Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:08, 4 June 2020

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

Open tasks

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 30 sockpuppet investigations
• 19 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 2 requests for RD1 redaction
• 60 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 16 requested closures
• 37 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 11 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Requests for closure

There is a dreadful backlog at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Are there no admins regularly working that page? SpinningSpark 11:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As I point out every time this is raised, most people ignore it because it primarily consists of one user listing RfCs he’s uninvolved with that may or may not actually need to be closed. It overwhelms the board. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying there. Is someone mass-adding requests? If so, filtering out the ones that were requested by someone who did not take part in the discussion may be the solution. Or just forbid drive-by requests altogether. Whatever, something really has to be done about it; this is an important board. If we don't have effective dispute resolution processes it will lead to more behavioral problems and come back to bite us in the ass from a different direction. SpinningSpark 12:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Just did a quick headcount. By my count ~30 of the open requests at ANRFC are from Cunard. ~20 are from all others combined. I know Cunard says he has been trying to take on the concerns of the community about this, and I believe him, but from a numeric standpoint his requested account for the overwhelming majority of the backlogged discussions needing closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

So do you agree that they should be closed as "not done" if there is no evidence that the participants wanted an admin close? I'm willing to go through a bunch of them and take the flak for that, but I'd to feel there was consensus to do that first. A lot of them are completely stale anyway. SpinningSpark 14:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I’d support responding to stale requests at ANRFC with {{nd}} if there’s no evidence those involved wanted a formal close. Might be worth letting others chime in, but I think decreasing the size would increase people’s willingness to respond to requests there. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

At some point, a realisation will sink in that certain requests are being deliberately ignored. If that happens, and making more requests be an obviously fruitless exercise, they might wither on the vine... ——Serial 14:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, the problem is that this has been the subject of multiple noticeboard threads for years and apparently hasn’t noticed that no ones closing the stuff. If you want a symptom of how bad the problem is, finding the prior discussions is difficult because his signature is so present at ANRFC it clogs up the archive search. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, ah, I misuderstood. Well; if something has been raised as potential issue, agreed to be one, and the issue continues as before then that rather limits our options. ——Serial 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll just say there have been a couple times that I've been involved with a discussion and didn't list it here because Cunard had already done it. It would be a shame if those weren't closed just because people got tired of Cunard's postings. I've also been in discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it. I suppose it's possible that Cunard could be posting against the wishes of those involved, but I haven't seen it (then again, it's not a page I really monitor -- I'm just drawing on discussions I've been involved with). — Rhododendrites \\ 15:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I believe this thread from February to be the last discussion of this topic. My thinking on this hasn't changed since then so I will just quote myself It always difficult for me to assess how backlogged it is because so many of the requests come from one editor who may or may not have even participated in the discussion for which they're asking for a close. Not every discussion needs a formal close and the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way...with the result, I suppose, that you then went elsewhere, and the backlog got longer. Absolutely your prerogative. But I imagine you're not the only one... ——Serial 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Your supposition about me is correct. I also suspect I'm not the only one who would pitch in sometimes if it were easier to find the closes that most needed attention. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Per the suggestion in that thread and here, I’ve gone ahead and marked 10 discussions as  Not done. More probably could be marked as such, but those are the quick ones I was able to clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I've done a couple more of the oldest ones which had quite clearly already been actioned by the participants. I think that Cunard could at least ask the participants if they need a formal close before posting here. I marked as nd one that was on the footie Wikiproject; the participants there might actually positively resent an admin poking their nose in where it wasn't wanted. SpinningSpark 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
      • This is good, for the time being. Now, all things being equal, do we have the means (or the inclination), to stop the issue becoming a perennial one? (Anymore than it is, perhaps.) ——Serial 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I started closing some of these when it was originally posted, then edit-conflicted with Spinningspark with some "not done" ones that I could close. I'm going to sit this one out for now, but I tried. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Primefac: Sorry for the edit conflict. I've left a note on the requests page. Please don't let me stop you from closing some more. The instructions do recommend using the {{doing}} or {{closing}} templates. SpinningSpark 17:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily going to stop, just going to stop while there is active pruning going on. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you Drmies (talk · contribs) and Primefac (talk · contribs) for your work closing RfCs at WP:ANRFC yesterday. I deeply appreciate your hard work. Drmies, this was a nuanced and very well explained close of a contentious RfC. Primefac, your close here allowed the article to be updated to the version supported by consensus.

  The below is a modified version of my post here. I in the past listed all RfCs at WP:ANRFC. The community's feedback several years ago was that I was posting too many "consensus is clear" RfCs. I responded to their feedback by making changes to my approach. As BU Rob13 wrote in June 2016:

  I'm talking about this most recent listing vs. a month ago. The number of listings went down from roughly three dozen to more like a single dozen, all of which has at least some aspect that didn't seem 100% straightforward. I was the person who originally brought up this issue at AN, and I'm a strong opponent of the idea that we should close all RfCs, but Cunard is a good-faith effort. His listings are a net positive if and only if he continues to list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all. Can I be sure that he isn't just temporarily adjusting due to this discussion? No, but I assume good faith and recognize that this can just wind up at a noticeboard as a pure behavioral issue if he were to go back to blanket listing immediately after this discussion concluded. I value Cunard's contributions as a whole and doubt things will get that far.

  Since June 2016, I have continued to "list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all". I started closing the "consensus is clear" RfCs myself and listing only the remaining RfCs where I think a close would be useful at WP:ANRFC. This significantly reduced the WP:ANRFC backlog. I have become even more discriminate in my close requests by omitting RfCs that look like discussions such as RfCs 3 and 6 in this list by leaving them unclosed or closing them myself. This has further reduced the backlog.

  I have listed RfCs at ANRFC for over eight years since the creation of the board. Why have I consistently spent so much time collating the list and closing RfCs for eight years? I have in mind users like Triptothecottage who may not remember to list an RfC for closure or may not know about WP:ANRFC. I have in mind the RfCs mentioned by Rhododendrites (talk · contribs): "discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it". I do not want the time and effort of the RfCs participants to have gone to waste when an RfC ends without anyone determining whether a consensus has been reached.

  As Scott put it so well here in January 2014:

  Lack of resolution to ongoing debates is a continuing issue on this project. If there are too many things listed here, it's because there are too many things left unfinished. It's a reflection of reality. As Cunard points out in his admirable response in the "September 2013" link above, not having a formal closure can also lead to misinterpretations (or deliberate ignorance) of consensus by persons in disputes, and not provide a recourse for editors attempting to enforce consensus. Having an accepted closure to point to will be immensely useful in many subsequent debates. We should encourage these. Making them is tough work, and I think that's what's putting editors off doing it, not seeing the number that need to be done.

  If an AfD with a rough but not obvious consensus to delete was never closed, the article would remain undeleted. Likewise, if an RfC with a rough but not obvious consensus to make a change to an article was never closed, the article would remain unchanged.

  More concretely, Primefac (talk · contribs) yesterday closed a stale 95-day-old RfC with the result: "There is a narrow margin for converting the pie chart to the 'Pew' version listed below." Primefac then modified the article to use the updated pie chart based on the RfC consensus. If this RfC had not been closed, the article likely would never have been updated.

  This 95-day-old RfC was one of the 12 RfCs yesterday that was marked {{not done}}. If Primefac had not assessed the consensus in the RfC at the same time it was marked not done, a change that had consensus likely never would have been made. For the other RfCs that had been marked as not done, I think closes would have been helpful but will not contest those decisions. I will procedurally close the RfCs and direct editors to create a request at WP:ANRFC if they would like a close.

  Cunard (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I reverted two of the procedural RfC closes after a talk page request. I wrote: "Do you want the consensus for these RfCs to be assessed by a closer at WP:ANRFC, or do you think they do not need to be closed and should be archived without closure?" SharabSalam (talk · contribs) responded: "if they got archived I will restore them. I dont know how to request a closing in WP:ANRFC but I will try. I understand that there is a dispute between you and other editors. I support your position but I dont support your latest closings. They seem WP:Pointy."

  I have made these RfC close requests in part for editors like SharabSalam who do not know how to make a close request at ANRFC. I informed SharabSalam about how to make a close request which SharabSalam has now done for both of the RfCs.

  I made the procedural closes to inform RfC participants that the RfCs would not be formally closed since they had been declined at WP:ANRFC. This is to inform editors who might have intended to request a close at ANRFC but didn't because they saw I had requested the close that if they believe an RfC close would be helpful, they would need to file a close request at WP:ANRFC themselves.

  Cunard (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I dont really know what is going on here. I just thought that there is a dispute between you and that Admin because he seems to be closing request for closers with "Not needed". I dont agree with the admin who was closing those request for closers. All RfCs need closing. Anyone should be able to request closing. Cunard was doing a great job by requesting closer for RfCs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• All RfCs need closing. - Not so, per WP:RFCEND. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I can only speak for myself, but I've always appreciated Cunard's diligent listings of expired RfCs. There were many occasions in which I was going to list a request for closure, but found that Cunard had beaten me to it. I've just relisted WP:RFCL § Talk:One America News Network#RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor. This RfC is intended to resolve a language dispute that was subject to edit warring, but nobody has implemented the consensus yet, and a {{Dispute inline}} tag remains on the wording in question. — Newslinger talk 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• I think it's fairly outrageous that legitimate closure requests should have to sit ignored for months because people can't be bothered to simply skip the requests signed "Cunard" (if that's how they feel about Cunard's requests). It adds literally seconds to a job they are committing to spend hours on, so that's a remarkably lame argument. I've been on the receiving end of that BS several times, and I didn't know the reason until now. If people are going to abandon the ANRFC system in droves, get rid of it—although we sorely need more uninvolved closers and closures, not less. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've requested that Cunard stop posting to ANRFC, and I actually take points like Newslinger's above to be an argument in favour of this: yes, Cunard is making some requests that are needed, but if they are needed there's a very high likelihood that someone who is actually involved with the thread will make a request for closure. This problem has been going on for years, and it's made ANRFC one of the most backlogged areas of the project.

Yes, it's super lame that people aren't willing to just skip anything with his signature and look at the others, but part of the problem is that you have no clue if the things with his signature by them are meaningful discussions in need of a close or an obvious no consensus that not even the participants care about anymore. So yes, he may select some RfCs that need to be closed for closure, but the fact that he's the one picking them likely causes there to be a delay in closing. That's disruptive, even if done in good faith.

Tl;dr: I think we've reached the point where we've been having an ongoing discussion for years about one person causing a backlog at ANRFC and have never just asked them to stop outright. I've now asked them to stop outright, not as a sanction, but as a way to see if the page improves. If people notice that because he stops requesting things get closed, we have this sudden crisis on Misplaced Pages, then we can request he start again. I don't think that will happen, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for closing, TonyBallioni, I appreciate it. I've been accustomed to seeing closing statements on RfCs, especially ones about heated topics, but I suppose that changing this expectation would make editors feel less dependent on closing statements for implementing consensus. — Newslinger talk 21:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to wax philosophical here, but the idea of a wiki is that it is a lightweight collaboration tool that doesn't need formal approval mechanisms to make changes to published content. On the English Misplaced Pages, we've developed a complex dispute resolution system because well... we're the 6th largest website of all time and it's needed. Even then, most of our content and disputes do not need formal approval. If there is consensus on the talk page, as there was at One America, someone can just implement it. By moving towards an every RfC must be closed mentality, we're moving away from a wiki mindset, and it causes things to stagnate. We want our editors to feel comfortable implementing consensus when it is clear it exists, which is why we shouldn't be listing everything at ANRFC :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I responded here. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible solutions going forward

I suggest that we should tighten the guidelines for posting new requests on the board. If we still have regular repeat offenders after that, then that is a behavioral issue that we already have the mechanisms to deal with. Here are some suggestions for possible guidelines;

• The nominator has requested the close
• A participant in the RFC has requested the close
• The RfC is on a substantive issue of policy (not a discussion of clarity or style)
• An administrator has requested the close
• If the RfC has very low participation, the issue would be better settled at Misplaced Pages:Third opinion or Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

Adding one or more of those, or something similar, should do the trick. SpinningSpark 22:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is the wrong forum to discuss changes to the guidelines of that page since WT:ANRFC exists. I also object to listing an adminstrator requests the close as administrators have no special authority over content and while RfCs can be dispute resolution mechanisms and thus quasi in the sysop realm, this gives sysops more authority than I think we/they should have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm not a regular here. I was really just trying to respond to user:Serial Number 54129's comment and get a discussion going on what should be done going forward. It was not really meant to be a solid proposal, just some bullets to give the discussion something to focus on. What I don't think is a solution is leaving requests to fester unanswered. That results in frustration for good faith nominators and loss of faith in the adminstration of the site. SpinningSpark 05:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Requiring that requests meet one of the first three points above seems reasonable (I agree with Barkeep on the fourth point being kind of inappropriate). Though there are occasionally cases where the participants forget about an RfC but an unimplemented consensus has been reached, in which case Cunard's listings can be helpeful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm with the majority that all of the first three are fine, definitely not the fourth. In regards to where the participants have forgotten about it, but if closed would cause a change, that's reasonable, but I find it better to first drop a new section on the talk page calling attention to it and see if people are happy to handle it themselves. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If the participants have forgotten about it, that's a good sign nothing really needed to change. Not trying to be dismissive, but sometimes lack of action is a form of consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If this proposal helps to prevent the dreadful bloating of the ANRFC board with requests that don't need closing, then I certainly support it. Tony and Barkeep have hit the nail on the head above with the reasons why it's not a place admins choose to spend their time.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to add my thanks to Tony for sorting this out. It has been a problem for several years. SarahSV 03:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The second and third points seem fair (nominators are participants so the first one isn't needed). Closing contentious discussions is one of the nastiest admin jobs around and having a massive bloated backlog is definitely off-putting to anyone considering helping out. Hut 8.5 13:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Question. I used to close RFC's all the time until I was asked to slow down/stop. I have not done as many closings since then. If there is a desire for more clerking on that board, I wouldn't mind helping out. A lot has changed since I stopped clerking it, but I have played it safe by avoiding doing so because I am not an admin. Would folks mind at all too much that a non-admin closed a contentious discussion or should I still avoid doing so? –MJL ‐Talk‐ 16:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd want to see why people asked you to stop. But there is generally no need for an admin to close things. I've gone trough that list and closed a number of them when I've had time. I think it's useful (and honestly I may start asking people at RfA if they've closed many, seems like a darn good way to judge people's ability to gauge consensus and explain their thoughts. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I can provide you the reasoning later tonight when I'm on Desktop. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 23:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Hobit: As you can see here, several admins had major WP:CIR concerns with me; so my adopter, Swarm requested I hold off on closing discussions for the time being. That was a little more than a year ago now. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 02:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      • @MJL: Just so we're clear, you've moved well past the point of ruffling feathers as a newbie and absolutely no part of me thinks that any of that unfortunate episode is still relevant today. You know that, right? ~Swarm~ 05:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @Swarm: I do! It's just that you never responded when I asked if I should start closing things again a few months ago. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 05:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Oh man, I'm sorry MJL. :( I've had a bad habit lately of clearing talk page notifications with the intention of coming back to them, and then forgetting about the messages. That reminds me, I should go check on that right now. ~Swarm~ 05:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
            • @Swarm: lmao it's all good! I do the same thing tbh It gets worse when you admin on another wiki.. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 06:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• The problem was, as Tony said, one user consistently flooding the board over the course of years. Said user has recieved the renewed complaints at this time and has made a pledge to substantially scale back their use of the board. I don't see the need to implement bureaucratic regulations in response to one specific problem that has resolved itself. ~Swarm~ 06:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure that that was the only problem. The really old ones are still not getting closed (except for those that were declined in the initial cull). I did a few myself, but stopped when it became apparent that no one else was taking part (perhaps just picking off the low-lying fruit). I don't want to adopt this board as my personal domain. It is shameful that a request has been open for 321 days at an admin board. SpinningSpark 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting review of a case of hostile and combative editing

I am requesting a review of the behavior editor GPinkerton in the talk page of Gothic Architecture. I think he has been extremely aggressive and hostile in his commentary, while repeatedly undoing edits he doesn't approve. I hope someone might ask him to treat other editors little more calmly, to tone down his language, to be a little more respectful of other opinions, and to be more open to cooperation instead of confrontation. It might calm things down. I have notified him on his talk page that I am writing to this Notice Board. Thanks very much for your help. . SiefkinDR (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: The only edits I have undone are the ones already opposed by myself and others on the talkpage, or those which manifestly contradict the reliable sources, and in both of these cases it is obviously impossible that consensus is in favour of SiefkinDR's edits, which mostly are geared towards adding acres of blank space to articles by shoehorning badly formatted galleries into every section and then shoehorning all other images into these galleries, regardless of their size, shape, or relative importance. I have also had to make a number of changes to avoid WP:UNDUE weight being given to SiefkinDR's favourite French mediaeval cathedrals. Others I have had to remove as undue weight given to Gothic architecture itself where such is not merited, as at Rib vault. I have many times explained why SiefkinDR's additions are not helpful in this respect, but they continue to blithely edit regardless, forcing their beloved "packed" galleries into every conceivable article. GPinkerton (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this response by GPinkerton gives a good idea of how he communicates with me and other editors. See also his commentary on Rib vault. Could someone please just remind him that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, not a continual battle? Thank you. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban

I cordially request of Administrators here to lift the current topic ban against me in the ARBPIA area so that I might effectively contribute in that important area. A ban has been effective against me for one-year. The last appeal that I made was here, a little over six months ago. The history of my blocks in this area is one of rare occurence, while others with many more blocks than me have been allowed to edit in this area. I enjoy this topic area and I hope to contribute more fully for the betterment of our online encyclopedia, if given the opportunity to do so.Davidbena (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Davidbena I am going to suggest that you need to address the issues that brought the ban about in the first place. To quote from the close of your last appeal "...while requesting to lift the topic ban, to come up with specific suggestions what type of articles they would like to edit and how best to avoid the controversies in articles of this type, and what to do if other editors disagree with the edits." In my experience just waiting for time to pass without addressing the previous issues is usually a non-starter. This is just a suggestion on my part and you will get reactions from admins in due course. MarnetteD|Talk 22:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, MarnetteD. The main issue that brought about my topic ban was that I was too rash, and I had wrongly accused two other editors in the ARBPIA area of having ulterior motives, when I should have rather discussed quietly and patiently the issues with them, without bringing it to a head on a WP noticeboard. This was clearly wrong of me to do, and I have since made strides to amend my behavior. I bear no ill feelings towards any co-editor here, even in cases where we might disagree on political issues. After all, our world is made-up of pluralistic views, and that's a good thing. The same editors that I disagreed with, I have also a long record of cordial relations with, here on Misplaced Pages. I'm simply asking for a second chance to prove my worthiness, and to expand articles (make corrections, etc.) in this field.Davidbena (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to post this Davidbena. I don't know how things will go but this is a positive first step. MarnetteD|Talk 00:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Link to the TBAN discussion. Note that this is actually Davidbena's second TBAN, which was enacted pretty shortly after he successfully petitioned for the lifting of the original one, and then resumed problematic behavior; two topic bans in the same area in less than two years is a lot of rope. Also, note that The main issue that brought about my topic ban was that I was too rash, and I had wrongly accused two other editors in the ARBPIA area of having ulterior motives, when I should have rather discussed quietly and patiently the issues with them, without bringing it to a head on a WP noticeboard. is only a part of what drew the second TBAN. I hope that Davidbena will be more honest about their past behavior in this appeal. Reserving my vote until I see more acknowledgment of the problems on display as recently as that last appeal. Grandpallama (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

To be more specific, I had actually thought that two co-editors were stalking me because of their "opposite" political views. Does this help? As I said, I can get along with them. My edits in the ARBPIA have mostly been very constructive, as the record will show. If I have erred in judgment regarding these two editors, which I did, let us fix the problem with a reprimand and move-on, without hampering the ability to contribute effectively in the betterment of our important online encyclopedia. If you're counting the number of topic bans, both the editors with whom I contended have a greater number of topic bans in the same area than myself, and, yet, they are free to edit. I have no complaints about that, but hope that admins here will be impartial to my case. By the way, I will be unable to answer here for the next two days, as one of Israel's holidays is commencing this evening.Davidbena (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Валко per NOTHERE

I indefinitely blocked Валко this morning per WP:NOTHERE. Whereas I think this is a good block, on a second thought, there are a couple of issues which I outlined below which could make it better if the community reviews it. The user essentially does not speak English, they have been indefblocked in the Russian Misplaced Pages and moved here. Their interest is mainly the Russian Volga autonomy republics such as Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. They have some unorthodox views on the history of these republics, not shared by other users and not particularly based on reliable sources - whereas they sometimes seem like an expert fighting against a bunch of profanes, a closer inspection shows that they reject mainstream academic sources and refer to interviews and this kind of less reliable sources. A good example of their modus operandi is here: Talk:Bashkortostan#Soviet Encyclopedia Now Russian Encyclopedia where they use a bunch of sources to combine the conclusions (original synthesis) to come to an opposite conclusion to what a reliable encyclopedia states. This was going on for years on the Russian Misplaced Pages before they were indefblocked, and it subsequently was continued here, against the same opponents. They also tried to edit the Russian Wikivoyage, where I blocked them, because their main idea was to introduce a bunch of detains which were possibly wrong but most certainly unnecessary for the project and out of scope, and after the block they continued to send me these details by wikimail, presumably trying to convince me that I am wrong. (We very rarely, I would even say exceptionally, block users there who are not spambots or vandals). This was my only intersection with them, I never interacted with them on the English Misplaced Pages. However, since I have not even given a warning to them and blocked straight indef, and since I might seem to be involved because of my Wikivoyage block, I think it would be better if uninvolved admin(s) would look at my block. If somebody needs Russian translations, I can assist with them. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As a starting note, INVOLVED specifically notes that if you've only had prior administrative interaction with them, then you wouldn't be involved, which would also seem to apply cross-project. @Ymblanter: - on Russian Misplaced Pages, did they edit any other areas than these ones? That is, the indef could be justified if they're only here to campaign for their points, or indeed if their English is so bad that CIR applies (though that wouldn't be a straight block to me). Were they not indeffed on Russian wiki, I might be more inclined to suggest a couple of TBANs (though that would require sufficient ability/willingness to engage here), but with it, it's probably a good call - I'll be certain when I can do a longer check. Yours, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I will answer all questions, show sources and documents. I'm not a vandal. Валко (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Duplicated from user's TP Nosebagbear (talk)

Thanks a lot. I think this is part of the problem. Did anybody say the user is a vandal? I am pretty sure they will be able to come up with a lot of links in Russian to read. --Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, next time you should use uw-indefblock — the once the block has expired bit in the standard time-limited block message could be confusing for new users. El_C 17:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the one I was never able to find though I knew it exists--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• "@Nosebagbear, El C, and Ymblanter: Great Russian encyclopedia: created national-state. Education within the framework of the RSFSR: the Volga Germans Labor Commune (10.19.1918), the Autonomous Bashkir Soviet Republic (03.20.1919), the Autonomous Tatar Socialist Soviet Republic (05.5.1920), the Karelian Labor Commune (8.6.1920), the Chuvash Autonomous Okrug (24.6. 1920) and others.

decision ru:Арбитраж:Игнорирование АИ Despite the absence of a detailed analysis of the authority of sources in the discussions, a wider recognition of 1919 as the year of foundation of the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (albeit under a different name and in a smaller territory) was shown in these discussions.

Under a different name and in a smaller territory. I suggest as in the article Turkestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (initially, the Turkestan Socialist Federative Republic

The Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (initially, the Autonomous Bashkir Soviet Republic) and

@Ymblanter: You said that I was not a vandal. Then why blocked? Валко (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)"

There were multiple edits by the user here, with the number of templates not making it smoothly drop into a quote template Nosebagbear (talk)

@Валко: - you weren't blocked for being a vandal (you weren't trying to damage the encyclopedia). You were blocked for being here more to advance a specific agenda/pov and convince others rather than enhancing the general encyclopedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear:, I’m not promoting anything, it’s well known, but for some reason they want to hide it. The Republic was formed under the name Bashkir Soviet Republic User talk:Ezhiki#User Валко and his original researches on the Bashkortostan topics Валко

@ Nosebagbear : On March 20, 1919, as a result of the signing of the “agreement of the Central Soviet Government with the Bashkir government on the Soviet Autonomous Bashkiria”, the autonomy of Bashkur-Distan was recognized by the central authorities and transformed into the Bashkir Soviet Republic (BSR), as well as the Autonomous Bashkir Soviet Republic (ADB ) . ru: Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic # Official names of the republic , So what's the problem? Valko ( talk ) 14:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)"

Emily Ratajkowski

Should this type of edit not be striked out? , Seems somewhat vile of a post. Govvy (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 17:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, Govvy (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Death of George Floyd

I would like for an uninvolved admin to consider topic banning "All Lives Matter" editor User:Frozenranger. While they aren't responsible for starting a rather ridiculous thread on the talk page (see Talk:Death_of_George_Floyd#The_point_of_races_in_the_lead--yes, there are seriously a few editors who want to whitewash the mentions of race out of that article, pace all reliable sources and common sense), they are responsible for a number of really insensitive forum posts, and for a condescending remark toward User:EvergreenFir. Another user, User:RandomCanadian, managed to remove the police officer's race from the article, twice, and posted a number of puzzling remarks on the talk page (essentially questioning/denying that race had been discussed as a relevant matter in the coverage by reliable sources), but they haven't lowered themselves to forumposting yet.

I'm asking for another admin since I, Muboshgu, and EvergreenFir will likely be seen as involved. Please note that both Frozenranger and RandomCanadian were notified of AP2 and BLP discretionary sanctions; Frozenranger reverted that. Thank you. Oh, and please close that ridiculous conversation, since EvergreenFir's list of reliable sources should make sufficiently clear that those who want to erase race from the article (or the lead) have no leg to stand on. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither the article talk page nor the user in question had received a discretionary sanctions notice/alert. I have now done so. El_C 20:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: - The user had indeed been notified: . They promptly removed it () and minutes later removed the race of the officer from the article (). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have missed that in Drmies' opening. Anyway, actions are as follows: I have partially blocked the user from the mainspace article, but they may have one last chance in contributing to the article talk page (and other talk pages, including this noticeboard report), so long as they start adhering to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines from now on. Failure to do so may result in a topic ban or other sanctions. I have also closed that article talk page discussion, see my closing summary at the top. El_C 20:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

LTA hoaxer

Do any of the old-timers remember who that fool was who kept inventing American wars? One of their socks was User talk:FrancoRussoGreco , and I just CU-blocked User talk:MinnesotaMapping. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of the CU data, but is it Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Amarjeetpardeep? ST47 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Haha, maybe it's his Indian cousin. No, this guy does American stuff, and it reminds me of someone from a few years ago, but I don't think I was directly involved in it, and I sure don't remember. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Perhaps you're thinking of the Upper Peninsula War. Style is similar, but that article was from 2007, and the creator doesn't seem to have any publicly documented socks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is the war I was initially thinking of, thanks--but I'm pretty sure this is not related. What I saw, a few years ago maybe, was more recent. Drmies (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at UAA

There has been a backlog at UAA since yesterday, and it just keeps on getting longer. Can some uninvolved admin kindly help out? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Just looked at it—appears any backlog has been resolved. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I looked at Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention; but if I look at Category:Misplaced Pages usernames with possible policy issues ... that has a lot of entries. Should we be concerned with both of these locations? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

REVDEL request

Can an admin please give a second opinion to this WP:REVDEL request and act (or not act) as appropriate? I don't do enough Revdeling to feel confident in acting on this. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Definitely revdelete — serious BLP grounds. Anyway, I have now done so. El_C 05:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

AfD for Kobi Arad

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

I failed to create an AfD for Kobi Arad. Don't know what is the issue. There was an error saying it is blacklisted. - Thebiv19 (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This thing back again? There was some paid editing ring around this a few years back. I remember having deleted at least one copy of the article and blocking a few socks involved in that ring. If I'm not mistaken the title was salted too. Don't know why AfD link is blacklisted though. I think the AfD title might've been blacklisted accidentally after Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kobi Arad. Maybe someone who deals with blackists can shed some light. —SpacemanSpiff 06:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I started the page at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad (2nd nomination)‎, but it could still do with User:Thebiv19's rationale, as nominator :) ——Serial 06:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

For those who want the timeline, it's in the log files, though you might have to do a little digging via Special:Log. See Special:Diff/928367156. The page was created at Koby Arad, reviewed by ComplexRational via Misplaced Pages:PageTriage, and moved to Kobi Arad by admin Anthony Appleyard. Yunshui ran a check on the page creator (PelicanBaySquad) and said he was unrelated to the sockmaster. The blacklist is still active, but it was evaded by using an alternate spelling. The title blacklist cites Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kobi Arad as justification. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've re-WP:SALTed the article, given it was deleted under CSD:G5. Pretty much done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk page warning notice

Could someone take a look at a "talk page warning notice" discussion? -- Otr500 (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Otr500, I set it to expire. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The bizarre thing is that I couldn't see any notice whatsoever instructing me to do or desist from anything. Where'd it go? ——Serial 18:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it magic? Hopefully to the "Not really the best worded template subject" Misplaced Pages boneyard. Thanks, -- ~~

Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)

The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

• • Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
  • Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴 20:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)

Block review

• WikiLover4Ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have blocked this user indefinitely because despite numerous messages and a previous block, they continue to add material, including to BLPs, without citing sources. Of their 500 edits to date, 499 are to mainspace, the sole edit outside mainspace was this following a warning from Materialscientist. Anyone is welcome to unblock if the user begins to WP:ENGAGE, or to convert to a partial block from article space or something, or shorten it. Guy (help!) 22:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Guy: If the goal is to get the user to communicate more, I have to imagine a mainspace partial block would be much more effective than a straight indef. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐ 23:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Withdraw of Afd

Hi friends. I made a mistake on this Afd. Could you please close it? Thanks! Ixocactus (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, strictly someone agreed with you—invalidating WP:SK#1—but since they are *ahem* an inexperienced user, NOTBURO came into play... ——Serial 09:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: You might want to double check what you wrote in the close, "the only keep vote" you mean "the only delete vote" I am sure. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

ha! Thanks Govvy. Now re-caffinated  :) ——Serial 10:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd protests

I know that most admins here are aware of the George Floyd protests article but I think there is not enough attention. The article is flooded by many new and old accounts who are editing the article rapidly. It is hard to follow up, there are editwars and disruptive, POV edits in between these rapid edits that you can't notice. Many new editors are unaware of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned on ANI, I have move protected the page, indefinitely. I have also just enacted a one month moratorium on any further move requests following a flood of these which was beginning to hinder the stability of the article. El_C 22:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that I have now also extended the moratorium to the subarticles. I'm not prepared to allow the same conversation to be conducted from one article to the next when it was already addressed in the parent article. El_C 01:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Support the moratorium; there've been many RMs in a short period of time, and enough is enough. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of NOTHERE block template for deletion

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

The template {{Uw-nothereblock}} has been nominated for discussion at TfD here. Given that this is a built-in block reason at Special:Block along with the standard block/warn extensions, I am bringing it here for wider discussion. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• As I noted at here, if you use the {{Uw-nothereblock}} template while the discussion is ongoing, a notification appears on the blocked user's talk page above the block message inviting them to join the discussion at TfD. This is not ideal for a number of reasons (e.g. an invitation to block evasion, potential confusion as to how to appeal the block), so admins should be aware of the issue while the TfD discussion is ongoing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 20:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, as I already noted, this seems like a WP:POINTy TfD that is actively disrupting the project. El_C 20:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Ponyo, El C, and Black Kite: see Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Does_the_community_still_approve_of_NOTHERE_blocks?. For what it's worth, I agree with El C that this was pointy, but if we need to reaffirm that there is still broad support for the practice every five years, we can have the discussion at VPP. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Closure needed at RfC at WT:NFC

Can an admin that hasn't participated yet please close Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Requiring_non-free_content_to_indicate_that_in_their_filenames? It has been open for two months, and while it was close to 50/50 in the beginning, there's now about twice as much opposition as there is support.

I intend to put a few proposals on that page (unrelated to the one above), and have been holding off until this one is closed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I've closed it as unsuccessful and removed the do-not-archive template. ~ mazca 23:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Mobile Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Michael Brown "recently deceased"?

Michael Brown died almost six years ago. Should Shooting of Michael Brown remain under DS-BLP? The article gets little attention these days, aside from a steady trickle of uninformed, quickly reverted edits by unregistered or low-time registered editors, which never warrant discretionary sanctions. If anything, the article would be better served by permanent semi or ECP than by DS. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No longer recently deceased; no longer covered by BLP, DS or otherwise. In any case, agreed: Semi-protected indefinitely. El_C 23:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Michael Brown may not be recently deceased but Darren Wilson, who killed Brown and who is discussed extensively in the article, is alive, as are other people mentioned in that article whose actions were controversial. That being said, I would not object to shifting to semi-protection if there is little disruption of this article. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And I see that was done while I was researching and writing my comment. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The BLP DS is usual assigned to the article subject, which is not Darren Wilson (police officer). Anyway. I removed the BLP DS. I'm not sure it is of any use anymore, regardless of these policy hypotheticals. El_C 23:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that's not a biography so there was never any living nor recently deceased person as an article subject. In other words, as neither Michael Brown nor Darren Wilson were the articles subjects, by that token BLP DS was never justified. However I'd suggest that since the subject was the shooting of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson it was a fair call to apply BLP DS. After all to "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace." And in fact for all the nonsense going around at the time of the shooting, BLP concerns were always going to arise more for Darren Wilson than for Michael Brown. That said, many years after the investigations, I agree that there's no point keeping the DS. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think Death of X means X is the subject, even if it isn't a purely a biographical article. But perhaps you're right... I'm really not sure. El_C 18:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions don't count matters of race, do they? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Depends on which race, and which AC/DS sanction one is looking to enforce. For example, WP:ARBANEG is specifically about race. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions could also affect matter of race in BLPs as well. If someone keeps modifying claims of the race of living persons in contradiction of RS, it IMO (bearing in mind I'm not an admin so never have to make such judgments) may be reasonable to give them a topic ban or something under the DS process where the awareness etc criteria are met. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Did SharabSalam call me a "pro-Trump, pro-Saudi troll"?

Hi, it seems to me that User:SharabSalam might have made a WP:PERSONAL attack against me: diff. Normally, I would not care but because SharabSalam has already been blocked 4 times (and unbclocked twice), and personal attacks were a contributing factor once, perhaps some action is advisable; I want to draw others' attention to it. Also it seems he was to "avoid articles related to slavery" per one of the unblocks but from time to time he edits them: diff (NB he self-reverted this edit, and his other edits related to slavery seem to be reverting obvious vandalism, though I did not delve deep into the history of any slavery-related page). Generally, it makes me think SharabSalam thinks little of the (un)blocks. As for me, even though I found his comment offensive, I do not know what action would be adequate, and if no action is deemed necessary, I am OK with it. (Also not sure if another/longer block would improve his behavior...) I suppose he makes useful contributions but I am just not sure other editors need to put up with this kind of behavior as Misplaced Pages is not only about content. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam has a tendency to attack-by-implication and then later apologize, so multiple violations are forgiven, until the next round, at least. I, for one, am getting a bit tired of seeing him as either the OP or the subject of multiple admin noticeboard reports. El_C 18:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you check what this report is about?...--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I did, and I reverted your attack, to boot . Anyway, so not even an apology this time? I'm sorry but that does not inspire confidence. El_C 19:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiHannibal, where did I call you a Saudi troll? I said the source says that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by pro-Saudi and Trump bots. Also, I was not banned from slavery articles. I said I will avoid them for 6 months which I did and that was last year.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like in the first dif they gave where you said oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use per . How coincidental! PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And where does that says that he is a Saudi troll?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it was the "how coincidental" part. PackMecEng (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No that doesnt say that. I was saying that there is no source available that says Jamal was a "Muslim brotherhood sympathizer" except according to the report, from Saudi bots, and that it was a coincidental that it was the same edit that was added by WikiHannibal.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, that is not at all what you said, and I for one am rapidly running out of WP:AGF here. You compared WikiHannibal's edits to pro-Trump and pro-Saudi trolls, then adding "how coincidental" in a sarcastic manner in order to imply that WikiHannibal is, in fact, such a troll. creffett (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I wasnt implying that. I was implying that WikiHannibal got that from Saudi bots. Something is so innocent and I really didnt mean any personal attack against him.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I have to agree with El_C here. Considering that you were just at AN/I a month ago for personal attacks, and you've gotten plenty of warnings regarding your interactions with other editors, I have a question: why shouldn't you get a temporary block for personal attacks? creffett (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, when did I make a personal attack here? I never made any personal attack. All I said is that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by Saudi trolls "" You cant block me when I havent made any personal attack.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How dumb do you think we are?--Jorm (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Is that a trick question? PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "Saudi Barbaria" belongs on Saudi-related articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh yea. Now all the people who I had dispute with are going to gather in this thread. I have said that in the context of their press freedom in WP:RSN thread. Their regime is barbaric and there is no freedom of press, therefore all of their sources should be considered state-owned sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not taking issue with you calling it a barbaric regime. I'm taking issue with you wanting to edit controversial articles related to that regime when you feel the need to make characterizations like that. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Saudi regime is a barbaric regime. It is not not just my feeling. Its the consensus of acadmic scholars who are expert on the subject.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Possible boomrange?: Can someone also look at the history page? WikiHannibal made a bold edit, got reverted, he reverted, and again. I thought Misplaced Pages is about consensus-building not editwarring. When I warned him, he said it is especially valualbe, coming from someone who has already been blocked 4 times. Clearly making fun of me because I got blocked in the past. This was before that discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  WikiHannibal, SharabSalam is correct here: that was an edit war, you should have gone to the talk page after being reverted rather than re-reverting twice. Please do not do that again. creffett (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam:(perplexed frown) For someone who does not mean to make personal attacks, you certainly seem to make a lot of them. Perhaps you could better consider your remarks? Saudi ‘’Barbaria’’? You seem to have difficulties editing in a neutral manner about this subject. Perhaps things would be calmer with a TBAN on such a subject? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Question @SharabSalam: Do you still think that "Israeli sites are mostly unreliable" as you said here ? --Shrike (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, in I/P area? Yes.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that person that think "Israeli sites are mostly unreliable" and affirms it shouldn't edit IMO about ARBPIA conflict as he can't edit in neutral way but I like to hear more opinions about this matter --Shrike (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, that’s probably better for WP:AE than here. Different discussions, imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To me it seems its just one of symptoms of same problem.The user cannot neurally edit about political issues and contemporary conflicts --Shrike (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Note - This user got renamed, possibly courtesy vanishing. Interstellarity (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from Saudi Arabia

I think a topic ban from Saudi Arabia is in order. This has been ongoing for more than a year on multiple projects. See this diff from meta where he effectively accused Alaa and other non-Saudi editors from ar.wiki who he was in a dispute with of being agents of the Saudi government when several of the editors who he is discussing have known RL identities and they are most certainly not Saudi. I see his finding of pro-Saudi internet trolls around every corner also continues on en.wiki. Therefore, I'm proposing the following:

SharabSalam is topic banned from Saudi Arabia, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. This has been going on in multiple projects for over a year. The English Misplaced Pages is not the place for a continued dislike of ar.wiki and conspiracy theories and personal attacks on editors for being Saudi-sympathizers and/or agents. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Tony - is this his first t-ban? I'm not seeing a time frame - maybe 3 or 6 mos if his first? _Talk 📧 00:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme: It is not his first T-Ban. At the moment, SharabSalam is T-Banned from post-1978 Iranian politics as a result of this discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 03:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I have not called anyone a Saudi agent. Read my comment. I said there are Saudi agents in that Misplaced Pages. Which is possible since they have agents in Twitter who were spying on Americans .--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  You're not helping. This is part of the trend above, you make broad statements with obvious implications. In that thread you'd accused باسم of intentionally undoing every edit you make after you called out people for supporting "Saudi , the implication being he was one of them. He's also publicly identified as Lebanese, not Saudi. Another example: you made this reply denying accusing anyone, while saying there were agents on ar.wiki and that people only came after they were notified. The implication in clear.Anyway, that's all meta, not en.wiki, but it shows you have the habit of making ridiculous insinuations: neither Ala'a or باسم are Saudi, and both are well-respected cross-wiki. They're not trying to drive a Saudi agenda. While that's another project, it's relevant here because it shows that you see pro-Saudi editors on three Wikimedia projects, even when it's pretty obvious the people you are discussing don't have a bias towards the Saudis. They just don't hate them as much as you. You were welcome to edit Saudi topics on en.wiki so long as you followed our guidelines. It seems you can't follow our behavioural guidelines here, just like you couldn't follow the behavioural guidelines on other projects in this topic area. We have a tool to deal with that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  They just don't hate them as much as you. OMG, I hate Saudis?

  Can anyone stop this?? This admin has completely manipulated what I said. I have never said I hate Saudis. That's such an extremely offensive thing to say to me. I said that there are Saudi agents in Arabic Misplaced Pages. I never said someone is a Saudi agent. For the reverts, you can see here that I and other editors got reverted by باسم without any reason. Yes, literally no reason for the reverts. They dont say why they reverted you. Your manipulation of what I said is completely offensive to me. If you want to block me, block me but dont accuse me that I hate Saudis. I dont and I dont hate Saudis.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Apologies. I was using standard English shorthand for: They just don't have as universally negative views on things involving Saudi Arabia as you do. No one is saying that the Saudi regime is the model of human rights. What we are saying is that you have a history on multiple Wikimedia projects of not being able to act within our behavioural norms on this subject area. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I do have a negative view of the Saudi regime, not "on things involving Saudi Arabia". Most Yemenis do have a negative view of the Saudi regime. However, I have never made any disruptive, POV edit in Saudi Arabia-related articles. I have always remained neutral in these topics. I have said the word "Saudi Barbaria" once on Misplaced Pages, and I was talking in the reliable sources noticeboard about the Saudi regime press freedom. They kill journalists as we saw in the Jamal case. My point was that Saudi-based sources are as bad as Saudi-owned sources because of there is no freedom of press. And that was the whole point of what I said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reluctant support even though I suggested it. I can't see how anyone who calls Saudi Arabia Saudi Barbaria can approach the subject objectivvely. Tony makes some good points. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)'

  Note: I oppose an on Islam TBAN. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

  I have literally used that word once on Misplaced Pages and it was in the context of their press freedom in WP:RSN and not in the article. Barbaric means cruel. The Saudi regime is a cruel regime in the context of their press freedom. And I was making a point, Saudi-based sources are not free even if they are not owned by the government, therefore, they are not reliable in some cases.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral on the proposed tban on Saudi Arabia, but strongly opposed to a much broader tban covering Islam-related articles, as is being proposed below. A ban on editing anything related to a major religion is a very strong action. If an editor had a tendency to remove content critical of the Catholic Church, claiming it to be poorly sourced, we would not rush to tban such an editor from all Catholicism-related articles. I've tangled with such editors, especially on matters relating to abortion, but I've always been able to rely on consensus of other editors on those content issues and have never believed that those Catholic editors needed to be banned. As a non-Catholic, I believe that Misplaced Pages should not take punitive action against those Catholic editors (unless an extreme case occurred); and as a non-Muslim, I also believe that Misplaced Pages should not ban from Islam-related articles an editor who on occasion has objected to what they perceive as anti-Islam content, even if their objections to it sometimes were not well-grounded. Religious tolerance and even-handedness are important here. NightHeron (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per TonyBallioni and El_C above for consistent POV editing and personal attacks. Also, per Debresser below, I believe we should stronger consider a broader topic ban covering Islamic subjects in general. YUEdits (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)​
• Support I am in agreement that this topic ban is not as broad as we probably need here. I would be also fine with "topic ban from anything related to Muslims". Orientls (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note: I oppose an Islam TBAN. The argument below is that he removed anti-Muslim content sourced to unreliable sources. Are we really going to sanction an Arab editor for removing anti-Muslim speech in a way that doesn’t violate any policy or attack any editor? If I did that I’d be given a barnstar. I think SharabSalam sees Saudi spies around every corner and needs a sanction because of that, but being paranoid about the Saudi government and calling others Saudi trolls, etc. is what’s disruptive. Removing an anti-Muslim hate blog is laudatory. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • He makes hundreds of edits so that is not really surprising, but also see other edits mentioned in the section below. What one should also see is that the existing topic ban on him from Iranian politics (1978 - present) emerged on ANI and this subject involves Islamic politics. Now we are discussing the Saudi Arabia related editing issues which again involves a Islamic country. I don't see how country-specific bans are really going to work anymore, thus it is better to make a broader topic ban. Orientls (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I wouldn’t object to a broader Middle East topic ban, but I’d pretty strongly oppose an Islam one. Like I said, he accused a Lebanese CU of being a pro-Saudi POV pusher and basically said the only Arab steward was a Saudi spy for opposing a local dialect wiki (full disclosure: علاء is probably my closest friend on Wikimedia so I’m still angry about that.) Now he’s doing the same crap on en.wiki that he was doing on meta and ar.wiki: the thing is, removing religionofpeace and synthesis/original research of primary sources from religion articles is almost always a good thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I have never accused anyone of being a Saudi spy. Also, I have being completely neutral while editing ME articles. I have expanded geographicall articles about Yemen. I have always being helpful in that area. I dont think this is because of the meta wikimedia thing. I think this is because I supported a standard section header in AN/I. I have noticed that since then you started attacking me. It is also clear that you want to become a steward.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • You realize I’m trying to prevent you from being unjustly sanctioned for removing anti-Muslim hate speech, right? As for your attacks on me: I turn down people asking me to run for steward every year because it doesn’t interest me. The odds of my running for steward are approximately zero, and are also not relevant to this discussion. And no, I’m not mad about you supporting standardized section headers. I’ve admitted I’m not particularly happy with you over your attacks on Ala’a, and that’s a bias, but you’re doing the exact same thing on this project, and since I know the history on meta and ar.wiki that is relevant, and others don’t, I’m going to raise it. I have said that I think your actions on this project have become increasingly a net negative over time, and because I am active cross-wiki and am very familiar with ar.wiki and meta, I know your history on those projects, which is applicable here since you’ve shown the same behaviour on multiple projects, and it’s been disruptive on all of them. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

          WTF are you even talking about? I have never attacked Alaa. You have got to be kidding me. Are you instigating Arab users against me?. That issue happened between me and the whole Arabic Misplaced Pages system. I have been so nice with Alaa. See my talk page in Arabic Misplaced Pages!. I have only objected the way they revert edits, all of them. They don't write edit summaries. I don't think you know Arabic Misplaced Pages. I have never had any issue with you. It all started when I supported a proposal to have a standard AN/I. Before that you were so nice with me. Even in meta Wikimedia. I have been blocked in Arabic Misplaced Pages because of the username only, nothing about my contributions. I wasn't able to speak English very well when I joined English Misplaced Pages but I just joined because every edit I make in Arabic Misplaced Pages is being reverted. Most articles in Arabic Misplaced Pages don't make any sense, because they are clearly translations and when someone tries to fix that he gets reverted. Months ago, someone emailed me telling me to make a complaint in meta Misplaced Pages and to provide evidence. I didn't want to do that but now I will, when I have time, make a complaint and provide tons of evidences of non-free Arabic Misplaced Pages. In any case, you dont seem to be neutral. You have said many mean things to me like saying that other editors dont hate Saudis like I do "They just don't hate them as much as you" and that I am "being paranoid about the Saudi government ". Do think saying someone has a mental health is not offensive? Do you think saying that I hate Saudis is not offensive?. I told you before, if you want to block me, block me, but dont say these mean stuff to me.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Unfortunately, the editor’s strong personal view about the country appears to be impairing their ability to cooperatively and civilly edit in the area. — MarkH₂₁ 05:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral on Saudi Arabia TBAN per discussion with SlimVirgin below; oppose Middle East TBAN per comments by MJL below; oppose a ban on Islam or Muslim topics per my original rationale. 03:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Support Saudi Arabia TBAN per the problems here. Weak support for Middle East TBAN given the pattern with Iranian politics. Strong oppose to a ban on Islam or Muslim topics as way too broad. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC) edited 03:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from the subject of Saudi Arabia. Partly after reading this here, and partly after reading the recent discussion on SharabSalam's talk page with TonyBallioni, I have to conclude that SharabSalam does not appear to be open to considering how he is coming across or to listening when other people try to explain it. The clearest example is right here, in that "oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use ... How coincidental!" comment. Even if that wasn't intended as a personal attack likening an editor to a pro-Trump, pro-Saudi troll, it's undoubtedly how it comes across. And I see a steadfast refusal to even consider that. In fact, had I seen that comment before the discussion here commenced, I would have blocked for it. My fear is that SharabSalam is heading for an eventual exclusion from this project, which would be unfortunate, and I hope a topic ban here might act as a wake up call and prevent that happening. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as I said at the ANI thread back then, SharabSalam is emotionally invested in the topics they edit on: first Iranian politics, now Saudi Arabia? I have a gut feeling that we're going to end up looking at a t-ban from the entire Middle East. But, per WP:ROPE, this, for the time being. ——Serial 17:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Saudi Arabia TBAN, alternatively support Middle East TBAN (or should that be MENA to make the WMF happy?), oppose Islam TBAN. Echoing SN54129 and Boing!, I'm not filled with confidence that even an ME topic ban will be enough of a wakeup call given that they didn't seem to get the message after the IRANPOL TBAN, but ROPE and all that. I also would like to express my disappointment that SharabSalam has been told by multiple editors how their "pro-Saudi trolls" line sounds and yet hasn't even retracted the comment. creffett (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  How to redact that comment when it is already removed. I didnt intent to call any editor Saudi troll. I said that the content that was added was promoted by Saudi bots according to reliable sources. If I knew that I would have been understood that way, I wouldnt have said it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support The proposed ban and the ban from Middle East as per this comment --Shrike (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Can someone post examples of the problematic edits or comments about Saudi Arabia on enwiki? So far, the only one offered is "oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use ... How coincidental!" in response to a proposed poorly sourced edit that arguably undermined Jamal Kashoggi, the Saudi dissident who was assassinated. SarahSV 22:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems that SharabSalam has retired. Looking briefly through his edits, it seems he's an Arab editor with excellent English who understands the sourcing policies, including a good understanding of OR/SYN and the misuse of primary sources. In case I'm wrong about that, or in case it's an incomplete picture, can someone please post some of his problematic edits or comments about Saudi Arabia? SarahSV 22:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @SlimVirgin: On its own I would agree with you. For me, the context I would want you to consider is that this seems to be continuation of the behavior that led to the ban from post-1978 Iranian politics. While those accusations were more direct than the incident you mention, the oblique accusation, Tony's diff from meta (among others), the Saudi Barbaria comment at RSN, and the Iran TBAN collectively make me think that the editor has issues assuming good faith or behaving civilly (i.e., not rude) in this topic area, and that what they learned from the post-1978 Iran TBAN was to make accusations by implication rather than directly. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Wugapodes, thanks for the links. I agree that his comments there were unacceptable. The Iran topic ban was placed on 26 April 2020, so the question for me is what he has done since then to trigger a second one. The meta diff is from 2019 and in any event needn't affect enwiki. The Barbaria RSN diff was in January and is arguably fair comment. So we're left with the "pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls" comment on 30 May. SarahSV 03:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Ah, I missed the date of the Iran TBAN. Given that timeline, I would agree a TBAN is not the ideal response. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Thanks for taking another look. SarahSV 05:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't want to fully weigh in here, but I have to say that idea we would TBAN SharabSalam for that "Saudi Barbaria" comment would be pantently absurd. (1) The dude is not a native English language speaker and probably has no clue the deeper implications behind call a place barbaric. He didn't even know what "whiny *****" meant. (2) He lives in Yemen. You guys know there is an active civil war there, right? It's just a wee bit tense there.. (3) Saudi Arabia has done some pretty awful things, so let's not pretend that a user biased against them is all that surprising.
  If people want to support this TBAN for the reasons Tony outlined, that's one thing. To TBAN for that one single comment from five months ago, that's pretty absurd.
  I'd also completely oppose a ban on the broad topic of the Middle East. That's like TBANing an English person from the entire topic of Western Europe. That's greatly disproportional to anything I have seen be alleged SharabSalam to have done. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 02:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  If people want to support this TBAN for the reasons Tony outlined, that's one thing. - I've read through Tony's link for meta.wiki and I have a different interpretation. I do not think SharabSalam was targeting Tony's acquaintances, I think it was a general comment. If you combine every allegation SharabSalam made as if they all referred to the same people, yes, it would look bad. But I do not think one is obliged to combine all the allegations. It is one way to look at it, but it is not the only way. starship.paint (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  To be honest, I thought along very similar lines. I just figured I must've been missing some context or something. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 21:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Given Saudi Arabia’s influence in the region, is it even feasible to devise a TBAN from Saudi Arabia but not from the Middle East? P-K3 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  The behavior here is very concerning because I don't believe people don't quite understand the implications of what they're saying, and what it could mean or the consequences it could bring to people who live in different countries from the US or UK, especially where religion and customs are held in the highest regard. Please measure your words carefully. _Talk 📧 21:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree: Considering we have a general sanction regime in place for Iran.. well there you go. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 23:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• The behavior clearly justifies the proposed TBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Censoring

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

I just had a closer look at this editor, who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template, and found that on many occasions he has removed negative information about Islam on grounds that seem trumped up to me (excuse the pun). Claiming primary source, unreliable source or original research he removed large paragraphs in edits like . Primary sources is not in itself a reason to remove information, and frankly these claims seem trumped up in order to allow this editor to remove information which he feels is compromising for Islam. By the way, please notice that I am not claiming to have researched the reliability of each and every source and the sourcing of each and every claim he has removed. I am however seeing the bigger picture here, and it looks very suspicious. Since this is a long-term problem, and one that is much harder to recognize than a personal attack, I don't know what should be done, although I for myself have reached the conclusion that this editor should be banned from all Islam-related articles or simply blocked, since the long-term effects of his edit pattern are very detrimental to the project. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You have not researched the reliability of these sources? Like did you see thereligionofpeace? Did you also see that these sources are all primary and all the content is original research?. You just reverted me without seeing whether what I said was wrong or not. For the template, you were editwarring and you got warned for editwarring. The admin at the editwarring noticeboard also warned you. As I said, all of those who I had dispute with are going to gather here lol.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, primary sources are not forbidden, and are actually often used in articles about religion. And no, I don't think that this content is all original research. And again, I am more concerned with the pattern that is emerging from these edits than with the fact that one of these edits was sourced to an advocacy group, which, by the way, is specifically not forbidden by the relevant policy. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But original research is forbidden. You didnt actually look at any of what I said. You, as you said above, assumed that I removed that content because I "feel is compromising for Islam." Thats interesting. Why did you assume that and not look at whether what I said was wrong or not?. You have provided many diffs and I have explained my edits in all of them. If you have a content dispute, we can discuss that in another place. You brought this here, why? You said I am removing content because I "feel is compromising for Islam." Could you provide any evidence? The diffs are all justified. Can you tell me where I was wrong in each of these diffs and why?. I would appreciate if you provided more insight to the problem that you are accusing me of.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And there is a diff to the Ghassanids, how is that relevant to Islam? Could you tell what is wrong with this edit!! that you added in the diffs??--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I think thereligionofpeace.com is a bogus website. I am not certain of that though, as I don't really want to load such a page to review it. I read about it second hand. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, User:Koreangauteng is confirmed sockpuppet of a user who is known for pushing anti-Muslim view and adding original research as you can see the sockpuppet investigation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, at least one of those sites is an anti-muslim hate blog. I'd have made the same edits myself. Guy (help!) 23:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't have the time to check each statement and each source. Blogs are of course bad sources, regardless of their POVs, no doubt. It is the ease with which whole paragraphs with a certain type of general content are removed, that triggers my suspicion, and I think this should be looked into. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

All of what I removed was unreliable. You have not explained how any of what I removed should not have been removed. You are accusing me of "censoring" but you have provided no evidence. You said at the top and at the very beginning of your post "who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template", is this the real problem? Is this why you came here. You were editwarring and you got warned by an Admin. You continued to editwar regardless. Clearly you are treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking generally: I don’t see this as relevant to the discussion. Removing anti-Muslim hate blogs and synthesis/original research from religion articles is a good thing. Most religion articles here are filled with it, and an Arab editor removing it is no different than my gutting Catholic articles sourced to early 20th century Protestant polemics: obviously a good thing. If there are specific instances where the sourcing has actually been evaluated, raise it on the article talk page first. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now he is edit warring about it. Please notice that he removed primary sources and The Economist, which is in Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as a "generally reliable source". His edit summary was "Rv unreliable sources". This is unacceptable as 1. censoring 2. removal of sourced information without consensus 3. edit warring 4. using inaccurate/misleading edit summaries. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You forget to mention he was also removing religionofpeace. I’d be much more likely to support a sanction against you for restoring an anti-Muslim hate blog than him for removing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Debresser, The Econimust source supports this only, Some Muslims, however, advocate for LGBT rights.
• This, however, is based on unreliable source(an anti-Muslim hate blog), In the Quran, abominations include idolatry, divination, gambling, and intoxicants; eating blood, dead meat, pig, or an offering made to a false god; homosexuality; and blasphemy. While the Quran does not specify any punishment for committing any abomination, some Hadiths specify the death penalty for committing homosexuality.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It is also unrelated to Abomination (Judaism)--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that you started your post with "who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template" shows that it is the main reason you came here. It is also not recent, its two months ago, in April. You were editwarring, you got warned. You clearly think this is a battleground.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I simply think you are a problematic editor. Why 2 months would not be recent, and what you see wrong with an unjustified warning on my talkpage being the trigger to investigate your edits, I fail to understand. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Economist: Straight but Narrow
2. Clear Quran: Surah 5:90
3. Clear Quran: Surah 6:145
4. Clear Quran: Surah 11:78
5. Clear Quran: Surah 45:11
6. Religion of Peace: Islam and Homosexuality

TBAN appeal

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

EDIT:REQUEST HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN

Back in December, I was topic banned from edits relating to the Knights of Columbus. Over the past six months, I have abided (mostly, with explanations below) by my ban, strived to avoid conflict, and taken steps to avoid the types of incidents that led to the ban. Below is a brief recap of my past half year of activity.

I’ve long been troubled by the systematic WP:BIAS that is inherent in the project and have used this time to partially rectify it. Of the nearly 2,500 edits I’ve made since then, many--if not most--of them have been to further the goals of Women in Red. I’ve made 22 women blue since then, or almost one new article a week on average.

I’ve slipped up twice. The first came from a misunderstanding of what my ban entailed. After Cullen328 pointed it out to me, I reread the ban more closely, apologized, and have abided by it since. The second time was when I edited an article to add a wikilink and a minor detail to a low-interest biography of a Knight. A few hours later, I remembered the ban and self-reverted it.

I’ve also taken steps to avoid the behaviors that led to the ban. During the TBAN discussion, it became clear that I had a much more liberal interpretation of WP:PRIMARY and especially WP:ABOUTSELF than the community at large. On the three (1, 2, and 3) occasions since the ban when a source I used was challenged, I immediately took it to WP:RSN.

When disputes arise, I’ve taken pains to de-escalate the situation and to bring in outside voices. For example, when a dispute arose at Catholic Church and homosexuality with Rosclese (with whom I have clashed numerous times over the years) in February, I left the article alone for three months, even though I thought she was wrong. More recently, when a new dispute arose with her at Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS, I not only disengaged from the dispute, I took a week off from editing to reflect. I had been working through the article with another user, and we sometimes disagreed. Through the normal give and take, the article got better. It can be difficult to do this with Roscelese, however, and so when she arrived at the article I notified the appropriate Wikiprojects and removed myself.

When a dispute arose with JZG (pinged as a courtesy, even though he does not wish to interact with me) at Stop the Church, I took the issue to ANI. That conversation dried up without a real resolution, and I was left unsure about what I should have done better. In an effort to avoid similar situations, I then turned to Bagumba and Steve Quinn, who were familiar with the particulars, and asked them directly how I could improve my editing in situations like these. I can't remember any other disputes worth mentioning here.

I am now going to ping everyone who was involved in the original discussion so that they can weigh in here, if they like. @Avatar317, Alexbrn, Serial Number 54129, Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, DGG, Nil Einne, Wekeepwhatwekill, Michepman, Darth Mike, Elizium23, TimothyBlue, Isaidnoway, SPECIFICO, Giants2008, Drmies, Sethie, and Literaturegeek: A few of them said they would support a TBAN in order to give the Knights article time to improve and stabilize, which I believe it has. Since I typically don’t spend much time on noticeboards, I was unfamiliar with protocol in situations like these. I made a partial appeal a few days later, asking to be allowed to edit on talk pages. That was denied, but I want to make sure CaptainEek and Jayron32 have a chance to comment as well, should they care to do so, since they took the time to respond to my previous appeal.

Thank you all for your consideration. I'm not perfect, and I am certain I will mess up again, but I'll try to make new mistakes the next time around. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't mind this being lifted--but there were some really serious issues, esp. in regards to sourcing. Obviously SOT will be closely watched if they get back into this territory. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Slugger O'Toole: For the ANI you opened reporting JzG, it was just a month ago, and I closed it w/ no action as I found both of you to have been edit warring, but it had gone stale. How can you assure the community that it's not too soon to lift this unrelated topic ban? Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bagumba, I think that incident is an example of why the community should. I only edited the main article after JZG had gone silent on talk for several days. I took his silence to indicate that he agreed with me. I think this happened twice. After the second time I realized that it wasn't working and, rather than continue to edit war, decided I needed outside help. That's when I went to ANI. As mentioned in my initial appeal, after you closed the discussion I was still unsure what I should have done better, and that's why I went to your talk page (and Steve's) to seek further clarification. I don't want to try and deflect the attention from myself, but think it is worth pointing out here that it was JZG who was making the contested effort, not me, and thus should have been him who was trying to seek consensus. I did so anyway rather than edit war. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I was looking for you to say that you were having a dispute, but you realize now that it was wrong to have reported the other party for edit warring, when you were a culprit as well. It's not to say you didn't know to follow WP:DR now. I'm neutral on lifting the TBAN at this time. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Slugger O'Toole, as usual, you admit no fault, and write as if your point of view on the whole thing is ineffable truth. That was the problem on KofC too. And it seems to me extremely likely that lifting the TBAN wiull lead to exactly the same behaviour again because you exhibit a very obvious emotional commitment to a specific view of these topics. Guy (help!) 17:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, In my initial statement, I twice say that I have "taken steps to avoid the behaviors that led to the ban." In case that wasn't clear, it's because I recognize that I was in the wrong. I was at fault. Mea culpa. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Slugger O'Toole, you think you have, but you haven't. See also Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS (which of course is directly related to Stop the Church). Guy (help!) 21:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Kind of dependant on the answer to Baguma's question, but tending towards a "Support per Drmies". ——Serial 09:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• This user has demonstrated no understanding of NPOV and Misplaced Pages sourcing policy. It was not limited to Knights of Columbus. The same issues are evident in SO'T's editing at Harvard Extension School. This user seems to edit articles that are related to his real-life experience or loyalties but these are exavctly the ones he should not be editing. I see no reason to believe SO'T is willing or able to set aside such fundamental and apparently deep-seated deviations from Misplaced Pages editing policies. Also, without revealing evidence here, for what it's worth, I believe it's likely he socked at least once in violation of his TBAN. If so, he later lied about that at ANI.17:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 12:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: Per WP:NPA: Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. May I suggest that you either file at WP:SPI and leave notification here, or retract the statement? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  It was my intention to acknowledge that I was stating my personal belief without the evidence that would be required for a formal complaint. Are you suggesting or ordering me, under threat of Admin action? If you are instructing me as an Admin to strike, I will do so. I can email you why I did not and will not make an SPI complaint. SPECIFICO talk 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, I'm unfamiliar with the greater dispute here but raising a serious accusation like "socking to avoid a topic ban" without evidence being offered is pretty textbook casting aspersions which has popped up in multiple ArbCom cases as being quite toxic to dispute resolution and has been described as equivalent to a personal attack. I appreciate that you're not trying to solve that complaint formally here, but simply mentioning it offhand is not generally a good thing - my strong suggestion is to raise it properly (via private means if necessary) or strike it and drop it. ~ mazca 17:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Done. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, I can't change what I've done in the past. I can only try to improve going forward. For what it's worth, when you tried to propose a new restriction on my editing a few weeks ago, a propsal closed per WP:SNOW, you used the Harvard Extension School as an example then, too. The problem is that what you cited as a prime example of my problematic behavior happened there seven years ago. I have offered on multiple occasions, both in that ANI discussion and twice on the talk page there that I would be glad to work on the sourcing in that article with you. You haven't responded to any of those requests. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I would be glad to work on the sourcing in that article with you. That sounds like more of the same behavior that got you banned. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, with multiple reverts with edit summaries along those exact lines. Guy (help!) 21:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support lifting the ban. Per WP:ROPE, and the reasonableness and thoughtfulness of the above statement, I have no problem lifting the formal ban. I do wish to remind Slugger that memories last longer than bans, and that it is likely the amount of patience given for similar behaviors is likely to be much smaller going forward. --Jayron32 13:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Jayron32, Read the talk page archives. Slugger is a textbook civil POV-pusher. He remians "reasonable" and "thoughtful" until all others have died of boredom or thrown themselves from the nearest tall building in despair. I lost count of the number of times we explained what an affiliated source was, and he never exhibited any understanding of it right up to the ban. Guy (help!) 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support lifting ban - As long as he is willing to mend his ways going forward and work collegiality with other editors then I also am comfortable with ending the ban now. Based on his above comments it sounds like Slugger has turned a corner and has what it takes to contribute productively including in the areas that were under contention. I did see some troubling issues WRT that dispute from last month but I think that even despite that he deserves from latitude since everyone makes mistakes sometimes. Michepman (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support for KEEPING the ban - Slugger's problem with the KofC article was NOT a mis-understanding of sources, it was (in my opinion) a strong emotional attachment to an organization to which he had previously stated he belong(s)(ed) to, which caused him to do his best to WP:OWN the article, and use the excuses (which he is still doing now) of "not understanding source quality" to support his attempts at making the article into a positive and glowing propaganda piece for the organization. I don't see how this has changed/could change in 6 months.---Avatar317 16:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Avatar317, how long do you imagine it would take for me to change? Perhaps I should just wait until then. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know a timeframe, but the fact that (as far as I understand) this is an EXTEMELY narrow topic ban: KofC articles ecompasses what 5-10 articles at most? (this isn't a ban from all religious articles, or all politics articles) Aren't there plenty of other articles in the 6M in the English Misplaced Pages that are interesting enough to you that you can improve rather than needing to come back to this specific and very narrow topic? The fact that you are here asking for this removal in only 6 months makes me feel that you are still very attached to the KofC area; and more attached than would allow for allowing other editors to modify "your" articles.---Avatar317 20:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Avatar317, As I said, this is largely unfamiliar territory for me. I don't spend much time on any of the ANs, and only edit here when I am directly involved in something. During my first appeal, Jayron32 introduced me to the concept of the WP:SO. The first step says to wait six months. That's what I did. I think I've met the other two criteria as well. I understand it isn't binding, but if you can't give me a solid timeframe or any other metrics towards which I can work, I don't know what my options are. What is it that would convince you I am ready? Also, I think you are under the same misunderstanding about my ban as I originally was. I'm banned from any edit regarding the Knights, even using it as a passing reference in a talk page comment on an unrelated topic (see the first slip up mentioned in my original statement). It's not as narrow as it appears at first glance. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the ban. It took months to get that article into shape, against determined and relentless opposition by Slugger. Diff from his last edit to the current version: . The comparison between the version I first saw and the current is even more stark: . Note the number of affiliated sources removed. You can see the trail here: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Slugger%20O%27Toole/0/Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality - edit summaries like "gain consensus first" can, as we all know, be parsed as "first satisfy me". "Undid revision 930299082 by SPECIFICO (talk) I disagree. This is not undue detail. We can discuss on talk if you like" - but since he never hgave any ground on Talk that was rather pointless (hence the ban, but I repeat myself). I think SPECIFICO bore much of the b runt of this stonewalling.

We're talking here about an editor who had over 900 edits to an article, reverted pretty much any attempt to tone down its promotional content, and on whose removal the article then took at least a couple of months to get neutral, which involved the removal of around half the text and addition of a good bit more that was omitted and less flattering.

This is not the only article where Slugger has obsessively hammered his catholicism into the 'pedia, either. His behaviour is a classic exemplar of MPOV: He is religious, and like so many religious people he knows he is right, therefore everybody else is simply wrong, and that's all there is to it. He is acting in absolute good faith, and that is the problem. As it is, I strongly suspect that his main reason for wanting to edit that articloe right now is the recent debate over how to represent its funding of anti-LGBT causes. Catholic Church and homosexuality is his second most-edited article. Guy (help!) 16:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I tried my best to ping everyone who was involved in the initial discussion. If I missed someone, it was inadvertent. Please let me know who it was and I will ping them now, or you can do so yourself. I should note that I made a special point to ping you, someone I knew would !vote to keep the ban in place. Finally, for the umpteenth time, I do not identify as a Catholic or as a member of any other religious organization on here. My edit history will show substantial contributions to Catholic, Protestant, and secular topics. I don't know why you won't respect my request not to be referred to as such. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I posted it at the Talk page, which of course you could not do, so let's not worry about it. Guy (help!) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, You made three edits to this comment after I responded, adding substantially more content. I don't really have anything else to add (aside from being astonished at the tone which grew increasingly hostile with each edit), but in the future could I ask that you could create a new comment to add additional thoughts? It may look as if I am ignoring part of what you had to say. I believe this is best practice. Thanks. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I completely agree with JzG's characterization in his first TWO paragraphs - the KofC article is the only place where I recall having interacted with Slugger, so my opinions reflect only edits on that article.---Avatar317 20:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: 5 May 2020 AN/I close by Lourdes: JzG has said he will voluntarily avoid interacting with Slugger from hereon. So much for that then. Easy to dodge tough situations with false promises (there was discussion that the action in the AN/I thread was desysop-worthy!). --Pudeo (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, this is an admin board, I am an admin. We're discussing a sanction imposed after a dispute in which I was involved. Slugger pinged me. I have absolutely no desire to interact with him, but that doesn't mean I am going to sit back and make no comment on a request for a necessary sanction to be lifted. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up. Guy (help!) 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the ban Slugger has shown no evidence that they have made effort to change their behavior and has shown the same behaviors at Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS as Knights of Columbus. Slugger has been pushing Catholic sources that scrape by RS into Misplaced Pages voice and stonewalling on the talk page when called on it. He downgrades content that is critical of the church and stretches positive content well past reasonable paraphrasing.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

So as not to be accused of utterly diffeless accusations here is one diff that I think epitomizes the issues with Sluggers editing. He uses an actual Diocese press release written by the Bishop and published on the Diocese website to in Misplaced Pages's voice state that this church run programs degree was cheaper than a degree from a state school. "which has a total four year cost of $32,000, far less than the cost of in-state tuition at a four-year Arizona public college". That is absurdly Catholic POV. AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, That simply isn't true. When a source has been questioned, I've taken it to RSN. I'd like you to provide a dif of me "stonewalling" on a source. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There is ample evidence of stonewalling on the talk page of Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS though it anyone considering the ban is confused I can supply more extensive examples. Just one example would be Slugger's refusal to supply timestamps on a podcast he added extensively to multiple pages even though he demanded other editors supply timestamps for the exact same podcast. Here is just more FUD Slugger is spreading about the source, to be clear it has been made clear to Slugger why the source is not optimal.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, OK. You are correct on that one. However, when good faith requests were made for that podcast, including yours, I did provide timestamps. It was only when another editor was trying to make a WP:POINT that I demurred. I'm also not sure what FUD is supposed to stand for, but I'm not sure that seeking additional clarification is an example of bad behavior. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you hoping no one follows my links? You didn't demure, you refused to add timestamps after multiple requests. I asked, others asked, a third party administrator told you it was necessary, and still you did not add them. They are thirty minute long, not very interesting, episodes of a podcast, and I had to listen to an hour or it because you would not add timestamps. FUD in this case means you have been told repeatedly the issue, yet instead of onboarding the advice, you pretend you did not get advice and ask for more from already busy people.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep ban I’ve long been troubled by the systematic WP:BIAS that is inherent in the project... And there you are. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, I'm not sure what you are insinuating, but perhaps I should have been more clear. The bias I am talking about is the underrepresentation of women and other groups. If I am righting any great wrongs, it is creating articles for women who deserve them. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment To show that I am willing to edit within the bounds the community has set, I propose the following: First, if there is even a borderline source that I am looking to use, I will take it to the talk page first. I hope this will appease AlmostFrancis. Secondly, I'm willing to undergo a review after an additional six months. If other editors don't see an improvement, the ban can be reinstated. Of course, anything egregious can always be brought to this forum sooner than that. I hope this might show Avatar317 that I am serious. I'd be open to other restrictions as well. Consider it a halfway measure. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that you don't even realize what a borderline source is. A liturgy textbook of, no known authority, published by a seminary, isn't a borderline source for adding content in wikipedias voice on the positive actions of the catholic church, it an obviously bad source for that. Its like reading the HR docs from Google and adding that they are a world leader in diversity issues. Also taking it to the talk page doesn't do any good if you are just going to argue about its merits even if it has none, then take it to RSN and hope it scrapes by with people not reading to close on what you want to use it for. How about instead you take 3 months off of Catholic articles and just write for the WIR and show that you can step away from Church issues. From the look of it after you were TBANNED from one catholic article you just moved on to another.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, Well, I would say that a liturgy textbook published by a prominent seminary is of known authority. That aside, this is the type of source I would be taking to talk first. Also, I've been editing Catholicism-related articles for years, well before the ban. Finally, as noted above, I have taken time off from articles when things started to get heated. Ultimately, though, we will never know if I am able to or not until I am allowed to try. Maybe I'll fail miserably. The ban can be reinstated. Maybe I'll prove myself. Only one way to find out. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is my point, that is not a source that would need to be taken to talk. I am not seeing anything new just more stretching of catholic sources. It should be obvious that a textbook does not have authority over the actions of a bishop and other priests in a working diocese, let alone the church entire. Even if it was it would still not be a source that the church is following its own precepts in practice. You have had plenty of time to prove yourself and it is your actions we are judging now.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not just sourcing. It's the related problem that, editing subjects that are so important to you, your edits are regularly failing DUE WEIGHT. Detail that may be of sources of great pride and interest to you are not considered noteworthy by mainstream sources. None of the talk page discussions of this problem resulted in any improvement while you were active. ..we will never know if I am able to or not - that may be true, but that experiment not the overriding goal of the community. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the ban Responding to Guy above. I'm not going to comment on the Stop the Church article. However, I'm noticing on the Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS talk page there was a lot of discussion between Slugger, Almost Francis, and Contaldo80 in about 12 different sections out of about 14 sections. Reading through these talk page sections shows the editing was contentious between Slugger on one side of the issue and the other two editors on the other side of the issue. I recommend editors read at least some of these discussions.

Then, moving down to three other sections entitled Fancruft, Major cuts, and Liturgy Training Publications Kasza source. for me seems to be very revealing about how Slugger edits and how he supports the use of poor sourcing and perhaps edits in a way that biases the article. I don't have time or space to go through all the details here, but reading through these three sections indicates how little Slugger's editing style has changed. So, based on these observations I cannot recommend lifting the ban.

I have to agree with the above - there is no demonstrated understanding of NPOV, and this user does not understand or refuses to get the point (IDHT) regarding affiliated sources. Also, this editor generally engages in tendentious editing especially to maintain poor sourcing, maintain affiliated sourcing, and support UNDUE weighted material. This editor has over and over demonstrated "a very obvious emotional commitment to a specific view of these topics." per JzG above ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion seems to be trending against me. There were people I specifically pinged to bring into the conversation that I knew would never support removing the ban. I pinged them anyway. I knew it wouldn't help my cause, and I was right, but I thought they should have the right to weigh in anyway. Then I read Steve Quinn's comments. I have found Steve to be about one of the most levelheaded and reasonable editors I've ever had the pleasure of working with. I don't think he has all the details and all the history behind some of the discussions he references but, if that's the way he feels, then it is probably best for me to withdraw my request. I am going to reflect on all the comments here further but, in the meantime, ask that my appeal be withdrawn. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• I was going to oppose lifting the topic ban, but instead I will commend the editor for withdrawing this appeal. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Backlog on WP:RFPP

There's a bunch of entries that need looking at, including one I'd tackle myself had I not been edit warring in it (haha)--List of lynching victims in the United States. There's a concerted effort by what appears to be one editor who's IP hopping around to insert a long list of recent black victims of police violence, an effort that is not gaining traction in the history or on the talk page. See the talk page, where they propose a political/OR argument; look also at their edit summaries and comments: you'd never guess there were different IP addresses associated with those edits. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I did that one; will try a couple of others at RFPP. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Valery Tsepkalo

I need help. The article about Valery Tsepkalo (this is the new Pro-Russian candidate for President of Belarus) is protected from any criticism by two participants: Brigh7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Yury.vait (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The other day, the media wrote that the article was being cleared of criticism (the publication was about a Russian article, but the participants are the same). Please take the article under review and add it to your watch list. Thanks.--VladMamul (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request review for AlexanderHovanec

AlexanderHovanec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

(User still globally locked, but that's for the stewards on Meta.)

User has an extensive history of declined unblock requests, socking, resocking, and declined UTRS appeals. Not all of them visible to reviewing eyes. Many of those UTRS appeals are no longer available, making it harder to evaluate. Most recently, I declined UTRS 30529 and responded thusly: :

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. Please describe how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked.

To be unblocked you must address your edit warring and your use of photos. You must agree to 1RR-- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Other_revert_rules

You must agree to not add images to Misplaced Pages. If you are unblocked on Commons, you must not upload images there for use on Misplaced Pages.

You also have created concerns about sourcing, especially on biographies of living persons. You must address your adding of unsourced poorly and unsourced content to Misplaced Pages.

Please read Misplaced Pages's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks)

Your account is globally locked. Should you successfully request unblock on en.wiki, you will still need to ask the Stewards-- stewardswikimedia.org.to unlock your account.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

User then responded agreeably to my conditions in UTRS 30600 thusly

I will: - Abstain from reverting edits (edit warring) - Stop uploading pictures on Commons to be used on Misplaced Pages - Be strict with my sources and abstain from adding irrelevant information - Listen to any instructions given by administrators - Never sock-puppet again (I haven’t sock-puppeted in roughly a year and I’ll continue to not sock-puppet.)

I gave it some time (~24 hours) to await further input and then unblocked, but it was brought to my attention afterward that WP:THREESTRIKES probably applies. (Not immediately obvious in reviewing of talk page.) So I seek confirmation or rejection of my decision to unblock. I don't know how user would reply as globally locked. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 02:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Request If the unblock is overturned, could someone please indicate on user talk page that he is CBANned with a permalink to this discussion? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 11:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reading their talk page and the reasons for blocks (Copyvios, BLP vios, socking, socking and more socking), I don't think I'd trust this user for 5 minutes. Additionally, the previous 2 blocking admins expressed concern which gives me pause; unless they agree I would not support. The global lock seems rather lame (blocked on Commons, blocked on enWiki, flooding UTRS), so I don't put much stock into that. I think I would feel better if a CU could confirm a clean sock record. But before I could support (if ever), I would need a better reason than just agreeing to your terms; they must state how they will do it within the appropriate policies, and then state a convincing understanding of each policy. Their current agreement is most unconvincing. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, this is precisely the problem I have. With previously dealing with this editor, they would frequently say one thing, and then get caught doing the exact opposite elsewhere if you watched his edits. Sometimes with block evading, sometimes with things as simple as agreeing to not make unsourced edits, and then proceeding to make additions to an article without adding a source. And then he’d argue with you at length, about things like this where it was clear as day that he was lying. It makes it very difficult to trust him. Sergecross73 msg me 04:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm open to the possibility of him being unblocked with editing restrictions, but I would also like better examples of what he plans to work on and how. As for trusting him, it's difficult. He constructed stories and identities behind several socks, claiming different names, ages, genders, locations, background such as working in various industries and attending different schools, UTRS claims of visiting this friend or that friend and being caught unfairly in sweeps of someone they "never heard of", being sisters, brothers, and everything in between. It was elaborate and calculated and went on for at least a year. I like to believe in giving people a chance and redeeming blocked editors but it's difficult on this one. -- ferret (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's been over two years and he still wants to come back, so maturity should be taken into consideration. I had good interactions with the editor during his time here, and in this case believe that another chance is warranted. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

TBAN for User:Cwf97 from creating categories

• Cwf97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am here to propose that User:Cwf97 receive the equivalent to a topic ban from creating categories. Since 2018, this user has created 956 categories, 123 of which have been deleted (12.9%), with dozens more at CFD right now, now that this pattern of behavior has been brought to attention. This user spends their time creating and populating elaborate category trees like CFD:Sequel video games by decade, CFD:Video game franchises by year of disestablishment, and CFD:Feature films by year. A brief spot check of their remaining category creations reveals tons of categories/category trees that would likely not survive CFD like Category:Film series endings by year. All attempts to get this user to engage on the talk page (e.g. 1 2 3) have failed and user has only made 8 edits in the User talk namespace and 10 edits in the Misplaced Pages talk namespace. Even after these warnings, the editor appears to be continuing their great work at a rapid clip, making dozens or hundreds of edits a day to add their categories to mainspace articles. Considering their misfire rate (cf. WP:CIR), this editor is being extremely disruptive and creating a tremendous amount of work for other editors to clean up after them. For these reasons, I am proposing a community sanctioned topic ban on category creation for this user. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the partial block can be used here on the category namespace? I think that's how the PB can work, and unless Cwf97 replies to explain, then this can be done straight away. Lugnuts 06:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I second Lugnuts' proposal. A TBAN is unlikely to elicit meaningful communication from the user; a partial block just might. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A partial block here would only block changes to, or creations of, category pages. It would not prevent the user from adding arbitrary (red-linked) categories to pages, which is the more disruptive factor to handle, and would still result in wasting time at CFD or elsewhere to deal with the task. A full block or the editor obeying a topic ban from categorization are what is necessary to prevent further disruption. I think it is reasonable to say the latter will only result in a full block as soon as the editor resumes any editing, so I think we should levy the full block and let the user appeal to the community. --Izno (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Have any red links (or deleted) categories been added or are people assuming bad faith? Peter James (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support: TBAN or partial block. I actually filed a report about exactly this a year ago, but it was largely ignored except for a couple of snarky responses from Guy Macon and Cjhard that were later dug up and used as dirt against me in an unrelated conflict (but I digress).

If you check the ANI report linked, you will see that Cwf97 has an extensive history of creating copious amounts of non-notable categories and adding them to articles. They have received floods of notices, which are universally ignored. The user also refuses to use edit summaries or interact with anyone. They briefly started interacting with other users after they were warned about it, but then immediately went right back to their previous state of obliviousness. At this point in time, Cwf97 should have better familarised themselves with category notability and should know that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort. DarkKnight2149 11:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support CIR Block. TBAN is just going to result in one anyway. After the latest spurt of categories resulted in dozens of CFDs (some combined), I gave him a warning about his continued refusal to stop, even when pinged to discussions. He disappeared a few days, then came back and started again, with a new CFD being opened almost immediately. I'm not convinced a PBAN will accomplish anything except to stop the direct creation of categories. My feel is the user will just add them as redlinks, but who knows. The user's disappearing behavior leads me to suspect he does read warnings, and tries to let the heat cool and avoid scrutiny. -- ferret (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

If they just add redlink categories, and continue to do so, then they'd likely be banned for good, as WP:REDNOT states you should not do this. Lugnuts 14:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support CIR block per ferret. Also going to add that I think Cwf97 might be a sock of CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was banned in 2014. They've been caught socking like 35 times in the last five or six years, and Cwf97's behavior is reminiscent of theirs. JOEBRO64 14:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Their talkpage shows what a lot of constructive editors' time and patience this user is wasting. They are aware of having a talkpage — they responded some in 2018, to Berean Hunter telling them that communication is required and ongoingly for a couple of months... then stopped. And did not slow down in creating inappropriate categories. The user may mean well, but they're a complete net negative to the encyclopedia. I read through the ANI thread from November 2019 with the snarky comments that DarkKnight2149 mentions above: there you have ANI at its worst. Sorry about that, DarkKnight, and please don't let's ignore the problem again, everybody. I too support a CIR block. Bishonen | tålk 14:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC).

Well, crap, apparently the spelling in DarkKnight's sig is wrong and won't generate a ping. That's... kind of boring. Pinging User:Darkknight2149 again. Bishonen | tålk 14:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC).

• Support I have seen this issue from a distance and gone to undo excessive category edits on pages I follow, to see that someone has thankfully done it before me. Of course, this just means that the problems created by the user are enraging more people than are needed to actually fix them. Unnecessary, tries to avoid culpability by not engaging, apparently not being aware blocks can be imposed for such disruptive behavior. Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support CIR Block - the WP:NOTHERE behavior is unlikely to change, and they are merely acting like a troll. No reason to have patience for that kind of behavior._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• There's no trolling; looks like this is in the wrong section. Peter James (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Ban. I understand WP:COUNTITIS as much as anyone but when an editor does not respond to any of the posts on their talk page they make it clear that they do not wish to be part of the community. Zxcvbnm is probably correct that a CIR block is in the cards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support TBAN based on the astonishing number of trivial categories created, the continual disruption and extra work this causes via CFD discussions, and CIR. I was initially inclined to Ivote for a CIR block. But I think this editor should be given a shot at correcting their behavior after the wake-up call that would result from a TBAN. The editor has shown a capability for editing proficiently, but not effectively to say the least. Also, I have to agree this will probably end up a CIR block, even after a TBAN. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd like to see a 'communication is required' indefinite block here, and while I share the suspicions that this user is CensoredScribe (reasonable overlap of topics, problematic categorization, and the communication issues), this editor has been editing since multiple CU-checks of CensoredScribe have identified socks of CS, so I'm not confident that these users are the same. --Izno (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Sorry. I support CIR block based on my above response, and lack of communication. I can't see how a TBAN will alter this person editing behavior. They can demonstrate a commitment to change on appeal if so desired. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support In the beginning I saw this user work very hard on Categorization and appreciated that (even gave them a Barnstar for it!) but recently I have seen them create tons upon tons of obvioulsy not helpful categories and I have to agree with a topic ban, but if it is shown that they are indeed a sockpuppet then I would say a complete ban from the site.★Trekker (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Most categories created recently are not bad; Dead by Daylight characters looks like it's too trivial, and there were also the categories by year of disestablishment or ending (but they created the first a few months ago and as they had not been deleted at the time it was reasonable to assume that new ones could be acceptable). Feature film categories were being created as early as 16 April by EuanB2000 (now blocked for trolling unrelated to categories, films or video games) but it was only on 16 May, when Cwf97 created a few of these, that they were nominated for deletion. Categories for sequel films by year were started by another editor last month, and only continued by Cwf97. Sequel films by decade were created in 2016, most of them by an editor who has now been autopatrolled for more than ten years, but after Cwf97 created a category for the current decade it looks like this categorisation will be deleted and sequels will only be in subcategories by nationality of companies that made the film (an outcome that would be more detrimental than creation of the year categories but is supported by some editors who have participated in this discussion). Other categories may be too trivial but if one category has survived for some time it's reasonable to expect that similar categories are acceptable. Peter James (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Today's AfD list

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joel (The Last of Us) is effecting the alignment on todays list, can't quite see it to fix, something with that html block quote code I think. Govvy (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed I think, the big list containing all the blockquotes started with a <ul> tag for an unordered list and then ended with an </ol> tag for an ordered list. Not sure why that particular error ended up causing an indent specifically, but fixing it has made it go away. ~ mazca 11:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

An arbitration case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
• CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
• Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
• QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 15:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

Review of the indefinite block of Cesdeva

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

I have placed an indefinite block on the user Cesdeva. This user is not a new editor: they have edited Misplaced Pages since June 2013, have more than 2500 edits, and have access to the new page reviewer toolset. Despite their experience, they have deliberately defaced certain Misplaced Pages articles as a means of protesting the killing of George Floyd on three occasions: first on the Donald Trump article on May 28 , next on the United States article on May 28 , and again on the United States article today . When doing this, they use misleading edit summaries, such as "typo", "minor reword", and "wikitext render fix". When asked about these edits, they have defended them: see .

On May 28, 2020, they were blocked indefinitely by admin Galobtter (talk · contribs) for this behavior. However, 16 hours later, they were unilaterally unblocked by admin Golbez (talk · contribs), who believed the indefinite block was "premature"—see unblock discussion. Because the user has now continued to vandalize Misplaced Pages after being unblocked, I have reinstated the block. Because this is a relatively experienced editor, and because a similar block of this user has been reversed by another administrator in the past, I would like to voluntarily list this block for community review here at AN. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think perhaps the first indef was a bit much, perhaps a 48-72 hour block would have sufficed, but still warranted as they were clearly editing to "protest", and if nothing done after that, all well and good. Going right back to what got them blocked however warrants the indef for now. In say a month after emotions have cooled from recent events, I would welcome an unblock from the editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Original indef block was fine. AGF unblock was fine. Reblock is fine. Even Cesdeva's outrage is fine (though I question the benefit of his choice of protest). RiB's idea that an unblock in the future would be reasonable is fine. I don't mean "fine" as in that cartoon (that I can't find a link to right now) where everything is actually burning, but an actual non-ironic "fine". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Cesdeva: Oh come on. Many of us are outraged by the Killing of George Floyd. I see no benefit to defacing this encyclopedia as an act of protest. The perpetrators of that outrage are in no way bothered or inconvenienced by your "protests". Please conduct your activism off Misplaced Pages where it might do some good. When you are again ready to help build the world's largest free-content encyclopedia, please let us know. Feel free to use your time away from WIkipedia engaged in any lawful pursuit you please. In case anyone is wondering, I am fine with Floquenbeam's response above. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Salt their earth. I gave them a chance and they do this? No. Go away. --Golbez (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Cesdeva: Working on the articles that document the abuses is a more effective way to draw attention to the abuses. Your vandalism gets reverted in two seconds and nobody will ever remember it. But an article you help write will be here forever. Levivich  22:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• What Floq said. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Immature, ineffective protest. Good block. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Emotions are running high right now (see my interchange with another vandalizing editor at User talk:Darcklighting) but there's a limit to how far we should go to allow acting out. Good block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Per my comments there at the time, the original indef block was fine and the AGF unblock was unwarranted when nothing but bad faith had been expressed. Per today's comment, the user is still rationalizing even while under indef: Let's be honest here i could have done far worse like running AWB spam scripts or replacing templates that fall short of TE protection. Your honor, I could have done so much worse and didn't. Stellar block. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Unusual case of WP:CIR. Indef block was required. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• As much as I approve of vandalizing articles about Trump, it doesn't help. Here is a list of articles that can be brought up to GA and expanded in support of George Floyd and as a fuck you to America's woefully racist system. Praxidicae (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Praxidicae, New Study Says White Police Officers Are Not More Likely To Shoot Minority Suspects Sir Joseph 00:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand the desire to prematurely bring these matters to AN. If these blocks and unblocks are so controversial, then they will naturally find their way here. Further, I do not find the block or reblock to to be out of line; however, I do find the unblock by Golbez to be questionable, as it shows a lack of familiarity with what "indef" means and how it is used, despite their comments saying otherwise. Their haughty comment about being here longer than Mandruss is quite unnecessary as well. Nihlus 23:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nihlus, I think it was brought to AN preemptively to avoid concerns of wheel-warring (which is an absolute no-no). creffett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Per Praxidicae and Levivich. There are right ways and wrong ways to protest on Misplaced Pages. Defacing articles makes us look immature. Expanding articles and working to right our well-documented systemic bias helps everybody. Good block. creffett (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on adding edit filter to Facebook links

There is currently a RfC on the Reliable sources noticeboard about whether Facebook links should be a subject to an edit filter, and/or be added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. Your comments would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards