Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard |
|---|
|
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Noticeboard archives
Open tasks[edit]
|
Other administrative tasks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did SharabSalam call me a "pro-Trump, pro-Saudi troll"?[edit]
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 Wikipedia 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)
- WikiHannibal, where did I call you a Saudi troll? I said the source [2] 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 [3]. 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, 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 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)
- I think it was the "how coincidental" part. PackMecEng (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- And where does that says that he is a Saudi troll?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like in the first dif they gave where you said
- 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 "[4]" 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)
- How dumb do you think we are?--Jorm (talk) 19:01, 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 "[4]" You cant block me when I havent made any personal attack.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 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)
- 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)
- Possible boomrange?: Can someone also look at the history page? WikiHannibal made a bold edit, got reverted, he reverted, and again. I thought Wikipedia 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 [5]? --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[6] 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)
Note - This user got renamed, possibly courtesy vanishing. Interstellarity (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Proposed topic ban from Saudi Arabia[edit]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 Wikipedia 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? Atsme 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)
- Tony - is this his first t-ban? I'm not seeing a time frame - maybe 3 or 6 mos if his first? Atsme Talk 📧 00:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have not called anyone a Saudi agent. Read my comment. I said there are Saudi agents in that Wikipedia. Which is possible since they have agents in Twitter who were spying on Americans [7].--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 [Barbaria"], 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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)
- 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)
- 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 [Barbaria"], 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)
- 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
anon Islam TBAN. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra - I have literally used that word once on Wikipedia 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)
- Note: I oppose
- 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 Wikipedia should not take punitive action against those Catholic editors (unless an extreme case occurred); and as a non-Muslim, I also believe that Wikipedia 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)
- Note: YUEdits has made fewer than 500 contributions to Wikipedia, dating to 2017, and this is their first ever post to any administrator noticeboard. They've only edited 1 article talk page and 1 other noticeboard. Interesting, I would say. starship.paint (talk) 04:08, 4 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.[8] 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 Wikipedia system. I have been so nice with Alaa. See my talk page in Arabic Wikipedia!. 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 Wikipedia. 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.[9] I have been blocked in Arabic Wikipedia because of the username only, nothing about my contributions. I wasn't able to speak English very well when I joined English Wikipedia but I just joined because every edit I make in Arabic Wikipedia is being reverted. Most articles in Arabic Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)
- 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 Wikipedia system. I have been so nice with Alaa. See my talk page in Arabic Wikipedia!. 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 Wikipedia. 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.[9] I have been blocked in Arabic Wikipedia because of the username only, nothing about my contributions. I wasn't able to speak English very well when I joined English Wikipedia but I just joined because every edit I make in Arabic Wikipedia is being reverted. Most articles in Arabic Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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
- 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)
- 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.[8] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. — MarkH21talk 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 [[10] --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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 03:07, 3 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)
- 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 (talk) 22:36, 2 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.link (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)
- 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. Atsme 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)
- Oppose per SarahSV and MJL. Furthermore, I have stated above, I do not believe the meta.wiki comment was targeted at anyone in particular (of that discussion). Let's also remember that this dispute started with the OP labeling Jamal Khashoggi as a Muslim Brotherhood "sympathizer". What we should be doing, if SharabSalam ever returns, is to have them clearly state the targets of their criticism every time. starship.paint (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vanishing[edit]
- Note: User:Sotiale (not an admin) moved the user page and talk page of User:SharabSalam. I was able to undo the talk page move, but the user page, not so much. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- My subsequent follow-up comment was lost in an edit conflict. While I realize this is a courtesy vanishing, it’s a highly irregular one, given the ongoing conversation, and that it was requested from a WMF steward. I’d prefer Sotiale justify why they did so. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Global renames are often requested in private. Sotiale does not need to "justify" anything. ST47 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- ST47, for the record, I don’t have an issue with user vanishing. But as I understand it, these sorts of things are not to be done with a user’s conduct being discussed on a noticeboard. My issue here is with a WMF steward acting out of process. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Look, Sotiale is Korean and doesn’t really edit this project. He had no reason to know that this was in the middle of a sanctions discussion or that the user was already under sanctions. The simple solution is to reverse the vanishing, because you are correct, he isn’t entitled to one while under sanctions or being discussed at a noticeboard. It’s not big deal. These things happen on a global website. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Let me tell you something: English Wikipedia is not the center of Wikimedia-sphere and we (S and GRNs) do not need to check for every project/every contribs every time to check stuff before acting on something. Vanish runs on honor systems: we assume good faith and act on bad faiths if found. — regards, Revi 03:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would expect a Steward to be familiar with policy and understanding that they may not be the best individual to process certain items at times. We have a plethora of renamers, especially ones whose home wiki is enwiki. There is hardly ever an instance where renames need to be processed immediately. I will be reversing the rename soon, unless anyone can think of a reason not to. Nihlus 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think if you reverse the rename that would be good and would also be the end of the discussion on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I know this is a tangent, but I'm confused; how is User:Nihlus going to undo the rename? They aren't a steward or a global renamer. Tony's reply makes me think they can, and I'm missing something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Why would anyone want to reverse his vanishing? He wants to leave. Let him go. SarahSV (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, it is against global policy to rename someone who is embroiled in controversy and who may be using the rename to obfuscate their conduct. Floquenbeam, I am a global renamer and have been for sometime now. Anyway, the rename has been reversed. Nihlus 03:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ah yes, let us not only make English Wikipedia more myopic and parochial, but let's do it in the most tortuous way possible. Forgive me for actually reading WP:VANISH, but there it says: "Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently. As such, it might not be extended to users who have been disruptive, who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned." That unless clause (combined with the 'might not' in the following sentence) tells me this is something you chose to do. That's fine. I am entitled to think you're a bad person for doing so. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- He isn't "embroiled in controversy". WP:VANISH is poorly written, but my understanding is: don't do this to wriggle out of trouble temporarily; you do have to intend to leave. SarahSV (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, it is against global policy to rename someone who is embroiled in controversy and who may be using the rename to obfuscate their conduct. Floquenbeam, I am a global renamer and have been for sometime now. Anyway, the rename has been reversed. Nihlus 03:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Why would anyone want to reverse his vanishing? He wants to leave. Let him go. SarahSV (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I know this is a tangent, but I'm confused; how is User:Nihlus going to undo the rename? They aren't a steward or a global renamer. Tony's reply makes me think they can, and I'm missing something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think if you reverse the rename that would be good and would also be the end of the discussion on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would expect a Steward to be familiar with policy and understanding that they may not be the best individual to process certain items at times. We have a plethora of renamers, especially ones whose home wiki is enwiki. There is hardly ever an instance where renames need to be processed immediately. I will be reversing the rename soon, unless anyone can think of a reason not to. Nihlus 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- ST47, for the record, I don’t have an issue with user vanishing. But as I understand it, these sorts of things are not to be done with a user’s conduct being discussed on a noticeboard. My issue here is with a WMF steward acting out of process. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Global renames are often requested in private. Sotiale does not need to "justify" anything. ST47 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- My subsequent follow-up comment was lost in an edit conflict. While I realize this is a courtesy vanishing, it’s a highly irregular one, given the ongoing conversation, and that it was requested from a WMF steward. I’d prefer Sotiale justify why they did so. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The reason for the norm to be declining a vanishing in the middle of a sanctions discussion is that people who vanish in the middle of sanctions discussions usually aren't actually vanishing. They're usually trying to set up for an invalid clean start and will be back. Because of that, the vanishing policy both locally and on meta is traditionally read similar to the en.wiki WP:CLEANSTART policy since despite the wording saying vanishing is not a clean start, they tend to be linked in practice.
It keeps things cleaner if you wait until after it is over, and easier to figure out who is under sanctions and who isn't if they do come back in another incarnation. Basically, I do agree with reversing this, but I think we could have better explained the reasoning behind it besides global policy says so. I think there's a good reason for that norm, but its not intuitive if you don't work in the area.
Basically, my understanding of VANISH is that if you wouldn't otherwise be eligible to clean start, you shouldn't be vanished. There is of course wiggle room and grey areas, but I don't think they really apply here since it isn't a real name account or one with privacy concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Addendum: m:Global rename policy is a bit clearer on this saying that in seeking a rename
The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct.
which is another reason turning down requests during sanctions discussions has become more of a normal way of handling it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)- TonyBallioni, so renaming and vanishing are now the same procedure? One sort of anticipates further contribution from the editor. One does not, no? Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Vanishing is done using the rename function, so normally the global rename policy is applied. Like I said, there's also a sometimes spoken sometimes unspoken assumption that rage quits happen, and are more likely to happen when someone is under stress of being discussed at a noticeboard. Eventually a lot of the people who try to vanish when there's controversy come back. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni, so renaming and vanishing are now the same procedure? One sort of anticipates further contribution from the editor. One does not, no? Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Nihlus, where does meta:Global rename policy say anything that meant this vanishing had to be reversed? SarahSV (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 5) Dumuzid, there is quite a bit in WP:VANISH as well as m:Global rename policy that explains what renaming is not to be used for. The main takeaway though is that the user is a user in good standing and that renaming ... might not be extended to users ... who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned. So yes, this is something that I, in agreement with the original renamer and Tony, chose to do in accordance with policy. I disagree with your need to personally attack me and request that you remove it. Thank you. SlimVirgin, the fact that a topic ban is being discussed on AN means a rename would be under controversial circumstances. And this is something that we avoid for obvious reasons, as mentioned in my previous comment. I left more comments on the user's talk page prior to renaming. There is nothing that said it had to be reversed. The original renamer said it was okay to reverse, and two global renamers agreed that it should be reversed. The original request had no mention of privacy concerns, so there wasn't any need to look into it further. Nihlus 03:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Nihlus, I am sure you are a wonderful person in your day-to-day life, and probably on Wikipedia as well. I have drawn a conclusion regarding your specific conduct here. Do what you want with that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Nihlus, when this has closed, we should discuss at Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing how to avoid this kind of situation in future. The local guideline should apply. SarahSV (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, the local policies should and do apply in this situation. If, after this discussion, SharabSalam would like to vanish and is eligible, then I will be happy to process it for him at that time. Nihlus 05:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Renamer note As a renamer, I can tell you that SharabSalam is probably "under a cloud" and probably should not have been vanished. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Reversing the rename/vanishing, while defensible by policy, was a mistake. Nothing is gained by keeping someone here who wants to walk away. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Then you should change the policy at WP:VANISH, until then it was the correct decision. A bit of nuance would explain that this policy is not about keeping people but letting obviously malicious editors ineligible for courtesy vanishes so they can resume their behaviour with a new account. Requesting vaishing in the middle of a sanction discussion is basically running away from criticism and community sanctions, hence quite clearly VANISH does not apply. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, except that I don't believe we are dealing here with an "obviously malicious editor." Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm aware yes, but where do you draw the line on "malicious", that's the spirit of the policy and the only way to enforce the spirit is by enforcing the letter. If there was no sanction discussion where proponents supported the sanction, it would be per policy but again, that's not the case here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
the only way to enforce the spirit is by enforcing the letter
What? WP:IAR and WP:5P5 seem to suggest that's not the case. This just sounds like wikilawyering for a reason to punish someone who wants to leave. Also, if anyone who argues too passionately and discourteously for a topic they care about is now "malicious" under your definition, you might want to go see our "malicious" community trustee that just got a TBAN for similar conduct. Wherever the grey line of bad faith editing is, we're clearly very far away from it. — Wug·a·po·des 21:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)- It's not a grey line, it's a grey area - if we allowed a repeat evader to vanish would that be okay? What about an editor who has been blocked for a day? What about someone in the middle of an arbitration request where they are a party? If you wish to invoke WP:IAR, so be it, but presenting thousands of alternative cases and not applying policy as it's meant to be is your cross to bear (go for it, it makes no difference to me either way). Not once did I state that SharabShalam is malicious and I don't know why both of you would misconstrue it as so, I am simply stating the intent of why RTV is disallowed in some cases. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- QEDK, here's how I view it. Someone wants to vanish, fine, they get to vanish. As long as they're not some prolific vandal or something (and SharabSalam is not, regardless of whether any of us might agree or disagree with him) then let them go. Once. Whatever shit they may happen to be in at that point. "I choose to walk away" should always be an option.
- If they return with an attempted clean start, then they can declare that, and we can look at it case by case. Guy (help!) 20:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @QEDK: It's not that you said they were malicious, but you brought up a point about maliciousness in a case where it supposedly did not apply. If you don't believe Sharab is malicious, why do we need to argue about where the line is? Since Sharab was editing in good faith, if the spirit is avoiding harm from malicious users, then not following the letter better complies with the spirit. My point is and was that focusing on the specific letter of the policy isn't helpful. As Nil Einne explains below, it's not even clear that the wording you point to has particularly broad consensus.Despite the page name, I (and perhaps others) view this as a right not a courtesy. The meatball:RightToVanish essay was the basis for our early vanishing policy and--along with Barnstars and Assume Good Faith--the right to vanish represents one of the oldest parts of our community. SarahSV created our RTV policy page in 2007, copying it from meta. Meta's right to vanish was created in 2004 and was spun out from our first privacy policy where it was added by an IP in 2003. People change, communities change, and risks change. Unlike social media accounts or blogs, if we change our mind and want to abandon our connection to the content we've created, Wikipedians cannot simply delete our accounts or content (and people used to do that on wikis: c2:WikiMindWipe). As a matter of privacy and decency, we should afford good faith editors the right to renounce their connection to their contributions through vanishing should they choose to leave our project permanently. If we need to reverse the vanishing later so be it, but either way all the important stuff is kept. We gain nothing from a weak right to vanish but stand to lose a lot without a strong one. — Wug·a·po·des 07:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's not a grey line, it's a grey area - if we allowed a repeat evader to vanish would that be okay? What about an editor who has been blocked for a day? What about someone in the middle of an arbitration request where they are a party? If you wish to invoke WP:IAR, so be it, but presenting thousands of alternative cases and not applying policy as it's meant to be is your cross to bear (go for it, it makes no difference to me either way). Not once did I state that SharabShalam is malicious and I don't know why both of you would misconstrue it as so, I am simply stating the intent of why RTV is disallowed in some cases. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm aware yes, but where do you draw the line on "malicious", that's the spirit of the policy and the only way to enforce the spirit is by enforcing the letter. If there was no sanction discussion where proponents supported the sanction, it would be per policy but again, that's not the case here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, except that I don't believe we are dealing here with an "obviously malicious editor." Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm with NYB here. I agree this is all within the letter of policy, but I'm saddened that we couldn't just let him go as he apparently wishes. And no, this is someone who has problems with their interactions with others, but I really don't think there's any malicious intent. Oh well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Then you should change the policy at WP:VANISH, until then it was the correct decision. A bit of nuance would explain that this policy is not about keeping people but letting obviously malicious editors ineligible for courtesy vanishes so they can resume their behaviour with a new account. Requesting vaishing in the middle of a sanction discussion is basically running away from criticism and community sanctions, hence quite clearly VANISH does not apply. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I am very much of the view that the harder we make it for people to leave with dignity, the more we stoke resentment and invite further abuse. If someone wants to leave, let them. Honestly. This is not some vandal we need to keep track of long term abuse. I've had my run-ins with him but this just makes us look spiteful. Sorry, I know that's harsh, but - well, just let the guy leave. Guy (help!) 20:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- All of you do realize that you can leave anyway right, without executing a RTV? If someone wants to leave, all they need to do is scramble their password. RTV is just so you can be renamed into some gibberish and possibly have a clean start, edit history and talk pages are always preserved anyway, so the fact that a few more things are retained has literally no bearing on a clean start and is mostly extended as a courtesy to editors in good standing (in case of SharabSalam, that's unclear, since they were the subject of a sanction discussion at the time of requesting RTV). Hope that clarifies it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @qedk: SharabSalam has had an active sanction against him since before this discussion started (linked above), so there is very little chance of him being an eligible for a clean start (without explicit invocation of WP:IAR or something).
Regarding the RTV/leaving thing, I'd just let people say what they're going to say. If people want to express their positive opinion of an editor or opine that a certain and specific courtesy should've been shown to them on their way out, then I can't see that doing any harm. At the end of the day, the policy has still been followed. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC) - But people can have strong attachments to their user names, especially if they have been used outside Wikipedia, and often even when they aren't. So even when an account name cannot be easily tied to a real name, demanding that we keep unnecessary connections seems, well unnecessary. Both WP:RTV makes it clear that editors who have engaged in that process cannot undergo a clean start. If they want to return, their vanishing is liable to be reversed or at least their connection to the old account will need to be clearly disclosed and will be considered in any request to return to editing. I think that's fair enough too. And as others have said, when the it's necessary to keep that connection so help us in tracking them e.g. for a known sock, sure it's fair enough that RTV is denied. But I agree with others that it's not clear why it was needed in this case. There seems to be no benefit to us, but there is potential harm to both us and the editor involved. Note that I have no real feelings about the editor either way. I just don't see any reason why we need to keep the unnecessary stuff when there is no apparent need to track them anymore and we already make it clear that if you later decide to return you will need to come back under you original identity so your return can be properly assessed. But until then, if you want to stay away, and you do stay away, then we're not going to keep unnecessary connections. The edit history, AN//I discussions etc will be preserved as they need to be and always will be. The other stuff especially the username in the editor history, we can remove. The most confusing thing to me about this is I'm fairly sure I've seen RTV afforded to editors who are under strong sanction e.g. an indef block, or I think even a community ban or arbcom ban afforded the RTV in the past. Also some where the vanishing does risk causing problems i.e. an editor with a known sock history. And indeed a read Wikipedia talk:Courtesy vanishing/Archive 1 seems to agree with me. Have we gotten a lot stricter recently, or is it just that because this editor decided to RTV when they were under discussion and therefore additional scrutiny, even if it seemed clear that any outcome would be no worse than when we normally allow RTV, they were treated different? P.S. If you check out that page, User:Risker's comments back in 2016 [11] are similar to how I feel now. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes, Nil Einne, and MJL: As I've explained before, it's just how WP:RTV is written, do I have a personal opinion? Not really - because as I said, it's not a big deal. People's attachments to their usernames are also not a big deal, if you wish to execute RTV then that attachment becomes irrelevant. It's equivalent to wanting it both ways, ensuring that things you do aren't tied to your username as well being able to wipe your history (to a limited extent). The way I see it is WP:RTV is a courtesy and if you feel that's not how it should be then you should propose changing it, what's not OK is justifying written policy with arbitrary notions. Should the RTV policy be more lenient? Maybe, whether the community feels that way should be debated in a RfC and not at an AN thread. I'm sure there have been cases where RTV has been done on a indeffed account because someone didn't read through WP:RTV or just straight-up invoked WP:IAR but that's never a suitable reason to subvert policy. What I do agree with is what Wugs' said here,
As a matter of privacy and decency, we should afford good faith editors the right to renounce their connection to their contributions through vanishing should they choose to leave our project permanently.
And I believe the real question lies in identifying "good" faith and whether sanctioned or under-a-cloud editors apply for the same. So, the real crux of the issue comes down to the letter of the policy and as it stands now, it's not something we can or should resolve unilaterally. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)- We're not resolving it unilaterally; we're having a discussion about it because it was dealt with unilaterally when the renaming was reversed. I struggle to find in the text of that policy such a strict interpretation as you seem to understand. As Sarah has discussed above, nothing in the text requires we deny vanishing to those "under a cloud" or even indefinitely blocked users. Consider:
Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently
(emphasis added). From my understanding of what "unless" means, it seems plain that what I and others have said is squarely within the text. Similarly,it might not be extended to users...who leave when they lose the trust of the community...
(emphasis added). From my understanding of what "might" means, it does not denote a requirement but rather a description of what could happen. The meta policy is arguably less restrictive. Saying that we need to propose a change is nonsense; we've advocated an interpretation that is squarely within the literal meaning of current policy text and given historical evidence for the spirit of the policy which led to the development of the current text. — Wug·a·po·des 19:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)- That's a deliberate misinterpretation to suit your viewpoint, you are saying
because it was dealt with unilaterally
by Nihlus whilst chipping away at the "might" of the guideline (it might not be extended to users...who leave when they lose the trust of the community...
) as if to say what Nihlus did was not justified in the guidelines prescribed in WP:RTV, the fact is that as a global renamer they have the discretion to carry out or reverse renames and your misinterpretation of WP:RTV to be permissive more than it's supposed does not mean their actions were misaligned with policy. In cases where it's unclear and actions are probably in a grey area, the correct step is to go back to status quo and not go through with it anyway, which is what Nihlus did, then the discussions can resume on whether the action was correct or not. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:58, 11 June 2020 (UTCl
- That's a deliberate misinterpretation to suit your viewpoint, you are saying
- We're not resolving it unilaterally; we're having a discussion about it because it was dealt with unilaterally when the renaming was reversed. I struggle to find in the text of that policy such a strict interpretation as you seem to understand. As Sarah has discussed above, nothing in the text requires we deny vanishing to those "under a cloud" or even indefinitely blocked users. Consider:
- @Wugapodes, Nil Einne, and MJL: As I've explained before, it's just how WP:RTV is written, do I have a personal opinion? Not really - because as I said, it's not a big deal. People's attachments to their usernames are also not a big deal, if you wish to execute RTV then that attachment becomes irrelevant. It's equivalent to wanting it both ways, ensuring that things you do aren't tied to your username as well being able to wipe your history (to a limited extent). The way I see it is WP:RTV is a courtesy and if you feel that's not how it should be then you should propose changing it, what's not OK is justifying written policy with arbitrary notions. Should the RTV policy be more lenient? Maybe, whether the community feels that way should be debated in a RfC and not at an AN thread. I'm sure there have been cases where RTV has been done on a indeffed account because someone didn't read through WP:RTV or just straight-up invoked WP:IAR but that's never a suitable reason to subvert policy. What I do agree with is what Wugs' said here,
- @qedk: SharabSalam has had an active sanction against him since before this discussion started (linked above), so there is very little chance of him being an eligible for a clean start (without explicit invocation of WP:IAR or something).
- All of you do realize that you can leave anyway right, without executing a RTV? If someone wants to leave, all they need to do is scramble their password. RTV is just so you can be renamed into some gibberish and possibly have a clean start, edit history and talk pages are always preserved anyway, so the fact that a few more things are retained has literally no bearing on a clean start and is mostly extended as a courtesy to editors in good standing (in case of SharabSalam, that's unclear, since they were the subject of a sanction discussion at the time of requesting RTV). Hope that clarifies it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- This hasn't been Wikipedia's finest hour. We've made a hot mess out of a relatively low-level problem.—S Marshall T/C 09:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- To be fair, there wouldn't have been any "mess" if the editor had simply waited for the discussion to be concluded and then made their request. It was their doing so in the middle of a discussion about possible sanctions which created the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Censoring[edit]
- 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 [12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. 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)
- 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)
- 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 Wikipedia as a battleground.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:41, 2 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)
- 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.[19] Please notice that he removed primary sources and The Economist, which is in Wikipedia: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.[1]
- This, however, is based on unreliable source(an anti-Muslim hate blog),
In the Quran, abominations include idolatry, divination, gambling, and intoxicants;[2] eating blood, dead meat, pig, or an offering made to a false god;[3] homosexuality;[4] and blasphemy.[5] While the Quran does not specify any punishment for committing any abomination, some Hadiths specify the death penalty for committing homosexuality.[6]
--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Debresser, The Econimust source supports this only,
- It is also unrelated to Abomination (Judaism)--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:10, 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)
- Okay, now he is edit warring about it.[19] Please notice that he removed primary sources and The Economist, which is in Wikipedia: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)
- 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)
References
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discretionary sanction warning on the talk page of new editors should be considered as WP:BITE[edit]
If a new editor, who did not receive any warning for disruptive behaviour, personal attacks, edit warring, adding contentious unsourced content and vandalism, then giving them Discretionary sanctions alert on first day is biting the new editor.
This should not be done on first day. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zubisko&oldid=951918392
The editor has not edited since then.
It's like RegentsPark identifying a potential opponent and scaring them off.
User:Slatersteven and User:SerChevalerie interacted with the editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.247.116 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. This is a no-fault alert that aims at informing users of the discretionary sanctions regime. El_C 06:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- ^^^Thus spake El_C: arguably, too, alerts are even more important for new users as, while an established editor might be assumed to not need reminding of the restrictions (yet still is), a new editor will have no idea. By not advising them of the sanctions in place, in fact, you're making it more likely that they'll be breached. Which results, possibly, in an even less friendly welcome for the new editor. ——Serial # 07:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- How are we defining "new" exactly? I suggest 2–3 years. Levivich [dubious – discuss
] 07:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Suggest 6 years, 7 months and 25 days... at least. ——Serial # 07:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- ↑What they said. It's a lot better to issue a neutral "you're dealing with a topic where the usual rules don't apply, if you're not confident that you understand all the rules around NPOV, sourcing, and inter-editor interaction, we suggest you start off in a less contentious area" warning from the outset. The alternative is that someone in good faith tries to add something they read on the internet about homeopathy/climate change/gun control, or thinks in good faith that they're improving Wikipedia by adding/removing an infobox on every page, and promptly gets themselves blocked. I do agree that the wording of the templates is incomprehensible and intimidating, but thus far nobody has come up with an alternative; that big gobbet of Bradspeak is unfortunately necessary if we're to convey precisely what "discretionary sanctions" does and doesn't mean. ‑ Iridescent 08:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Suggest 6 years, 7 months and 25 days... at least. ——Serial # 07:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's less bitey than the alternative, which is a rapid move to blocking. Guy (help!) 09:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- User:Levivich Don't go for the heading only. The editor in question was one day account only. What harm would happen if the sanction alert is given after one week of non-disruptive editing? What did I say? Don't warn them ever? Warning should be given if they show signs of disruptive editing at the beginning. You gave them welcome message, then even before they have finished reading the welcome message properly, you give them sanction alert. Within one second he will read the links mentioned in welcome message? What is he going to read first? Discretionary sanction alert or welcome message? Welcome message given at 16:04, sanction alert given at 16:05. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zubisko&action=history Can't you people have some patience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.218.253 (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I often DS template new editors. But, I always preface with a welcome if one doesn’t exist. As the welcome says their contributions are welcome and we hope they stay, it further softens the warning. Experienced editors are regularly sanctioned on DS articles. If they run into difficulties; new editors need some sort of heads-up that they’ve jumped into the deep end. O3000 (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- The very first thing the box says is "This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." It absolutely, positively identifies itself as not a scolding. It's an alert to someone who's entered a particularly fraught topic, that's all. It's like worrying that someone is going to be scared off of driving at all by a "one-way" sign at the beginning of the one-way street, and asking what harm could come from placing it where it won't be visible until a driver has already covered the first 100 meters of the one-way section the wrong way. Largoplazo (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- The notification is neutrally worded and contains information that any editor, new or old, wading into the topic should be aware of and I don't see this as a problem. In particular, it would be wrong not to let someone wading into that particular controversial article that their edits will receive extra scrutiny. I'm sorry that the editor chose to not return but it doesn't follow that they should have been kept in the dark about the sanctions. Technically, it is not correct that they dropped out after the warning because they appear to have made two edits before the warning (and the welcome!) and two edits after.--regentspark (comment) 14:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming that you're talking about User:Zubisko I think you've misread the edit history. There were 3 edits before the alert, and 1 after. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- You're right. I guess I misread the time. Probably not important anyway since it is likely that they either saw the notice after their last edit or have never actually seen it.--regentspark (comment) 13:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming that you're talking about User:Zubisko I think you've misread the edit history. There were 3 edits before the alert, and 1 after. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's bitey in that it's a huge warning with incomprehensible text. Only someone who is already familiar with how Wikipedia works can even figure out what it's warning you about. I want to point out that the linked page WP:ACDS is completely unintelligible to a newbie, and that both of the terms "discretionary" and "sanction" just seem like arcane legalese. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
(EC) I strongly disagree. It's not a warning. It's explicitly says it's not a warning. It's unfortunate that some people interpret it that way, but there's no real way we can avoid that. So the idea we should wait for misbehaviour goes completely against the purposes of alerts which is not to warn but to alert. This doesn't mean we should give alerts for every editor who makes one edit, IMO this generally isn't necessary although it will also depend on the topic. But you should guide yourself mostly by "is this editor editing enough in the area that they probably need to know?"
Which gets into my next point, new or old, editors need to take care when editing DS areas. In fact, DS areas tend to have admins more sensitive to problems even without using the DS process. In other words, behaviour which may earn at worst, strong rebuke may earn a block if it's happening in a DS area even if it's not through the DS process. It's good for editors to know quickly that they need to take special care, consider carefully what they are doing, listen, read our policies and guidelines, seek advice and be far less bold then we normally encourage editors to be.
Also, in some areas we get a lot of SPAs, or worse socks. While there are measures which could be put in place for specific articles e.g. long term ECP or even long term semi protection to reduce problems, these can be controversial themselves and they can't be applied to all articles. To give one specific example, consider Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:777 persona 777 and Talk:Christopher Langan#Intelligent design. While okay, ECP could probably be applied to the article, I don't think it would be a good idea to do it to the talk page. But there are a lot of SPAs who keep popping up. Often these don't last very long. Giving them alerts quickly ensures that they are aware they need to take special care, and also that if necessary, they can be restricted quickly. AFAIK that hasn't even happened yet (there have been some blocks, but not under DS). Note that while me and others have alerted some of the editors, others haven't been alerted yet have disappeared, so I don't think there is even compelling evidence that they are being scared off. Frankly, in this particular case, I'm not sure if it's even harmful to scare off an editor who seems to only be here to push for or against the theories of some random person with a high IQ. To be clear, if these editors would be welcome to branch out into other areas, but most of them have only done a small amount in other areas, and even there it's often highly related.
Note that as I've said before, personally I greatly prefer it when editors alert someone who is on their "side" (for lack of a better word) because as I said, we can't stop people misinterpreting it as a warning so it's better if it's someone who may come across as "look I agree with you, but you need to take care when editing this area". However for a new editor it may not be so obvious anyway, plus I'd still prefer someone to alert. So provided editors are consistent in when they alert, I don't see any harm.
- I also disagree strongly. (1) As noted above, the alert notification is neutrally worded. (2) Not allowing newbies to be alerted, while continuing to alert other editors, puts the newbies in a unwarranted protected class. (3) Further, if the newbie has been misbehaving ina DS area, and continues to misbehave, admins would not be able to impose DS sanctions on them because they had not been alerted.In my opinion, the proposal is ridiculous on its face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Let's face it: many articles under discretionary sanctions are haunted by WP:SOCKS. A sock will pretend to quit because an editor threatened him/her with discretionary sanctions, but in fact it is a circus acts merely done as trolling. Everyone who has access to a botnet could create lots of usernames in order to accuse an established editor of WP:BITE and harassment. If one knows when an editor is online and which articles he/she edits, it is very easy to pull out this trick. Yup, botnet access is for sale on the dark web. Being honest means that the rules of the game are spelled out in advance. I do not see how hiding the knowledge of those rules from newbies would help them. E.g. a creationist POV-pusher, who only comes to Wikipedia in order to spew out creationist memes, will pretend that he/she did not know that that's against policies and guidelines. Someone has to tell them as it is: not in an offensive way, but in a clear and honest way. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Whether they support or oppose, but let other participants in this thread see this comment by Tgeorgescu, "If one knows when an editor is online and which articles he/she edits, it is very easy to pull out this trick." There are many editors who can give discretionary sanction alert. User:Tgeorgescu is saying that the new user was able to control who will post welcome message and discretionary snaction alert on his talk page. Socks can create new accounts, but you are saying that the editor wanted to trap RegentsPark, by editing when he was online. This is like you belive in fortune teller, soothsayer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.228.164 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I am agnostic about whether it was the case for RegentsPark, but, yes, it would be easy for socks to game the system if such restriction upon placing notifications of discretionary sanctions would be enforced. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- User:Tgeorgescu I don't support full restriction. I am suggesting that the new editor should show at least one trait of disruptive editing. If you are not happy with that, then give some time(more than one second) to the new editor to read the welcome message properly and then give sanction alert. 42.110.228.164 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I give them to new editors who make good edits as well. I try to be impartial and prefer not to even know the content of their edits, although sometimes it's blazingly obvious. I also think that it would be in a sense unfair not to alert people asap, it might help them avoid ever making bad edits and perhaps gaining a bad reputation. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agreeing with Doug Weller. Why do people assume that a warning message is some kind of punishment or dunning? It is just a warning, like not to drive over the speed limit in a construction zone or use a hair dryer in a bathtub. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I give them to new editors who make good edits as well. I try to be impartial and prefer not to even know the content of their edits, although sometimes it's blazingly obvious. I also think that it would be in a sense unfair not to alert people asap, it might help them avoid ever making bad edits and perhaps gaining a bad reputation. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- User:Tgeorgescu I don't support full restriction. I am suggesting that the new editor should show at least one trait of disruptive editing. If you are not happy with that, then give some time(more than one second) to the new editor to read the welcome message properly and then give sanction alert. 42.110.228.164 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I am agnostic about whether it was the case for RegentsPark, but, yes, it would be easy for socks to game the system if such restriction upon placing notifications of discretionary sanctions would be enforced. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Whether they support or oppose, but let other participants in this thread see this comment by Tgeorgescu, "If one knows when an editor is online and which articles he/she edits, it is very easy to pull out this trick." There are many editors who can give discretionary sanction alert. User:Tgeorgescu is saying that the new user was able to control who will post welcome message and discretionary snaction alert on his talk page. Socks can create new accounts, but you are saying that the editor wanted to trap RegentsPark, by editing when he was online. This is like you belive in fortune teller, soothsayer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.228.164 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Proposal[edit]
Add a Twinkle notification to alert new users that they have stepped into a controversial area along the lines of:
- Hello. I notice that you have edited $ARTICLE, which is in a controversial topic area on Wikipedia. As a new editor, it is probably wisest to discuss any changes on the article's Talk page prior to making them. There are special restrictions around many such articles, and this can lead to a frustrating and intimidating experience for newcomers. Feel free to ask for help at the tea house if you need guidance on how to edit this topic.
How would that be? Guy (help!) 11:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's a good proposal Guy; not at all bitey but doesn't dance around the point, would take the sting out of any DS notice, and offers a friendly place to get help ~ if nothing else on all the acronyms which must surely puzzle the new user; happy days, LindsayHello 18:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
No Great Shaker vandalism[edit]
On Churchill war ministry No Great Shaker made edits that deleted the entire ministerial section of the article. I re-added the ministerial table that the editor had deleted, for no apparent reason, however I then saw that the reason they have for deleting it was ‘moving horrendous and unnecessary list’ meaning they deleted it because they didn’t like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Churchill_war_ministry&diff=927805078&oldid=927796948, therefore showing that he deleted a huge chunk of vital information for no reason and with no consensus. The table was deleted in November 2019 and NGS said he was going to redo it but as of June 2020 he had not done. When I re added the deleted info, No great shaker then attempted to delete the info I had readded but was fortunately stopped by another editor called GraemeLeggett who got involved and stopped his vandalism. No great shaker had now used personal attacks, such as blocked user, when I have tried to stop him from reverting the information again, and has now changed the article again so it no longer matches the similar ones at List of British governments. If you look at the articles about ministries, eg National Government (1935-1937) or Asquith coalition ministry you will see that the layout is: Office, name, date took office etc yet no great shaker has tried to change the article for no reason and is vandalising it, by changing the format and by deleting the table altogether. Please stop him. SallyWho (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Moved from WP:AIV: ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)- SallyWho (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) – On Churchill war ministry: actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Suspected block evasion, perhaps the User:HarveyCarter syndrome again as at Winston Churchill recently. Personal attacks and removal of content. Can take this to WP:AN if you prefer. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- No Great Shaker (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) – On Churchill war ministry made edits that deleted the entire section of the article. I re-added the ministerial table that the editor had deleted, for no apparent reason, however I then saw that the reason they have for deleting it was ‘moving horrendous and unnecessary list’ meaning they deleted it because they didn’t like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Churchill_war_ministry&diff=927805078&oldid=927796948, therefore showing that he deleted a huge chunk of vital information for no reason and with no consensus. No great shaker then attempted to delete the info I had readded but was fortunately stopped by another editor called @GraemeLeggett who got involved and stopped his vandalism. No great shaker had now used personal attacks, such as blocked user, when I have tried to stop him from reverting the information again, and has now changed the article again so it no longer matches the similar ones at List of British governments. If you look at the articles about ministries, eg National Government (1935-1937) or Asquith coalition ministry you will see that the layout is: Office, name, date took office etc yet no great shaker has tried to change the article for no reason and is vandalising it. Please stop him. SallyWho (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I fully protected the article for three days. Both of you, SallyWho and No Great Shaker, need to carefully read WP:VANDALISM, followed by WP:NPA, to realized that you are engaged into a content dispute, and there is no vandalism involved. If you continue calling each other vandals, blocks can follow pretty quickly. Please return to the talk page of the article and settle your dispute there.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- As the named third party in all this, I'd better say something. From my vantage point both sides are using "vandalism" when actually it's a content dispute. The Churchill war ministry page had since 2013 and until a while back had the same section ("List of Ministers") as other ministries from 1707 to 2007 - a list of the positions and the ministers who filled them. In November 2019 the list of ministers was removed by No Great Shaker as an "unnecessary list" and ended up in Draft space as it was uncited. SallyWho it to the Churchill war ministry article yesterday (7 June) , No Great Shaker removed it again on the grounds of still unsourced, and SallyWho put it back shortly after. As I thought it belonged in the article, I decided to add to add some cites as that was the reason for previous removals. Since then No Great Shaker has made corrections and additions to the table. No Great Shaker then edited the table to remove any Ministers already covered in the preceding section which lists the members of the cabinet in the ministry , renaming the disputed section "Ministers outside the War Cabinet". SallyWho reverted that change and after that it's a back and forth with No Great Shaker calling SallyWho's reverts "troll" and SallyWho calling No Great Shaker's reverts "vandalism". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, I'll accept your decision on this but I think I would like you to adjudicate at the article talk page. I'll go there now and explain how I have been trying to improve the article. The account by GraemeLeggett above is a fair summary of what has happened. I may have overstepped the mark by suggesting that SallyWho is a probable block evader but it seems very odd to me that someone with a mere handful of edits should be so passionate about how another editor is trying to improve an article that has not, lets face it, been in very good shape. I cannot see how such an extreme reaction can suggest anything other than a vested interest in the article through past involvement. That's my opinion. Anyway, I'll say no more about that and will go to the article talk page to discuss the state of the article and how it can be improved. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm. SallyWho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a "brand new user" whose early edits Right Great Wrongs committed in 2019. Am I the only one who thinks that's a bit sus? Guy (help!) 08:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Just to note that No Great Shaker added a retirement template on their talk page and accused me in driving them out of Wikipedia. Sorry, I find this accusation completely out of place and can not accept it. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I figure you mean this conversation. Apparently they think you protected the WRONGVERSION and blasted you for it. Seems to me like you fulfilled your volunteer duties as an admin and paid the price. Situation normal. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Now this one seems to have been resolved: SallyWh blocked as a sock, No Great Shaker removed the retirement template and apologized to me, and I unprotected the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Derek Chauvin[edit]
Should the article for Derek Chauvin be shown while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin is ongoing? Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: I kept it hidden out of an abundance of caution (since some in the DRV raised BLP issues), but I have no opinion on the matter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: I'm the one that suggested that it not be, but that we have a link to to a version of it in the AfD. It's unusual but not unreasonable. DRV often has discussions of material that has been "temp-undeleted" where people can look at the history. I don't think it should be SOP, but I think it's a good compromise (have the discussion but don't have the article until we decide to). Hobit (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- User:Jax 0677: Yes, keep it visible unless there are really serious content problems with it. It should be unprotected too. There's really not much we can write that can damage the guy compared to the beatings (I don't know what other word to use) he's taking in the general media. So I wouldn't freak out about it. I looked at the last substantial version in the revision history and it's pretty tame, all the same stuff that's been everywhere in the news, all well cited, and missing some updates.[20] A drastic step like hiding the content is sometimes warranted when there's agenda pushing or scandalizing going on, or if the person doesn't otherwise have much notoriety. This isn't one of those times. The article content is quite mainstream and the writing is staid. That said, I'm always in favor of {{noindex}}ing articles about living people. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hadn't seen this, but FWIW I declined a G4 request at Talk:Derek Chauvin earlier today. I'd consider this section done with, but YMMV. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hidden? Everyone who turned on a newscast in the past two weeks knows who this is.--Hippeus (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Joe Lewis talk page[edit]
Not sure, but isn't a post like this [21]? some kind of policy breach? Govvy (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Reverted; user warned. DrKay (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oh. I indef blocked. I can undo this if i stepped on toes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: If the edit you revdel'ed is the same as their others, then they have 6 other posts to revdel. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Phew, I thought this was about me for a second .... User:Joel B. Lewis, who usually signs as JBL (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Request for close review[edit]
Back in February, I closed an RfC at Talk:Ronald Reagan. In my close, I found rough consensus to include a concise mention of some remarks, but suggested further discussion regarding the precise wording. Earlier today, Springee opened another RfC asking the same question of whether or not the remarks ought to be included. After I left a comment indicating that I consider their formulation of the RfC to be inconsistent with my prior close, they replied raising several objections to the close. Could an admin look over my close from February, decide whether or not it is valid, and then help organize the follow-up discussion that is starting to take place? Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to note that I and another editor both found the previous closing to be problematic. First, the non-admin closing conclusion of "rough consensus" was questionable based on numbers. Sdkb said it came down to numbers and they felt it was 10:5 in favor. As a personal rule of thumb I feel consensus by numbers is anything over 2/3rds so at best they are borderline. However, there were 19 !votes; 9 yes, 5 no, 5 were "wait". That means only 47% of the !votes were yes. More importantly, the closing editor's neutrality on the matter suggests a strong POV for inclusion. I will repeat that I don't think their POV is inherently problematic but upon closing the RfC the Sdkb became involved with other aspects of the Reagan biography page in a way that suggested a clear POV on what sort of material should be in the article. They initiated a RfC here [[22]] . After several months no editors had actually acted on the closed RfC. Sdkb pinned the RfC so it wouldn't be archived[[23]] and solicited other editors to make the changes they felt the RfC dictated[[24]]. Based on the evidence that the closing was not handled in a neutral fashion and the mathematically questionable determination of consensus I considered challenging the original closing. However, since no editors had decided to act upon the RfC it seemed a moot issue. Now that it is 9 months later and a number of editor's replies were "wait" I see no issue with opening a new RfC that can be closed by an uninvolved editor. Springee (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have not expressed any opinion about the inclusion of the remarks, and I do not think it would be my role as closer to do so. I invited two editors I noticed working on the article a month or so after the close (I don't know the political tendencies of either) to participate in the follow-up discussion about the wording since that discussion wasn't really happening; that is different than "solicited other editors to make the changes they felt the RfC dictated". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I looked into this a bit more as I had always assumed this was a formal RfC. It never was. Rather it was an informal survey that simply died out. That might explain why nothing happened between the end of discussions in October 2019 and the Sdkb's "closing" in February 2020. Springee (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have not expressed any opinion about the inclusion of the remarks, and I do not think it would be my role as closer to do so. I invited two editors I noticed working on the article a month or so after the close (I don't know the political tendencies of either) to participate in the follow-up discussion about the wording since that discussion wasn't really happening; that is different than "solicited other editors to make the changes they felt the RfC dictated". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think it was brave of you to decide to close that, and I think it was very brave indeed to close it as "consensus to include". I would most certainly have called that discussion a "no consensus".—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I presume you are using the word "brave" in the Sir Humphrey sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Request for easy, non-controversial closure of informal discussion[edit]
By an admin or experienced editor here. Although only an informal discussion, it's been open about a week and the consensus is pretty clear. If you could then action your decision too. Thanks in advance! ☕🍟🍰 ——Serial # 09:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Done, with assistance from Atlantic306. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Another RfC close review please? (Religion in Albania, lede infographic)[edit]
I'm sorry for having two of these open at the same time; it's because I've been going through the more contentious unclosed discussions on ANRFC. Anyway, a few hours ago I made this close, and an editor has indicated on my talk page that they feel my close was mistaken. I invite community scrutiny and, if I have erred, I will be delighted to self-revert. The complainant concurs with my determination that there's no consensus, but disputes my view that the status quo ante is the version without the disputed graphic.—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: I hope you don't mind me being blunt? And no criticism of that (or any other) close. But just file at RfA please: it'll be a piece of cake. All the best, ——Serial # 15:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Totally out of the question.—S Marshall T/C 16:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Endorse close The summary was an accurate reflection of the discussion. I had been looking into the same discussion and would have posted nearly the same one myself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Eggishorn: I agree with S Marshall's conclusion that none of the two sides of the dispute managed to reach consensus. I discussed with them on their talk page on what version of the article constitutes status quo ante. As I see things, the version with the pic in the lede is that version. After the pic was added to the lede, several months passed and, if I am not mistaken, some 30 edits were made on the article with nobody challenging that edit. Is not that counted as "silent consensus"? After "silent consensus", is not a new consensus needed to make a change? Those two questions are what I am not persuaded about in the RfC closure. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Fair point. What counts as longstanding text should ordinarily be determined by local consensus, where the level of activity of the article would be a key component in determining WP:SILENCE. Because this time the status quo ante was decided by the closer (which is to say, singularly), perhaps an explanation by them as to their respective determination to that effect is due. El_C 16:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Ktrimi991:, might I suggest reviewing WP:CHALLENGECLOSE? The close was
... a reasonable summation of the discussion
and the closer has no history that would make them involved in the discussion. If the close accurately summarized the discussion, even if that discussion was based on faulty premises, then the discussion is still closed. It is not up to the closer to correct the participants. Doing so results in a WP:Supervote. I can see your point about the sequence of events but I feel S Marshall also accurately summarized those in your challenge on their talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)- @Eggishorn: I am aware of what is said on WP:CHALLENGE. I came here after the proposal to do so by S Marshall. I thanked him for his review process, and I have not asked him to correct any participant. The point I would like clarification about could probably be summarized this way: If I challenge an edit made 1 year ago, and after discussion there is no consenus, then the version I support should stay as a pre-dispute one? If that is the rationale applied, then one can easily remove content added years ago and those who disagree should not revert but just seek a "new consensus" on the talk page per WP:BRD. Is that the right way of action? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Ktrimi991:, might I suggest reviewing WP:CHALLENGECLOSE? The close was
- Fair point. What counts as longstanding text should ordinarily be determined by local consensus, where the level of activity of the article would be a key component in determining WP:SILENCE. Because this time the status quo ante was decided by the closer (which is to say, singularly), perhaps an explanation by them as to their respective determination to that effect is due. El_C 16:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Eggishorn: I agree with S Marshall's conclusion that none of the two sides of the dispute managed to reach consensus. I discussed with them on their talk page on what version of the article constitutes status quo ante. As I see things, the version with the pic in the lede is that version. After the pic was added to the lede, several months passed and, if I am not mistaken, some 30 edits were made on the article with nobody challenging that edit. Is not that counted as "silent consensus"? After "silent consensus", is not a new consensus needed to make a change? Those two questions are what I am not persuaded about in the RfC closure. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Endorse. As the principal admin who has been attending to the article in question, I'd like to thank you, S Marshall, for once again taking on these difficult closes. Your efforts are greatly appreciated and I hope you keep up the good work. El_C 16:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Endorse. The default position should be not to include contentious content. This was a brave close, in the proper sense of the term "brave". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger: On what Wiki policy is your opinion that contentious content should not be kept on the article based on? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's based on common sense, which is more important than any policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- "Common sense" can cause disputes rather than solve them in controversial Balkan topics. No wonder Balkan topics on Wikipedia have so many problems and conflicts. The rationale of that "common sense" implies that one can remove content from an article and they do not even need consensus because "contentious content" should not be on the article. I was aware of the fact that editors in general tend to support decisions such as RfC closures, but I expected some justification based on well-defined rules, not that kind of "common sense". It is no wonder then that Wiki has lost so many editors during the years. Anyways, I do not see any reason to further continue this discussion, as it has already become pointless. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's based on common sense, which is more important than any policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger: On what Wiki policy is your opinion that contentious content should not be kept on the article based on? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- After reading all the input on this discussion, I do sympathize with Ktrimi991. The effect of the decision I made is to crystallize what Ktrimi991 feels is the wrong version of the article -- and I can see why, when I have sat the "stable version" such a long time in the past, this user might feel as if I've played a bit fast and loose with the rules.My position is that encyclopaedia-writers are educators, and that puts us under a basic duty not to mislead people. Properly analyzing sources is fundamental to what we do. In this case, independent and normally-reliable sources like the CIA World Factbook do seem to use the figures on this 2011 census -- but there are other, also independent and normally-reliable, sources that describe it as wildly inaccurate. We're dealing with research that's disputed, or even, suspect. In those circumstances, I took the view that the last "stable" version was the one that doesn't include an infographic based on the disputed research, and my view on that was certainly coloured by the possibility that the infographic is wrong.Please note that in doing so, I've backdated the last "stable" version well over a year from the start of the RfC. In that respect my decision was unusual, so Ktrimi991's outrage is understandable. We need to be fair, and although I'm grateful for all the "endorses" above, I do feel that some more careful, sober analysis from uninvolved editors is called for, and I'm completely open to being overturned if I was wrong.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: I am very happy you reviewed the RfC. My major issue is not a pic in the lede of an article, as after all when one participates in a RfC is aware that their opinion might not "win", and that is just a pic that changes nothing. What I find disturbing is the way editors who edit difficult areas such as the Balkans are treated, and in what condition a good part of Wiki policies are. The major reason why topics such as the Balkans are a mess on Wiki is that the rules are not well-defined, have multiple interpretations, and the noticeboards that are supposed to help just leave the requests unanswered or give answers without citing any well-defined policy. It is the big picture that is a problem, not merely a single pic. Thanks again for reviewing the RfC, and hope we will have the opportunity to work together in other places on Wiki too. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Would it be fair to say you're happy with this close review as-is, then? It's important that you feel you've had the chance to put your case and the decision has been reviewed in a fair manner.The state of our policies and guidelines is poor and I once spent nearly a year fixing wording that implied the truth doesn't matter. And Wikipedian policies and guidelines are like scripture: somewhere in the labyrinthine maze of rules you can find support for any position. I know that's unsatisfactory.But the flip side of that is that the rules aren't really worth revising, unless we can come up with a Turing-complete set of rules that can't be gamed and don't require editorial discretion. If we can't then every decision is a judgment call, so we'll be inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary. I know how difficult this makes it if your field of interest is India-Pakistan, or homeopathy, or the Balkans. I just can't see how to fix it.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: I am very happy you reviewed the RfC. My major issue is not a pic in the lede of an article, as after all when one participates in a RfC is aware that their opinion might not "win", and that is just a pic that changes nothing. What I find disturbing is the way editors who edit difficult areas such as the Balkans are treated, and in what condition a good part of Wiki policies are. The major reason why topics such as the Balkans are a mess on Wiki is that the rules are not well-defined, have multiple interpretations, and the noticeboards that are supposed to help just leave the requests unanswered or give answers without citing any well-defined policy. It is the big picture that is a problem, not merely a single pic. Thanks again for reviewing the RfC, and hope we will have the opportunity to work together in other places on Wiki too. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Good close. At the end of a well-participated discussion such as that, it is to be expected that some will be unhappy. Challenging the close is often a worse idea than reflecting on why your proposal didn't convince many other people. Asking for advice on how to proceed is always always better than making this sort of challenge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Integrating Patient-centered Outcomes Research into Wikipedia[edit]
Hiya pals,
ProcrasinatingReader dropped this in front of me after noticing Paolocmartin (talk · contribs)'s confusing and slightly messy contribs in the RC feed, apparently in assocation to the linked project.
I've dropped a note on the talkpage of JenOttawa (talk · contribs), who appears be associated with the project's organisation and also seems to have a clue.
No admin-y action required from anyone yet: I just wanted to put this on your radar because I expect Paulocmartin might end up being blocked, and this provides a little bit of context that's not immedately obvious from the first page of their contributions.
On a more general note, we've really gotta do something about the intersection of academia / education and Wikipedia. Although this isn't necessarily one of those cases, I keep seeing very low quality content from WikiEd participants - it would suggest we're not communicating well enogh, or providing enough resources. Perhaps this is something that the WMF should be spending money on.
Cheers,
-- a they/them | argue | contribs 21:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- JenOttawa is handling - cheers all. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 22:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Seems mostly cleared up. Thanks for looking into it Allie!
- An admin may wish to do a final clean-up by deleting/moving pages like Wikipedia:Welcome/Research and Wikipedia:Welcome/About etc as appropriate. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
CGDNSAA update/lots of sock puppets to block[edit]
Good news! The vids were just restored to a playlist I can access, which means my vandalism is actually done. What's more, here is a big long list of socks you can block now since I won't be needing them, in numerical order (the number before each is not part of the name, just my way of organizing it in a Google Doc which was too much trouble to remove for the copy and paste, but the same number at the end of each username is):
| long list of socks |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.194.11 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Seems like a hoax. After checking a dozen of the user names, none of these seem to be real user's name. CBS527Talk 22:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- They are real accounts, but haven't made any edits. But I don't think blocking them would be necessary now that the vandal is off Wikipedia? TryKid [dubious – discuss] 22:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Bot to add missing protection templates, including fully-protected articles[edit]
See the BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MusikBot II 4. — MusikAnimal talk 01:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Would like check of my actions in a possible NPA caution statement[edit]
This section has been moved to WP:ANI#Issues related to Talk:Ronald Reagan at suggestion of Beyond My Ken; leaving here for courtesy pointer. --Masem (t) 03:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- The thread has been closed on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Help investigating T2 and T3 usage[edit]
I have for a long time been following CAT:T2 and CAT:T3 and have seen quite a lot of templates that would be more suitable to handled through TfD, redirection, moving the page to another namespace or speedily deleted under another criteria and am now considering a proposal to deprecate these criteria. In preparation for such a proposal I have been combing through the deletion log looking for templates deleted under these criteria during the last month and would like to see the content of these templates to help assessing how well the criteria are working. If some admin with a bit of spare time could help out by getting the last revision of each of the following pages and send them to me by email that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sent. —Cryptic 19:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! I have started by creating a proposal for removing T2 at WT:CSD#RfC: Removing T2 ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
AWB requests need attention[edit]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: I may be a bit biased, as half the requests there are mine. However, could the admins look at the requests there? While they’re at it, they could probably take a quick look at the other permissions... Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 (talk | contribs) 19:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- User:Total Eclipse 2017, if you can't even be bothered to provide a proper link to the place where you made a request only yesterday, then I don't think you can be trusted with advanced tools such as AWB. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Phil Bridger: Okay then. Here’s the link: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser, though I must admit I thought you guys knew where it was already. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 (talk | contribs) 19:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Expiring user rights[edit]
Hi. Some of you may have noticed that the log entries for adding user rights with expirations don't currently include the expiration (haven't for the last ~2 days) This is being investigate (phab:T255330). In the meantime, I started a manual log of the missing expirations at phab:P11488 - it would be really helpful if those adding user rights with expirations could put in their log entries how long the rights are for, so that if at some point a maintenance script is written to fix the old log entries the correct data is available. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Can administrators "semi-protect" the email function when faced with email harassment?[edit]
Recently, I and my students have become victims of some serious harassment through email (I've already informed a number of admins and WMF about it). Anyway, the solution to harassment on talk pages has been to semi-protect our userpages and elevate students to auto-confirm status, which I did through the Wikipedia:Event coordinator tool. But the solution to email harassment is a bit tougher. I did find that there is an option (WP:ENABLEEMAIL) to "Allow emails from brand-new users", which when disabled, requires autoconfirmed right to email a given user. It seems like a great solution to harassment by email (the person harassing us is creating a brand new account for each email, as the old one gets blocked by CU quickly after). However, that option is disabled by default. And while I could auto-confirm my students and admins did semi-protect their talk pages (thanks), right now I don't think either of those flags (or any flags at all?) would allow us to enable the function of 'Allow emails from brand-new users' for another account. And this is a gap in our anti-vandal/harassment toolkit, as while of course I can make a class announcement / video telling my students to enable this option to protect their accounts, some will miss it, and it may be days before they do so. As such, I think it may be worth discussing if admins and/or event coordinators shouldn't be granted the power to enable this option for other accounts, in cases of harassment by email. Through to make it a bit more complicated still, they should be able to do it on a global level through global preferences, since any smart vandal/harasser can simply shrug and send an email through Commons, wikibooks or Urdu Wikipedia instead. But the fact remains that right now we may be somewhat impotent when dealing with email harassment, but the tools to deal with this exist, just need to be activated and given to the admins. Another option would be to enable this feature by default for all projects, because how often does a brand new account needs to be emailed by another brand new account? But as with any global changes, the latter option is probably more trouble than it is worth it (and of course it probably would need to be discussed on meta not here), even through it wouldn't really affect anything or anyone of significance. Thoughts? --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Go to Special:Globalpreferences and disable email everywhere, then enable it only for en.wp. Do you have a tutorial that says Step 1: create a Wikipedia account? Add Step 2: disable email as described. MER-C 12:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
semi-protect Tsai Ing-wen[edit]
It's been chnging from Republic of China to Taiwan and Taiwan to Republic of China and........I think that can be disruptive editing is really disruptive.So i suggest we should semi-protect Tsai Ing-wen.history--Taichengwu (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Taichengqu: Requests for page protection are generally made at WP:RFPP. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Messed up the ping, @Taichengwu: ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks--Taichengwu (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Permission to edit User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam[edit]
When I try to edit the page I get the message that it is restricted. It does not say why. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Why exactly are you trying to edit this blocked user's page? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Worth noting that removing speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself is not permitted. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Naypta and Lee Vilenski: could be the same editor—but that's OK of course... ——Serial # 14:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: Sorry, not sure I follow what you mean by "could be the same editor"? You mean that placed the speedy tag on? It was the same user account here (GerardM) who created that page and removed the CSD. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'm suggesting that GM and GYAT are one and the same :) ——Serial # 14:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha! Sorry!
Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha! Sorry!
- Indeed. I'm suggesting that GM and GYAT are one and the same :) ——Serial # 14:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: Sorry, not sure I follow what you mean by "could be the same editor"? You mean that placed the speedy tag on? It was the same user account here (GerardM) who created that page and removed the CSD. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Naypta and Lee Vilenski: could be the same editor—but that's OK of course... ——Serial # 14:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
For your information, I am not the person who created that user page. I don't do that.. It is a board member of the GYA who created that page. As is stated on the page what I do is discussed with him so I do what is in line with what the GYA considers relevant. Again, this is about science, global early career scientists and relevant awards. It is not limited to the GYA and therefor it is not self promoting. GerardM (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @GerardM: Someone using your user account created that page. Was someone else using your account at the time? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @GerardM: It also appears to be blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost, given the vast number of subpages of this user that you have created, per your user log. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- When you hold such an opinion, lets discuss what it is that is reflected in these Listeria lists.
- It is what we know about early career scientists, organisations and so far awards that can be characterized as of having no bias. It includes images, links to papers and it shows a scholia for awards, organisations and scientists. It shows the extend English Wikipedia covers all of these. These particular pages are therefore as much about English Wikipedia as about the subject perse. Similar information can be found on other Wikipedias. So no, this is not a webhost, it is a reflection about science and it is relevant to this project. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think a different person is behind the CYA (role/org account) than GM. But I think that doesn't matter...CYA is softblocked, so it's reasonable for that person to create a new person-account. DMacks (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- That person did create a new WMF account has used it a lot on Commons. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @GerardM: I think you need to clarify the situation with your account. Has someone else used your account to edit wikipedia? As others have mentioned, the user page User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam was created by your account and a large amount of the content was added by your account. Who created the account GlobalYoungAcademyTeam is IMO not so important as whether anyone else has access or has used the GerardM account. Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- That person did create a new WMF account has used it a lot on Commons. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have replaced the speedy tag. If someone who didnt create the page wants to remove it, go ahead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Already deleted by Fastily. P-K3 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Like a speedy ninja. I left a query on their talk page about the subpages, but I am pretty sure they need to be looked at as a group per my below comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Already deleted by Fastily. P-K3 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- From taking a look, I concur with C.Fred that given the subpage content linked from here that this is on the face of it, a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTDIR. From past experience it looks similar to link-farming - as everything appears to be stored on wiki-data, the only real purpose to having it on ENWP is to gain higher status. There is a related issue that a lot of them appear to have been created using ListeriaBot (see here for recent issues with that.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- From taking a closer look. The subpages all appear to be lists either of wikidata or wikipedia articles. If they are for the purpose of improving wikipedia's articles about the relevant subjects, then a Wikiproject is probably the best option - many wikiprojects contain lists of articles they want to focus on. If they are merely for GerardM to use in their own editing, then move them to his userspace (but there is likely issues with WP:UNOT). But we shouldnt have over 100 subpages being actively curated by an editor and/or bot in a deleted user's userspace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- So what is the process to get this page restored. The deletion is based on assumptions, they are manifestly wrong. These pages provide information about the extend English Wikipedia supports science, particularly science related to early career scientists. It does enable collaboration, many of the scientist gained Wikipedia articles as a result.
- You have not made a case properly and imho it reflects badly on Wikipedia process. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- GYA is patently not a user. It might be a project or a Education program and may be something for the Wikipedia:Project namespace but definitely not the space. Nthep (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Like Nthep noted, with GerardM's assertion that
these pages provide information about the extend English Wikipedia supports science, particularly science related to early career scientists
, and that itdoes enable collaboration
, this sounds more like a WikiProject. There's more information here about what they are and how to start one. Maybe a pre-existing science WikiProject exists that suits your needs? The science WikiProject directory may be something worth taking a look at. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- With such arguments you basically assert that a speedy deletion and the reason for it is wrong. It should not be a speedy deletion in the first place, its execution while it was discussed is an affront to the due process that is expected as part of a defined process. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- If you wish to specifically contest the speedy deletion, the place to do that is WP:DELREV. A blocked user's userpage is not an article, nor a directory, nor an advert. If that information is for the benefit of improving the encyclopedia, then either your userspace (as you appear to have created all of the content) or a wikiproject (if it satisfies the criteria, which has a low bar since about the only requirement for a wikiproject is 'to improve the encyclopedia'). Here is a question: What is the intent/purpose of all those lists? Is it intended to be used/turned into an article? Is it intended to be used as an admin aide to collaborate in improving articles? Are they just going to sit there and be periodically updated by ListeriaBot? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- With such arguments you basically assert that a speedy deletion and the reason for it is wrong. It should not be a speedy deletion in the first place, its execution while it was discussed is an affront to the due process that is expected as part of a defined process. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, if it helps, I am one of the many people that GerardM has worked with. I was also there right at the start of this process. I am a wiki newbie, just like hundreds others that GerardM has brought to contribute (mostly to wikidata) over the last months (from Bangladesh to Panama). I just tried to access the project page and couldn't find it anymore. The page is basically the starting point for more than 50 organizations of professors (young scientists that are part of young national academies of science as well as their alumni) that are being mapped as part of a wikidata project. See here for more information: https://globalyoungacademy.net/national-young-academies/. PPEscientist (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Strikes me that if the page is being used as the "starting point" for an organisation's efforts, that's prime WP:NOTWEBHOST territory. Reading through that web page, I'm not clear at all on what the link to Wikidata or to any Wikimedia project is. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi PPEscientist, I feel you may have been misled or giving incorrect information as to the basic point of wikipedia, so I will start from there. English Wikipedia's (ENWP) purpose is to create an encyclopedia. Much as Wikimedia Commons (Commons) is to create a repository of free media, and Wikidata is to create a shared resource of data to use in multiple language wiki's (altho this may have changed in scope, as Wikidata is doing its own thing). ENWP has a number of different spaces for different purposes. Article space is where we store the articles for the readers. Userspace is where editors have their user and talk pages where collaboration/communication to improve articles takes place. Project space (usually denoted by a WP:<title>) is where all the policies, guidelines, noticeboards, documentation for the running of the encyclopedia sit. Its also where we have our Wikiprojects. Wikiprojects are groups of editors that come together to improve a group of articles within their projects scope. WP:MILHIST focuses on military subjects, WP:WIRED seeks to improve the coverage of articles involving women, WP:MEDICINE seeks to improve content on medical articles. The key point here is they are all intended to improve our article content for readers. From your description above, and reading the website you posted, what you describe is something that is more of a project, but it is more of a data gathering/tracking exercise, that doesnt have any direct (or indirect that I can tell) goal/purpose of improving the encyclopedia. This isnt to say its not something that should be done, just that it does not appear to be something that is within our scope for Wikipedia. Hence the rather direct questions to GerardM and from DMacks above. Wikidata being a data collecting project is probably more a good fit for your purpose than wikipedia, and as (from looking at a lot of the pages created by GerardM) a lot of the information is already stored there, likely in scope for that project. Another alternative would be starting your own dedicated wiki. The references to WP:NOTWEBHOST are linking the relevant policy/guideline that lays out that we are not an indiscriminate web host for the hosting of material. We host stuff that is directly (or indirectly) intended to improve the encyclopedia. Data/Tracking does not really fall within that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
It strikes me that you first abuse your own procedures and then ask questions. In the information provided by Robert, you find a link to its website. It shows other organisations and, the majority of them have their own websites as well, they are linked in the information as provided. They are fairly active, they list their members and inform about their accomplishments. Largely this information is used as references for the people involved. They have their own scientific programs, one of them informs about Covid19. These are not specifically linked in our data. Where these papers have a DOI they are included in Wikidata through the normal ingestion methods. This gets reflected in the relevant Scholias.
The ultimate outcome is "share in the sum of all knowledge", a bit like what we do as a movement. Each Listeria lists shows information that is particular for what it is about. As time goes by, more people, more papers are included and as a consequence it becomes no longer viable to just utter "not notable" because the information about people, awards, organisations is directly available and as up to date as we have it. This data will be correct and not suffer from the false friends you find in Wikipedia lists and links.
In Listeria lists and, you know that, it is clearly known what list items have a local Wikipedia article. It follows that as lists are followed, it is easy to check on the quality of articles and provide additional information. One such is that every year new recipients happen to awards. As you may know, there is a Scholia template and it is used on many Wikipedia articles providing additional, up to date information.
For me personally it is again obvious that you do not know what is in front of you. Your procedures are open for abuse as is clearly demonstrated and the only way to address this is to contest this deletion. Given that there was an ongoing real time discussion your procedures are abusive and do not reflect what Wikimedia stands for. I have been an admin for many years and I am glad those days are done. I do not need to reflect on this collective behaviour.
I doubt that there is room to discuss ways that will improve Wikipedia quality by 4 to 6% in its lists and wiki links. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Instead of rants which don't answer any questions, perhaps you can't explain why this wasn't done either in your own user space, or in project space (or on Wikidata), but on the page of a non-existant "user", actually a front for a group (or a shared account), which has been blocked since long. I notice that you already have 640 userspace subpages[25], which is more than the number of mainspace edits you made over the past 5 years. Your activity on user talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk space are minimal. So what exactly are all these pages (in your user space, and in the userspace under discussion here) actually doing for the improvement of enwiki? Fram (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
This project was not my initiative but something that I consider important. Otherwise it would be a project with a subpage of my userprofile. At the start a name for a profile was chosen that reflects what the project is about. The user was blocked and this matters little as long as the page is available.
Yes, I have a large number of subpages and they all reflect projects I work on. On my profile page you find what they are about. The problem that I face is that Wikipedia does not have the quality in its information that we seek. In these Listeria lists I provide consolidated data from several Wikipedias about these subjects. Often a Wikipedia is superior in a given domain, I use tooling and manual edits to include the data in Wikidata. These Listeria lists are shared with other Wikipedias. This enables comparison and improvement on the data local and in Wikidata.
Given that we are working in a Wiki way, it allows for autonomous growth. Both local changes and changes from data are reflected in my watchlist. In this way these Listeria lists provide an excellent tool to learn about particular subject matter. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- None of that actually seems to be about improving Wikipedia articles however. And from your description this looks like a project that should be on wikidata. Also your lists are in userspace and so won't be visible in any real fashion for readers to learn from, and they can't exist for the most part in article space as they would be subject to the rules around lists and bots. As well as other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
"Review" username spam accounts[edit]
Lately, I've been noticing a lot of new accounts with usernames containing the string "review", such as Derma Correct Skin Tag Removal ReviewTab2 (talk · contribs). That is the only example I have on hand, but there are others in the blocklist. One such account got globally locked for spam. Does anybody know whether these are human spammers or automated spambots, and what is the cause of this account creation pattern? Thanks, Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Fresh Flora Review 1 (talk · contribs)
- My Lottery Loopholes Review (talk · contribs)
- My Lottery Loopholes Review Tab3 (talk · contribs)
- Derma Correct Skin Tag Removal Review (talk · contribs)
- With these types of accounts, it's difficult to say if it's a human spammer or some other kind of spammer. Needless to say not much thought is involved. Not much a CU can do, BTW. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Results of earlier RfC not acknowledged or heeded[edit]
A series of misunderstandings and distractions has led everyone at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries to miss the results of a March RfC where the closer said that, although the RfC was "too messy to be completely certain", there was consensus regarding Part B of the RfC to include in the infobox all candidates who had either earned a delegate or 5% of the vote. A close read (summarized here) of the votes and comments there shows that 19 of 22 voters held that view.
The result of that RfC should have been honored when closed on May 22, but a now-banned a sockpuppet's introduction of contemporaneous and subsequent (and poorly-worded) RfCs have distracted and sown confusion even among well-intended actors. My last responses to such a well-intended actor (the proposer of an as-yet another RfC who hasn't recognized that the new one effectively duplicates the earlier good RfC) are here on the article talk page and here on that user's talk page. (The driving issue is not with this latter editor but rather with the confusion sown by the sockpuppet.)
As the page has been subject to too many edit wars, I am requesting help here. Can someone please revert the infobox template to my last revision? Humanengr (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
[Update] I’ve convinced the proposer of the ongoing RfC to request a close. In that request, however, the proposer mischaracterized the request as “due to the highly controversial nature of the topic and multiple inconclusive past RfCs.” That is indicative of the confusion I’ve described. It is not controversial (only a small minority of editors object); in the current RfC, all votes were for including candidates who had earned a delegate; the one material RfC was clearly decided but the result was ignored; the others were distractions. Humanengr (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Account restriction (User:Therapyisgood)[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Support: Joe Roe, Maxim, SoWhy, Casliber, Bradv, Beeblebrox
Oppose:
Recuse:
For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Account restriction (User:Therapyisgood)
Scunthorpe problem[edit]
I'm trying to add a link to the European STAMP workshop (an industry/academic conference about the STAMP accident analysis methodology, https:// www.stamp-workshop.eu/about-stamp/ ), to Nancy Leveson's biography, and encountering a Scunthorpe problem: an edit filter is rejecting the url because it contains the substring "shop.eu". Can someone help with this? Easiest way might be for an admin to just add this link to the external links section of the article. I think I can then move the link into the article text without hitting the filter again, since I would no longer be adding a new link. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- WT:WHITELIST may be what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- What Gråbergs Gråa Sång said. That way if it gets reverted out, you don't need an admin to put it back in, etc etc etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- What a pain, I wonder if there is a way to fix the filter. Unfortunately the error message doesn't identify what filter it is that blocked the edit, since I wanted to check how often the filter actually triggers, though chances are it's one filter for multiple patterns. shop.eu spamming is probably rare enough that it can be handled by xlinkbot instead of a filter. Anyway I'll see about whitelisting. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- And wait, will whitelisting even help? The substring is not in the mediawiki spam blacklist, that the whitelist counteracts. It's being stopped by an edit filter, which is different. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- If you had an account, you would be able to see the spam blacklist being hit. The entry is at m:Spam blacklist (listed as "shop\.eu\b"). Also, for the record, even admins can't add blacklisted links. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- You are right, it does say blacklist in the error box. Not sure why I thought it was an EF. Thanks. Can you see how often that blacklist item is triggered? And it's crazy that admins can't bypass the BL. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- If you had an account, you would be able to see the spam blacklist being hit. The entry is at m:Spam blacklist (listed as "shop\.eu\b"). Also, for the record, even admins can't add blacklisted links. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- What Gråbergs Gråa Sång said. That way if it gets reverted out, you don't need an admin to put it back in, etc etc etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Made mistake in moving article[edit]
I wanted to move the Nahal Hermon article to its english name Banias River, but it didn't work because the redirect already existed, so I changed the redirect to the article and made Nahal Hermon a redirect, the problem now is that the history of the article is now at the redirect. I probably should not have done this. Can some admin please properly move the Nahal Hermon redirect to the Banias River name? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Done Supreme Deliciousness. I think I covered this for you (Let me know if there is something further, or I made a mistake). In future, see WP:RMT for page moves where there is a redirect at the target and it has more than one edit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- You will need to cleanup the lede due to the page move though! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Site ban proposal: SashiRolls[edit]
SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
SashiRolls was unblocked in November 2018 largely because the reason for his initial block was a dispute he was in with Sagecandor, a sockpuppet of Cirt. In this unblock, Sashi was warned That said, there is considerable skepticism of unblocking, even among some of the supporters, so SashiRolls should expect a lot of critical eyes looking at their post-unblock behavior
Since his unblock, Sashi does not appear to have heeded this warning. The following are the sanctions and blocks that were not reversed:
- No personal comments restriction, May 2019
- IBAN from Tryptofish, May 2019
- 1 week block for "Personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior", June 2019
- 1 week block for "Uncollaborative editing, aspersions, harrassment", August 2019
- GMO Topic Ban and warning that an indefinite block was likely if behaviour did not change, November 2019
- American politics topic ban, February 2020
- 2 week block for violating the above TBAN 15 times, February 2020
- 1 week partial block from Edward Colston for edit warring, June 2020
This is in addition to the sanctions he still has in place from before his unblock, which can be found at WP:AELOG.
Since his partial block a few days ago, Sashi has been on a vendetta against El C that in my mind is equivalent to harassment. See the following diffs:
- Reverting a perfectly calm explanation of actions by El C as "escalation"
- Implication that El C has no job outside of Wikipedia, which is obviously problematic given the current pandemic
- Further attacks on El C's time spent editing here
- Removing El C's response to not treat him as a punching bag as a personal attack
- Editing El C's response to him with the edit summary "remove personal attack. you are not above the law" after it had already been reverted
- This book-length rant which includes the following:
- The implication that the El C account is used by multiple people
- Attacks on two editors otherwise not involved in the dispute
- Reference to a previous warning of El C to Sashi as "railroading"
- Accusing El C of having an WP:IDHT attitude.
I'm sure there are more diffs from this incident should anyone else want to find them.
Sashi has been warned multiple times, at AE, in unblock requests, and even in his initial unblock that he is wearing the patience of the community thin. He has been subject to 8 sanctions and/or blocks since his unblock, multiple ones based on inability to interact well with others, a battleground mentality, or harassment. He is now using admin accountabliity as an excuse to harass an individual who is trying to hold him accountable for his actions. Enough is enough.
Based on the above actions, which demonstrate a long-term inability to interact with others on this project, I am proposing the following:
- SashiRolls is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia by the community.
- Support as proposer TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support There is far too much drama associated with this account and the diffs above show entirely the wrong approach for a collaborative community. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support. It feels like every other day we're here with another thread about SashiRolls. I believe I said exactly this when their last unban conversation happened. They take up a lot of oxygen and time. --Jorm (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Please open an ArbCom case. I will not have time to respond to this until the weekend (as obviously every single line of it is one-sided). -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 00:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I had seen the unblock request and found the partial block to be too lenient, but didn't want to take unilateral action. And we don't need an arbcom case to implement a community ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Why does it say that Sashi is blocked from an article that's fully protected? GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- GoodDay, the protection happened after the block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I reckon his current 1-article block should be reversed, since it serves no purpose now. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- GoodDay, this discussion is practically about whether it should be converted to a full block. It will be closed after at least 24 hours, when consensus exists for how to continue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I reckon his current 1-article block should be reversed, since it serves no purpose now. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- GoodDay, the protection happened after the block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support The pattern of behavior after the 2018 unblock shows that we've moved beyond second or third chances. Reading through the 2018 unblock discussion, the community extended a healthy amount of AGF: while the behavior in pursuing a sockpuppet was concerning, we assumed good faith particularly because Sashi was ultimately correct about the editor. Since then, the behavior that led to that block has not improved. Restrictions for incivility, multiple blocks for battleground behavior, multiple topic bans, a block for violating one of those topic bans---we have long since reached the point where the benefits outweigh the costs of having to manage these issues. This would be my position without considering the recent hounding of El_C, and when that behavior is considered, it simply reinforces my concern. Those opposed to unblocking in 2018 frequently pointed to WP:NOTTHEM saying that the unblock request focused on others rather than the behavior that led to the block. In these engagements with El_C I see the same behavior where SashiRolls seems to be trying to impugn El_C in order to get unblocked rather than grapple with their own behavior. The past year and a half do not give me confidence that their behavior will improve in the near future, and until it does, we should not continue to waste our time on this treadmill. — Wug·a·po·des 00:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support a 6 month block, not a site ban--MONGO (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- MONGO, they’ve have several blocks before, as well as other editing restrictions such as topic bans and interaction bans, and they haven’t modified their behaviour. Do you think the 9th block will be the charm? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- SashiRolls, I think the best thing you can do, and you can do this right now, in less than 30 seconds, is to repudiate your hounding of El C and say you will not engage in that kind of behavior anymore. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I will not continue to discuss El C. Nor will I respond to comments they make about me even if they refer to me 5 times in the comment.Upon further reflection, I cannot make this claim and defend myself. And since I will likely be banned before I have time to defend myself, I don't feel like leaving such a promise lying around. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 00:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support – How many times do you get to use as an excuse for ongoing problems an event litigated long ago? You cannot hide behind this to continue battleground and harassment behavior. The editor is a negative (forget the modifier “net”) to the project and a time sink. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support This says it all. Enough is enough. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support They have been even too many "last chances" and continue to be a drama-sink for the project. Enough is enough as stated above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support I was in favor of unblocking Sashi Rolls when I commented at 02:00, 29 October 2018, and within three days, I was dismayed to see this editor engage in the very behavior that they had been warned against by so many other editors. After reading the evidence above, I have concluded that Sashi Rolls has core personality traits that makes productive, collaborative participation in this encyclopedia impossible. Their recent harassment of El_C is the straw that broke my back. Thanks to TonyBallioni for doing the work to assemble the evidence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The point of lesser sanctions like IBANs/TBANs/partial blocks etc is to reduce disruption. There are cases where people get heated up when editing a particular topic area, or interacting with a certain person, but having been sanctioned, are able to remain reasonable when editing elsewhere. Unfortunately, it's obvious from the number of different sanctions that have been enacted on Sashi since the 2018 unblock that this is simply not the case for them. When removed from one area, they become heated in another, and another, and another. It seems clear to me that they are not suited for working on the kind of loosely-structured collaborative project that is Wikipedia, and that we have given them enough chances to prove otherwise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note: Sashi just edited my initial post changing my words about his behaviour to suit him, and referring to it as a “lynching”. This is worth adding to the record here, as it demonstrates why this site ban is needed. This is not someone who is compatible with a collaborative project. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- This shocking display of disruption and clumsy attempt at deception is additional rock solid evidence that Sashi Rolls must be site banned from this encyclopedia. Comparing a discussion about whether a person should be allowed to participate on a private website with an extrajudicial murder by a violent mob is reprehensible and grotesque. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I highly suggest editors look at the diff. Aside from the edit summary describing this report as a “lynching”, it’s basically multiple swipes at various editors and administrators. I also suggest that interested editors look at the link for the AP topic ban and especially, the diff to the violation of said restriction. Honestly, his conduct in both areas seemed to me evidently disruptive and dismissive, but nor was it a particularly great look for some of the editors defending that latter page. A lot of this seems pretty petty. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- This shocking display of disruption and clumsy attempt at deception is additional rock solid evidence that Sashi Rolls must be site banned from this encyclopedia. Comparing a discussion about whether a person should be allowed to participate on a private website with an extrajudicial murder by a violent mob is reprehensible and grotesque. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support Far too many last chances. Use of the word lynching when that is actually happening in real life is repellent in the extreme. MarnetteD|Talk 05:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Well deserved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support - This user has been given more than enough chances to reform. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Previous disruption and absurd "lynching" claim aside, editing another's signed comments like that would be enough all by itself for me to block if he weren't already in the middle of a banning discussion. —Cryptic 09:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not everyone is well-suited to collaborative encyclopaedia-writing, and sometimes a contributor needs to be shown to the exit.—S Marshall T/C 10:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I blocked Sashirolls for 6 months back in Dec 10, 2016, and while he mistakenly thinks I ""realized the error of that" block, it was designed to be a last chance. In fact, it was done at AE as a non-AE block for the sole purpose of making it easier for him to appeal once he realized it was his disruptive nature that was the problem. I'm not as optimistic now as I was then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- To be fair, that 2016 AE report was rather tainted by having been brought by SageCandor, a sock of ex-administrator Cirt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support This was it for me. Sometimes, some people just aren't suited to the nature and community norms of Wikipedia, that appears to be the case here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support Yep, this was a last chance. There's absolutely no point in going through the drama and time-wasting of an ArbCom case for something so obvious. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I can't believe Sashi changed Tony's opening post, and changed it in the way that he did.[26] What is that — is he trying to make sure he's sitebanned? Bishonen | tålk 11:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC).
- Support and please weld the door shut behind him this time. SashiRolls' bellicosity and the resulting disruption have been an intractable problem for far too long. Attacking El_C and deceptively editing TonyBallioni's post are the latest in an exhausting series of misconduct by this editor. - MrX 🖋 11:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- The only reason for changing the opening statement of this section could possibly be that this editor wanted to be banned, so we should grant that wish quickly without waiting for loads more pile-on "support" votes. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- (probably stating the obvious, but 24 hours are mandatory; "snow" closure of such a discussion is forbidden per WP:CBAN) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Then I guess we have to wait another eleven and a bit hours. Fwiw put me down as a support. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- (probably stating the obvious, but 24 hours are mandatory; "snow" closure of such a discussion is forbidden per WP:CBAN) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support Multiple final chances, and their deceptive editing of TB’s opening post is the last straw. P-K3 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
