR. Do I leave my request for closure under the Administrative Discussions sub-section of the Request for Closure section?

The three entries there aren't phrased as mine would be. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• IP over Avian Carriers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry to raise what is a rather unimportant issue but most edits at this article for the last five years have involved edit warring over an image. I'm involved but have fully protected the article until an RfC that I just started finishes. Does anyone have an opinion on whether I should have protected or whether another admin should monitor the situation while the RfC is in progress? Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you're involved, I'd say asking at WP:RFPP would have been a better move than protecting it yourself. And ornothogonal to that, semi-protection would have been sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Separate from the main issue, an entry at WP:LAME seems more than warranted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re semi, it didn't seem fair to privilege the small number of registered editors who also join in the edit warring. I take your point about RFPP and if anyone wants to adopt the current protection or change it, of course that's fine by me. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Roy, that doesn't comply with involved or protection policy. Full protection should be a last resort not a first step, and never by an admin who is involved. Starting an RfC and then full protecting the page... Levivich 13:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Full protection wasn't warranted here - with the exception of Kvng who should know better and is experienced enough to be blocked if they take advantage of protection to "win" a revert war, the only editors involved are IPs or single-edit accounts. There was an earlier discussion (still visible on the talk page, two sections above the RfC) from 2020 which IMO established consensus for removing the photo, given that the only coherent argument for inclusion was "it's funny" and that's just not a valid encyclopedic rationale. Johnuniq participated in that discussion, arguing for deletion, and although the article was protected on the version with the photo included, 6 reverts over the course of a month is not an emergency; had I seen this at RFPP I would have declined. I suggest we reduce to 1 month semi and let the RFC run its course. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It was clear to me that there was not a consensus to include the photo so I know it would not be appropriate for me to restore it. However, it was quietly restored some time after the discussion by someone else and I did not revert that. ~Kvng (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, sorry, I meant that to read that I'd expect you to know better than to revert again after a page had already been protected because of an edit war, not that you had done anything wrong here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Administrator forum,

I write on behalf of Nestaway Technologies a home rental startup in India, that would like to be listed on Wiki pedia.

I write to request you to sanction the creation of a new page for the same

Thank you and regards Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua1094 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Administrators do not need to "sanction" pages except when a page has been protected. I highly suggest you read through WP:YFA, determine if your company meets the requirements, and IF those are true use the Article wizard to create a draft, which will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. It is highly unlikely that a startup rental company will fulfil notability guidelines. Have a read of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I suggest that you don't waste time writing an article that is likely to be deleted. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point, I've updated my message slightly. Primefac (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• John Campbell (YouTuber) (AfD discussion)

I've warned all participants and taken the gentle option of refactoring and cautioning where discussion has either become uncivil or strayed from the purpose of an AFD discussion into discussing matters of COVID-19 itself, rather than leaping straight to actual sanctions themselves. I hope that the warning is enough and that it does not get to that point; and people stick to what an AFD discussion is actually for. Please keep an eye out.

Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user, Special:Contributions/213.107.84.221, is a menace. He just left me a message about removing shows like My Spy Family and The Batman from the List of WarnerMedia television programs page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AdamDeanHall&type=revision&diff=1080255209&oldid=1080063061&diffmode=source

So could you please put a stop to him so that he doesn’t leave us any more messages? AdamDeanHall (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That IP user's talk page is currently a red link. That tells me there is at least 5-6 steps before "Running to the admins to get a block" before you should run to the admins to get a block. One of those steps should also have been "Notify the user you ran to the admins"... But even before that, you should perhaps just tell them to stop spamming user talk pages and see where that gets you. --Jayron32 15:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said that I could tell the IP user to stop spamming user talk pages. Well, I just did; and here is the proof: User talk:213.107.84.221 AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) AdamDeanHall, while your request was perfectly acceptable I thought it might be better to leave a warning template on their talk page just letting them know that we appreciate good edits and frown upon spamming and harassment. I'm also going to leave a generic message letting them know that, if they have any questions concerning Wikipedia they can ask their questions at the Teahouse or create an account and go through the WMF Growth Team's mentor/mentee program which would hopefully afford them the opportunity to have their concerns addressed while learning and growing as an editor. An admin can take any action they deem appropriate, I'm just doing this as an act of kindness directed at both the IP and the understandably frustrated OP. --ARoseWolf 19:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also notified them of this discussion. --ARoseWolf 19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user, Special:Contributions/213.107.87.18, has a history of a ban evasion, and is linked to the other blocked accounts. Could you please block him as soon as possible? The reason is because he has removed three shows from the List of WarnerMedia television programs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_WarnerMedia_television_programs&type=revision&diff=1080424296&oldid=1080176625&diffmode=source

And not only that, he has also removed Warner Bros. Television from the following pages: Out of Jimmy's Head, The Batman and La CQ:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Out_of_Jimmy%27s_Head&type=revision&diff=1080424725&oldid=1076845313&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Batman_(TV_series)&type=revision&diff=1080424555&oldid=1080401123&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_CQ&type=revision&diff=1080425547&oldid=1079337532&diffmode=source

AdamDeanHall (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which blocked accounts are you saying they used prior? --Jayron32 12:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These accounts, Special:Contributions/107.119.45.37 and Special:Contributions/LeftyJuJu, were used prior. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VPT#(Un)delete associated talk page coming soon. If you have any concerns please share your thoughts there or on the project talk page. Regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came across some IP vandalism on Peru-related articles that, on looking closer, seems to be broader than a few bits of vandalism, and wanted to bring it to admin attention.

If you look at this IP's edits you can see the type of edits being made - the particular phrase "Alex alexander huerta avendaño" appears in most cases. It popped up on several articles that I caught doing recent changes patrolling, mostly in Peru-related articles. The problem lies in the fact that this appears to have been going on for, literally, years and has not been caught on smaller articles. I did a Google search for that phrase, and found it all over the web, including lots of Wiki mirror pages that include it. I fixed this as one example, which had been there since last year. There are a fair number of law enforcement-related pages that seem to have been affected as well as regional articles, and it's possible these edits have slipped past. The editor appears to be on IPs starting with 181.176 for the most part.

I've left a note for WikiProject Peru to keep an eye out. Not totally sure what to do beyond that, honestly - the IP seems very, very focused. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 'Alan alexander huerta avendaño' is presumably a reference to User:Alan Alexander huerta avendaño, FWIW. Hmm, I wonder if he is related to User:Wilmer Alexander huerta Avendaño? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is exactly the same edit pattern, same article areas. I'm guessing the first would be tied to the whole lot as well. Whoever this is has made a living of making accounts and splashing that name(?) all over the Internet. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve protected DIRCOTE for a little while, that seems to be a current target. National Police of Peru has already been protected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recently active in the last hour or so at Alexa[15]; User:181.176.98.133 blocked by Widr. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have topic banned Tsans2 for one year from the subject area of Eastern Europe and the Balkans broadly construed. See my notice here and the ANI discussion here. My review of their history in this area largely supported the rough consensus in the discussion that their editing was frequently, though not always, problematic. However, as I have only very rarely imposed a t-ban and the user believes the sanction to be unjust, I am requesting a review of the ANI and my sanction. Thank you...

Courtesy ping to editors involved at the ANI. Veverve, Endwise, Uncle G, Mellk, Ymblanter

-Ad Orientem (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem thanks! I ask to ping someone else, for instance @Deepfriedokra @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Tsans2 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse topic ban --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Justice is not the issue. This is not a criminal justice system. The TBAN was undertaken to reduce or stop disruption, and is warranted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So, you want to ban me for a year because I was reverting edits on one particular page? Why don't to limit editing this particular page as you did for me and that other user? Tsans2 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Deepfriedokra Tsans2 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsans2: I think your problems extend beyond the one page. You are only banned from one small part of the encyclopedia. Not the entire encyclopedia. That you do not understand how your edits are problematic actually argues in favor of the topic ban --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra can you prove your thinking with some facts? I can only guess what do you mean, but I ask you for arguments. Tsans2 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsans2: Certainly. It was all presented at Special:permalink/1080566415#Tsans2 adding FICTREFs, refusing to BRD, implies I have an AGENDA. Best, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tsans2: Boldness is only part of the process, especially in contentious areas. When one is reverted, as you have been, then it is necessary to discuss-- to seek WP:CONSENSUS, which you are not doing so well. The TBAN is important to prevent further disruption due to you lack of discussion in a contentious area, when other BOLD editors do not agree with what you are doing, and find it impossible to discuss with you. And most importantly, when other editors disagree with your changes, you should not proceed anyway. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, if I violated WP:CONSENSUS on this page -- Russian fascism, and I got no other warnings (except for one with Yuzhne/Odessa mess which was mistakenly made by Ymblanter). What is the reason of TBAN? Tsans2 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Me doing my usual ANI→AE rant + one example I looked at (in isolation): User_talk:El_C#In_need_of_ANI_intervention. El_C 17:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse topic ban per Okra. I wouldn't say the user is acting maliciously or anything, but just from a practical, results-of-action perspective, this needed to happen eventually. Tsans kept on disrupting the article I was watching (namely, Russian fascism) and would not be dissuaded by talk page discussion, despite Veverve's extreme persistence and patience.

  Tsans got banned for a week for edit warring, then the moment said ban expired, they went back to the same behavior. I don't really see what other choice could be taken to stop that constant disruption. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Can I restrain from editing Russian fascism page and get liberated from TBAN? I see, you and other user are not happy with my edits on Russian fascism page. I can forget about it. I created 12 other pages and had no problems with anyone. Tsans2 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith I ask to ban me from editing Russian fascism article. I don't see any other problems with any article. And I ask to relief TBAN. Tsans2 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  According to the testimony of other editors in this very thread, that is untrue. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse topic ban: for Tsans2 's unapologetic use of FICTREFs and POV-pushing, as well as their unwillingness to follow or try to understand WP:consensus and WP:BRD on Russian fascism (ideology). Veverve (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is even worse than I thought on the WP:DONTGETIT side, the user has stated: I didn't find any reason for my ban. In general, which exactly my edits are so bad, that I was banned? ([16]); and Tsans2 has claimed that this ban looks like a punishment for my following of this rule: Wikipedia:Be bold ([17]). Veverve (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse topic ban We do not need an editor in this topic area pushing a POV, playing fast and loose with references, and engaging in edit warring behavior. Let the editor develop their skills in other parts of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I was surprised by the topic ban. Initially my reaction was "Where did that come from?". I gave it some thought. We don't want aspersions like Special:Diff/1080203447 being bandied about, not just because of the Eastern Europe+Balkans thing but because of current affairs, as well. And the response to my opening a talk page discussion at Talk:Yuzhne#Possible name change was not to participate but rather to keep blundering about in article space creating Pivdennyi Port and then asserting that I, who cautiously opened a talk page discussion starting it off with some evidence that this name change seemed not to actually have happened in practice, was "not carefull". Opening a talk page discussion rather than just blundering straight into article edits is a canonical example of being careful. I never asked for a ban or anything like it; and my preferred outcome would have been some people (including others such as Ymblanter who took issue with this change to the extent of calling it "vandalism") actually participating on that talk page. Sanctions are there to maintain the highest standards in contentious areas, and using talk pages for disputes is definitely part of that. (Whether placenames are in one or in another language is not a contentious topic limited to current affairs in Ukraine. It's a long term issue in Armenia and Azerbaijan too; and we know that there have been minor edit wars over that.) So although I was surprised by the topic ban, I cannot fault it. Uncle G (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Uncle G I have asked the other admins to restrain me from editing this Russian fascism page as all the problems come to that page and no one other. I think it's okay to ban me from editing this page forever, but not all the Eastern Europe topic for the whole year. I created 12 or more aticles and no one said that I was wrong, or did something bad. Tsans2 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a recent error in an edit filter, a number of users were erroneously prevented from creating accounts. With users who were trying to create these accounts from scratch, there's nothing we can do but hope that they tried again with some other username, but for users who were visiting after previously registering an account on another wiki, it's possible for admins to "force-create" the accounts for them locally. (This is different from regular account creation, as the account is automatically tied to the user's SUL.) This strikes me as a good thing to do since otherwise a well-meaning user might try to create a local account different from their SUL account, which could in turn be mistaken for sockpuppetry. As such, could an admin please force-create the following accounts?

• Special:CreateLocalAccount/Choudharyrakesacaudhar (CentralAuth)
• Special:CreateLocalAccount/Lryeric (CentralAuth)
• Special:CreateLocalAccount/Veroyrob (CentralAuth)
• Special:CreateLocalAccount/Uryrfyy (CentralAuth)
• Special:CreateLocalAccount/Desroyerwashere (CentralAuth)
• Special:CreateLocalAccount/RoyRoa (CentralAuth)
• Special:CreateLocalAccount/BladSDestroyer (CentralAuth)

See discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports § Pryrofox (permalink); the main admin involved, Oshwah, is currently unavailable but gives his blessing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understood that. Also here. El_C 10:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the local accounts. Thanks Tamzin for compiling a list (also fyi those CreateLocalAccount links don't work like you'd think). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I really should have checked that, zzuuzz. Not sure why I expected MW behavior to be consistent. Thanks. Also, El_C: Filter say "username bad". Filter wrong. So users have accounts other places, but not here. zzuuzz press buttons. Now users have accounts here. Now they don't have to be like commons:User:ElC with two accounts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The underscore gives me +1 agility. El_C 23:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An IP-editor in the range Special:Contributions/174.215.192.0/19 has been ignoring consensus and edit-warring at Taino. That article has now been semi-protected for a week, but I noticed today the user has expanded their unconstructive edits to other articles. A block of the IP range will cause some collateral damage. What is the best way to handle this? - Donald Albury 16:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just a few articles, an admin could do a partial block on the IP range and add more articles as they become targeted. Or the IP range could be blocked with account creation enabled, which would allow anyone to edit but force them to create an account. On a technical level, leaving account creation enabled is a mostly meaningless gesture in stopping disruption, but it has three benefits: 1) constructive editors can continue to edit, though they may be momentarily inconvenienced; 2) the psychological effect of forcing people to take ownership of their edits (even pseudonymously) discourages disruption; and 3) placing a trivial barrier in front of an impulsive person will occasionally cause them to take their impulsivity elsewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten the option for a partial block, and I have now done so. Thank you! - Donald Albury 21:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles related to the war in Ukraine see heavy edit warring and frequent policy violations from IPs and very new accounts, to such a level that it becomes detrimental. A similar rule as for WP:ARBPIA would probably be beneficial, in other words, users would need to:be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days' tenure. While many disputes would no doubt continue (just as on articles related to ARBPIA)), applying this rule to articles related to the war in Ukraine might go some way to reduce the worst disruptions. Jeppiz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when restrictions are proposed for entire topics at this board hindsight has shown they weren't really necessary in the first place, though the community usually doesn't agree to repeal them. See the Uyghur GS authorisation which has been used for 4 page protections, various other stale GS authorisations, and the topic-wide ECP restriction for India/Pakistan conflicts, which went largely unenforced though the community did eventually repeal that one. The ARBPIA WP:ECR rule is a huge exception to the rule, and only exists for two topic areas currently. There should be a very high burden of evidence required to institute the restriction on more topic areas. The evidence should include showing a chronic pattern of topic-wide disruption, to levels far greater than the disruption naturally present in any contentious event, especially current ones (e.g. consider anything current and American Politics related). In the meantime, there is WP:ARBEE and discretionary per-page ECP protections, which AFAIK has been working well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for that at the moment - I think WP:ARBEE page-level and user-level actions are working well. A significant amount of the disruption I've seen has been from anonymous and/or new editors which can be contained via semi-protection, or ECP where warranted. Topic-level ECR would be using a sledgehammer to crack nuts at the moment. firefly ( t · c ) 09:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• SecretName101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Original ANI discussion
• Talk-page discussion
• Earlier appeal

It has been over five months since @El C: put in place a topic ban on my account. I would like to appeal now for a revisiting/lifting of the topic ban. El C has advised that, due to time limitations at the moment making it difficult for them to provide me with a timely verdict in reviewing the topic ban, I appeal to a user board such as this instead of to them alone.

I would like to first apologize for any and all pain or damage poor judgement on my part brought on Wikipedia. I better understand now that, particularly in editing articles pertaining to living subjects, there is a high level of caution that needs to be measured. I much better understand that, if a draft article that feels limited in scope an appears to paint a overly-negative picture, it is best for it to either go unpublished in the article space, or at least first go through other hands for review and revision first. I much better understand that, when such an article deals with someone who skirts the line between sufficient notability and inadequate notability for this project, it is best to practice particularly great caution.
___________

Months ago, I believe, El_C told me something along the lines of the best way to demonstrate that I contribute to the project with good faith was being that I proceed to make positive edits where I can.

Some of the work I have done over the past several months includes the following:

In related edits, I improved Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson, and spun-off/expanded Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, First impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson and Second impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson.

In related edits, I improved William McAndrew, expanded 1927 Chicago mayoral election, created William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign and Administrative hearing of William McAndrew, and made minor improvements to other related articles. William McAndrew was elevated to a "good article" by me.

I enhanced and created a number of other articles related to educators.

I improved Thomas Menino, and created the spun-off article Mayoralty of Thomas Menino.

I have made less major improvements to the articles of a number of long-deceased judges and politicians.

I made improvements to other articles.

I published new articles such as Michael Cassius McDonald, Benjamin Willis (educator), Unbuilt Rosemont personal rapid transit system.

In other edits, I undertook an ambitious change to the categorization of articles and categories related to United States constitutional officers and United States constitutional officer elections. I also made similar improvements for other United States election sub-categorization. I also created many redirects for election races described in sub-sections of larger articles. I also improved the category keys on many election articles. These involved thousands of edits.

I made other categorization-related edits as well.

I began work on drafts such as Draft:Impeachment inquiries in the United States.

___________
I hope the community will give consideration to this. If there are any questions or requests they have for me to help you in reaching a decision, I urge them to feel free to ask me.

SecretName101 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Permalink to relevant AN thread. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I too happened across this and wondered what on earth was actually being appealed here, which led me to this lengthy talk-page discussion on it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• SecretName101, You mentioned the Thomas Menino article, so I took a quick look. How are this edit concerning Robert Kraft and this edit regarding Elizabeth Warren not violations of a topic ban "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed"? That's as far forward from the topic ban as I looked, because I came across these as soon as I started to look and wanted to stop there and ask this question first, before any further examination, in case I'm misinterpreting something. Begoon 13:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been months, so I do not have a clear memory of every edit. But I suppose I must have seen those passing mentions as integral to a full biographic picture of Menino in their respective subsections. But seen them as merely biographical of Menino, not Kraft or Warren. Since it was a BLP ban, I figure I must have thought a passing mention that was necessitated to paint an integral fact on a diseased individual’s bio was not an biographical edit on on either Kraft or Warren. Neither changed a bit the narrative how Wikipedia portrays their bios across the project, I must have figured. I suppose I felt it problematic not to include his support or opposition of stadium construction, as that was a key development in its subsection. And Menino’s endorsement of Warren was well stated in other articles (such as 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts), so it was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretName101 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you thought it was ok, while topic banned from all edits concerning living persons, broadly construed, to edit about living persons anyway if you could mentally excuse it? Or you thought the topic ban was too broad? Or you didn't understand the topic ban? Or you just didn't take enough care? Sorry to be so inquisitorial, but I'm struggling to understand if you knew you were violating the ban, somehow thought it was up to you to decide if a very clear ban applied depending on your own flawed interpretation, didn't think about it at all, or thought nobody would notice? If you could clarify that it would be helpful in case I decide to look at any more of your edits. Thanks. Begoon 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not a photographic memory of every moment of my life, so asking me to recap my exact in-the-moment thinking on everything I have done in five months is an ask I cannot oblige. But I had, during my ban, asked for clarity before on what it covers, and how to navigate it, and been given very little guidance in return. I have attempted to navigate confusion over this. A moments, there have been edits where I went “shit, was the the wrong conclusion?” After I hit publish. SecretName101 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you're basically saying you violated the ban but it wasn't your fault because nobody explained what "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" meant (despite the linked conversations above)? There's a viewpoint that would say - "Well, ok, nobody pulled him up for this as he went along." There's also one which says "Why on earth should we? it was very, very clear and we don't have time to police every sanctioned user who wants to edit outside a clearly defined ban. We can only really look when they appeal the ban and we discover they didn't comply with it, unless something is spotted in the meantime". Where do you stand on that? Begoon 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been small edits I have made after being un-fresh in my memory on the topic ban outline, and that I later (upon refreshing myself) went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. But they had already been published by that. Which has me paranoid here (and hesitant to appeal) out of fear I’ll be attributed intent to deceive or violate, rather than being understood to have practiced misjudgment or poor memory of how to interpret the topic ban. It’s been five months. Early into the topic ban, I was figuring it out. And later into it, my memory of how it works subsided or got foggy. So there are a few changes I would not go back and make, for sure. But I did not intent to sneak them in unnoticed or deceive anyone. It’s tricky to adjust to a topic ban’s outlines, and tricky not to have your memory of its rules fade amid five-months of drama-filled life. I apologize for mistaken edits, and would request leniency/understanding, instead of the usual rush-to-judgement and condemnation I feel I have been repeatedly met with in these months. The point of these bans is to negate damage to the project, not inflict pain or punishment upon the user, as I understand, so the question should be whether I have been or will be causing harm to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let me ask you a couple of questions then:

• Why can't you indent your replies properly (half-kidding, but it's really quite annoying that you expect others to clean up after you - I've had to fix your posts 4 or 5 times now... If you wanted to show willing you could do something with the random snippet you plonked, unindented, below this while I was typing it - I have no idea what, if anything, it responds to...)
• What did you do that led to the ban? Here I want you to describe what happened in great detail: why it was wrong, why you did it, what you think about it now, etc..
• How would you handle the same situation now - again, in great detail, please? Begoon 15:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word concern had thrown me off at moments. “Concern” generally means “be about” “scrutinize” “analyze”, all which implies principal involvement and not passing relation. Passages like those you mentioned were about Menino, not the others. The sentences were about Menino what Menino did and how he acted, not the others. I am sure that my understanding at the moment was that those were not as clear a violation of the spirit or letter as you currently see it. SecretName101 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]