Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	0	0	6	6
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	48	17	65
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 8 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 59 sockpuppet investigations
• 16 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully-protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 5 requests for RD1 redaction
• 40 elapsed requested moves
• 9 requested closures
• 74 requests for unblock
• 3 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 25 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (20 out of 7040 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Ashdod 2024-01-17 04:44 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Zamorin 2024-01-17 04:21 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIND. Per a request at WP:RFPP EdJohnston Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties 2024-01-16 19:42 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case 2024 Erbil attack 2024-01-16 19:37 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Les Ambassadeurs Club 2024-01-16 14:47 2024-01-18 14:47 edit Persistent vandalism clearly ac isn't enough. Robertsky Perplexity AI 2024-01-16 11:35 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated JPxG Ram Mandir 2024-01-16 05:29 indefinite edit,move upgrading to ECP for duration; reset to semi once protection expires Daniel Case Mother Teresa 2024-01-16 05:22 2025-01-16 05:22 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Hizb ut-Tahrir 2024-01-15 23:19 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 Ra'anana attack 2024-01-15 17:11 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Donbas 2024-01-15 13:50 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C Yemen 2024-01-15 13:32 2025-01-15 13:32 edit Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR; related content (i.e. Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war, etc.) El C Kaatera 2024-01-15 10:52 2024-03-15 10:52 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Aaron Jones (running back) 2024-01-15 00:03 2024-01-19 00:03 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Dancing on Ice (series 16) 2024-01-14 22:24 2024-05-14 22:24 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Reem Riyashi 2024-01-14 19:05 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Template:Cite POWO 2024-01-14 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Friendly fire in 2023 Israel–Gaza war 2024-01-13 21:24 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Draft:Alex Bickerton 2024-01-13 14:20 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Category:Recursion 2024-01-13 09:12 indefinite edit,move Following this RFPP request Favonian

Closure request for "Inside Voices / Outside Voices"

I posted this before, but it got archived. Per my inquiry at WP:HD, I am requesting a procedural close or snowball close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Voices / Outside Voices (2nd nomination). --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jax 0677 I have SNOW closed it, if anybody has problems with my close feel free to revert and we can discuss. Thanks, Seawolf35 ^T--C 07:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Koavf unblocked

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

---

It will probably be of interest to a number of admins that I have recently unblocked Koavf (talk · contribs), and as a condition of this, they have agreed to an indefinite one revert restriction. As Koavf is a long-standing editor with an extensive block log for edit-warring, including several indefinite blocks, I think this unblock is worth reviewing to see if there is a solid consensus for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

If looking at that CVS receipt of a block log is correct this is the FIFTH time they were indef'd. At what point do we say as a community "it's not worth our time"? I should add I do not approve of the unblock at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

As I've mentioned to Koavf on his talk page, if the 1RR doesn't work, the next thing that I will probably propose is a site ban. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was wondering about that myself, and also why the unblock was with a one revert restriction when Koavf's proposal and the entire discussion of their unblock was around a zero revert restriction. Also, by my count this is the ninth time they've been unblocked from an edit-warring block after promising not to do it again. How many times do we have to keep doing this? As far as I can tell the edit warring policy does not say "unless you are Koavf" anywhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess to keep it on topic: bad unblock. There's no way that an editor with this long of a block log with so many blocks, many of them indefinite, for the same thing that they are currently blocked for, should have been unblocked without a clear consensus at a community discussion board. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Just would like to note that I blocked Koavf indefinitely and yet Ritchie did not consult with me before unblocking. Not surprising, at least not to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

My reading of that discussion is that they agreed to a WP:0RR sanction. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear to you and to others (e.g. User:Number 57), I am restricting myself to no reverts/undos/etc. for at least a year, no matter the editing restrictions that Ritchie or the community place upon me that are less restrictive. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Personally, I would be tempted to propose a site ban today. Indeed, it's odd that it hasn't happened yet. But this unblock is bizarre. Ritchie333 tells Koavf that they're in the "last-chance saloon"; I'd like clarification on where this saloon is located—on the 31st or 32nd block? Also, the lack of discussion with the blocking admin is disturbing and pretty clearly against the spirit of WP:UNBLOCK (where ...the agreement of the blocking admin is something of a mantra). Bad unblock. ——Serial 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

A few points:

• Koavf's unblock request talks about 1RR. As it was not obvious whether 0RR or 1RR was being agreed to, I deferred to the least restrictive option given.
• A number of longstanding editors, including Boing! said Zebedee, Thinker78 and Valereee, suggested an editing restriction would be a suitable way forward.

• I took Bbb23's silence on the talk page as an indication they had no strong opinions on what happened next.
• In general, I find unblock requests tend to stagnate and take weeks to get any action - bringing them here for review gets a faster result.
• If there is no consensus to unblock Koavf, then I have no objection to them being reblocked indefinitely. Or, if there is a consensus to site ban Koavf, I won't object to that either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

As Koavf has agreed to a voluntary 0RR, I think a formal 1RR is a wise choice. It gives him a little leeway (but only a little) for an occasional 1RR mistake without being instantly blocked. He should, of course, endeavour to stick to 0RR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

My view is that the overriding thing that matters is whether unblocking an editor will be a net positive to the project, and in this case I think that's a big yes. In fact, as I suggested at Koavf's talk page, I think we'd still have a significant net positive if we just blocked him for a fixed period (1 month?) every time he gets into an edit war (providing it's not too frequently). In the past, I've favoured "wasting community time" as a reason to keep someone blocked. But these days I realise that if I think someone is wasting my time, they can't be - because I'm the only one who can do that. So if anyone thinks Koavf is wasting their time, they can surely just ignore him - and if enough people don't think so, we're fine, aren't we? (TLDR: Good unblock, thanks Ritchie.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Why even bother with a one month block? There's always someone around who will unblock Koavf: nine times now he's been unblocked, and many of those blocks were timed blocks that were undone before they expired. If not wasting time is our goal, we should just add # You are [[User:Koavf]]. to the bottom of the WP:3RRNO list. As for being a net positive: I'd also like to know how one achieves this designation, so that I too can repeatedly disregard policies that I find inconvenient or difficult to follow. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, you have my thoughts on how I think we should look at unblocks - more holistically rather than by strict rule-following. But if you don't like my opinion, others are available :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ay, per IV, and it's been repeatedly established in the past at both ANI and Arbcom that neither the number nor the quality of one's edits exempts an editor from the rules everyone else has to follow. And frankly, if we're to effectively guarantee that they'll never receive a block longer than, e.g. a month, then that's hardly a deterrent, more of an encouragement. ——Serial 15:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

{ec}:Yes. Koavf has had almost 30 blocks in his editing career. Do we really just say "Well, he's a good editor" (I'm not sure what the criteria people using is who say this). So can he have an unlimited number of one month blocks? I don't see in the unblock any suggestion that he should be at any point indefinitely blocked. I think this was a bad unblock. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

So we are to "just ignore him" if he continues to edit war? How in the world is that a "net positive"? The project is better off without him editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this, but I saw the dispute that triggered the current round, and I have been wondering whether it would be possible to set a bot or Special:AbuseFilter to auto-block him if he makes edits that earn relevant Special:Tags (e.g., Undo or Manual revert, or more than one on the same page per day). This would trigger even for blatant vandalism, so he wouldn't be able to do that, but he won't be able to do that if we siteban him, either.

There is a theory of punishment that says that the best approach to changing someone's behavior is a punishment that is prompt, expected, and small enough that an appeal isn't especially pointful. An instant block for a few days upon infraction might be more effective than ongoing discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea as a technical solution, and I generally agree with the underlying principle, but I recoil at the thought of writing a piece of software just to deal with one editor. We already have an effective tool for dealing with people who refuse to follow policies and conventions – we apparently just lack the will to use it consistently. – bradv 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't a productive approach either: most of the blocks in Koavf's very long block log are for 48 hours or less, including one that was successfully appealed after just 42 minutes. Koavf always says they've learned their lesson and won't do it again, somebody always unblocks him, and he always does it again. Occasionally there's a long interlude but he always ends up blocked again. We've tried short blocks, we've tried long blocks, Arbcom even tried 1RR parole which he was blocked for violating five times within a year. He doesn't improve - we've repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't need to, and some of us are saying that in plain English in this thread. Our choices here are to implement a technical restriction that prevents him from reverting for any reason (if an edit filter can do that), or siteban him; anything else is a formal acknowledgement that Koavf is functionally exempt from the edit warring policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This also seems like a good place to note that Koavf has had rollback rights since 2010. I realize that removing it is kind of pointless (since we have many tools that can perform the same function without needing userrights) but I struggle to think of a better example of justification for its removal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The edit filter can't AFAIK filter based on tags, but it can filter based on edit summary which is probably good enough. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Building abusefilter entries to sanction single users is bad use of resources, individual users being disruptive should be managed with blocks. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect there's a number of indeffed editors out there (if they're looking in), who aren't going to be too happy. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• +1 to this being a bad unblock. At the very least, I would have expected a 0RR restriction being imposed. Number 57 16:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) One word – pathetic. If Koavf can get away with it (despite making promises not to edit war in the past) then every other blocked editor/IP/sockpuppet/etc should also be unblocked. There must be no room for "special treatment" like with this particular editor. – sbaio 17:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• I don't approve of this decision and I hope it's promptly reversed.—S Marshall T/C 18:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Agree - bad unblock, this should have been discussed with the community before. GiantSnowman 19:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, that's a good point; in the past I have gone to AN to get an unblock request reviewed (IIRC I did this with Winkelvi at least twice) and I'm actually puzzled I didn't do it this time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I also think it's a bad unblock. The unblock especially without community discussion is rewarding recidivism behaviour. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a minor point of order, I didn't consider the unblock "unilateral"; rather I took it as the consensus of those who had commented at Koavf's talk page. If the wider consensus is Koavf shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all, then that's fine. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• The unspoken issue here is that Koavf is borderline WP:UNBLOCKABLE due to them being the fifth most prolific editor of all time. Of course, the second most prolific editor of all time is BrownHairedGirl, and we all know how that ended (though ArbCom had to be the one to ultimately ban her, because of the UNBLOCKABLE issue). But we still keep coming back here because edit warring is mild on the spectrum of misbehavior, and editors keep weighing Koavfs 2.2 million edits against that. Really, this whole thing is just tragic. I think we've all been hoping that Koavf would see sense after so many blocks. Like, how could you continue to not get it after making 2.2 million edits? But maybe that's exactly the point. Koavf has repeatedly proved that he is set in his ways and unwilling or unable to change. Still, Koavf's positive contributions to Wikipedia weight very heavily on the side of an unblock, so its hard to say that Ritchie's unblock was inherently bad. It is up to individual admins to decide unblocks, and Ritchie extended a ROPE. Now, one could argue Koavf has been given enough rope to open a macrame business, but given Koavf's unusual situation, I'm not sure that was inherently a bad thing. I think we're sometimes too quick to chase away our best editors. Plus, Koavf came up with a rather good unblock plan: ORR for a year, followed by indefinite 1RR. If anything, I think Ritchie's failing here was not accepting Koavf's 0RR plan. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  To the extent that anyone's motivated to, please codify an indefinite 0RR. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, I think the Captain sums up the dilemma well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I would like some clarification on the process leading to this decision because it seems to have been reached on the narrowest forum possible, without a strong consensus, and without consulting the blocking administrator. Unblocking someone with a history of 28 blocks (give or take), including 18 for edit warring, shouldn't have been done with such casual ease. The debate between 1RR and 0RR is a distraction and it completely ignores that they have a history of repeatedly violating 1RR parole conditions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Bad unblock. I'm unimpressed by Ritchie's argument here that several longstanding editors (giving three examples) suggested an editing restriction, as Ritchie of course knows that a not-on-the-face-of-it-very-well-watched user talkpage is an obscure place to come to a pretty momentous consensus. I should think there may be plenty of longstanding editors who deliberately avoid watching such an unpleasant place as Koavf's page, for the improvement of their Wikipedia experience. I'm an example myself, having unwatched the page after Doug Weller and I were comprehensively attacked by Koavf in the Antifa section in November 2023 (if you're interested at all, don't miss the tucked-away subsection "Weird aside" at the end, collapsed and marked "Resolved" [sic] by Koavf). As for Ritchie taking Bbb23's silence as giving consent, that's unusual, not in a good way. Bbb23 should at a minimum have been asked to comment. I will support either reblocking or replacing the block with Ivan Vector's "Proposal: No reverts restriction" below. Bishonen | tålk 10:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC).

I will also note that the failure to use any of the much more visible collapsing templates is a bit odd on Koavf's part, unless the presumption is made that it is done to hide the section from scrutiny, which then ends up making far more sense. For example, Template:Collapse, I would argue, would have been much more visible than the inline "Weird aside" which I actually scrolled past without realizing until I searched the page with Ctrl + F and found it. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I just used the first template I found. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on Koavf but I do think it was a bad idea to identify consensus based on a talk page discussion and think that doing so is against WP:LOCALCON; I have boldly made an edit to that policy to clarify this. BilledMammal (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick note, the blocking admin was pinged twice here and here, and it was the lack of response there, and the comments by an admin and a retired admin (in good standing) about having an editing restriction instead of a block, that persuaded me to not decline the unblock request, which I probably would have done if there had been no third parties. I then immediately started the thread here, sceptical that the conversation really did amount to a full consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment. At what point do we say as a community "it's not worth our time"? When the time it takes the community to address negative edits from Koavf exceeds the time it legitimately takes Koavf to make positive contributions. Until then, Koavf is a net benefit for Wikipedia, even if Koavf gets in murky waters. If anything, I think it fair and proportional that if Koavf gets into disciplinary issues, they get discipline intended to protect the Wikipedia project, which in the case of Koavf, means getting up to "time outs" for a period of time not exceeding one year. Because as stated, Wikipedia even with Koavf controversial situations, in the end benefits from Koavf edits. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I would generally agree with the spirit of that, even if the net-positivity is declining the more chances Koavf is given, but there has to be a limit at some point, or the myth of "unblockables" in the loose sense ("unbannables"?) becomes a reality. So, let this be the last chance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: 0RR with no unilateral unblocks

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

---

There seems to be pretty broad consensus above that unblocking with a 1RR was an insufficient remedy, but it's not clear to me that a motion to siteban would pass either. Since Koavf has indicated that he will hold himself to a 0RR regardless of the 1RR's leeway, and since a key concern raised above is the tendency of admins to unblock Koavf, I would like to propose the following community sanction:

Koavf is subject to an indefinite zero-revert restriction. If an administrator blocks Koavf for violating this restriction, he may not be unblocked without a consensus at the administrators' noticeboard. This restriction may appealed after one year, and every six months after an unsuccessful appeal.

I'll be honest, I'm not hugely opposed to a siteban either, but I'd like to see how this would go (and any block under the restriction would have the same effect as a siteban regardless). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Support, although this feels somewhat like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. GiantSnowman 19:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I believe the better question to ask the community would be - Should Koavf be site-banned. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to !vote that here, if that's your preference. Just change the heading to "Proposed sanctions" or something. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Inappropriate. Tamzin, as you know, this thread is not about redefining Koavf's remedy but whether Ritchie333's unilateral unblock had consensus. The above thread clearly shows that there is a consensus it was an inappropriate block. The result is, therefore, that Koavf should be reblocked; that is, the previous blocking administrator's judgment stands. The siteban was only mentioned in passing by a couple of us: it's pretty much a strawman to suggest that that was the main issue under discussion. The overall consensus to the question that Ritchie brought to the table—"was my unblock a good one?"—has received a resounding answer: No. So it gets overturned. There was also a pretty strong consensus that unblocking would just be kicking the can down road; this proposal enables the behavior further. ——Serial 20:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  There is not a meaningful difference between restoring the indef and sitebanning. An admin who unilaterally unblocked after a reblock would be going against consensus at best and wheel-warring at worst, so in either case an unblock request would have to come through AN. But like I said, I don't have a strong preference here. I just thought I'd give a middle-ground option. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: I fully accept your reasonable and considered proposal and subsequent response. My issue is rather that, so much middle ground has been covered in the past, that it's now a no man's land; and unfortunately, it's no longer Christmas day. ——Serial 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support This seems to be a reasonable solution to the issue I identify above; i.e. that Ritchie's failing here was not accepting Koavf's 0RR suggestion. Plus, Koavf himself has requested it in this discussion, so that's all the more reason to formalize it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as a second choice; I'm going to write in a slightly different proposal below. I don't think that Koavf should be reblocked at this point: I agree with Ritchie that there was consensus to unblock in the talk page discussion that did occur. I still think Ritchie took liberties in the imposed restriction that were beyond reasonable license, but there's no preventive purpose to reblocking Koavf because of that, and I don't see the value in pursuing anything else in that regard - admins make mistakes. This restriction puts into writing that future unblocks must be with the broad consensus of the community, not just short discussions among Koavf's supporters. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• I think 1RR is sufficient, but I can support this too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• I too think that 1RR is sufficient, but if the others think that 0RR is necessary, then I will support their choice. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Tamzin's comments above and below. Ajpolino (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I think 0RR might be easier to understand than 1RR. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support This seems a reasonable solution. ORR should have been the minimum when Koavf was unblocked but better late never.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as a last chance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support - But that ice is getting mighty thin. 0RR solves one issue. This is obviously a prolific, historic Wikipedia editor, but the off-putting rhetorical style and long block log are serious concerns, and the Talk page hatted “Weird” section inappropriately marked “Resolved” is disturbing, even if on their own Talk page. Suggest avoiding edgy topics and editors, and walking away from anything rightly or wrongly perceived as WP:BAIT. And the unilateral unblock deserves at least a trout, but it was then brought here by the admin for review, so, well… Jusdafax (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. This should be seen as an absolute final chance, and any additional edit warring should result in a site ban. SkyWarrior 02:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin). Bbb23 should have been notified before unblocking but what is done is done. This is their absolute last chance. Polyamorph (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support although I would like to see the proposal go further and state Koafv must be blocked if they breach 0RR, rather than giving any leeway on this. Number 57 15:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support only if Site ban or reinstatement of indef do not pass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support, third choice to the below tweak or a siteban. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support only if siteban/indef do not pass. Bishonen | tålk 09:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC).

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

Proposal: site ban, second choice restore indefinite block

Per a number of statements above this should be put forward as an alternative to an editing restriction. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support The advantage of a site ban—which, of course, needn't be of any fixed duration—is that it prevents any unblocks without community input, unlike what caused the above shenanigans. And the second choice indef block is not so much a second choice as, well, a pretty clear reading of the consensus above. FTR, I do not consider 2.2 million edits to weigh anything against repeatedly pissing off the community for years and being enabled to do so. Mileage may, of course vary, as ever. ——Serial 20:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support To me all the 0RR restriction about is kicking the can down the road. It's not if it happens again but when. The message this sends is, at least to me, "You can do what you want if you edit enough". If this was an editor with a fraction of the edits, and specifically this block log, we aren't having this discussion right now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is definitely trying to shut the stable door! GiantSnowman 21:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• It's ridiculous that we have to do this to get a block to stick, but it looks like this is what we have to do to get a block to stick.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Checking his shopping list of a block log is enough to me oppose once again unblocking him, which would give him the status as an WP:UNBLOCKABLE. Some people have suggested giving him 1RR or 0RR as a countermeasure, but he seems to been known to violate these 'restrictions'. For example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=9287453

ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)— ASmallMapleLeaf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That so-called shopping list is a by-product of using a single account to make over 2 million edits. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Koavf is #5 on WP:MOSTEDITS. The #1 editor on that list has never been blocked intentionally. #3 spent 92 minutes blocked for edit-warring in 2007. #4 was blocked for 1 minute in 2009 to get their attention. Then there's #2 on that list, BrownHairedGirl, who is now ArbComBanned, but even her block log is much shorter than Koavf's, and only goes back to 2019. So I don't buy a long block log as an occupational hazard of making lots of edits. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Several of these prolific editors are/were admins, which does affect block probability. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 I am also a newer user (hence the low edit count) but I have spectated ANI for a long time as a pastime (sometimes when flying and wheb there is no internet) ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

^thats not to say I like editting ANI more than other articles, though. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose because it would be a net negative for the encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• I am not opposed to this but slightly prefer my proposal above. Koavf has been given very ample notice about the existence of the edit-warring policy, so I couldn't really feel bad for him if he's run out of the community's patience here, and can't justify opposing this. But I guess I take a WP:ROPE attitude toward his offer of 0RR, made enforceable by my proposal; if he can't keep that 0RR, we'll know soon enough. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - it would be a significant loss to Wikipedia if we can't find a way for Koavf to be able to continue editing, and we ought to keep trying to find a solution that works. struck; see below But a thought occurred to me in this: have you noticed that we only use terms like "net positive" and "net loss" when discussing editors who have behaved so badly that they're facing expulsion from the site? Maybe those terms don't mean what we think they do in Wikipedia jargon. If you have to be defended as a "net positive", maybe you just aren't. I'm not directing that at anyone in particular, just food for thought. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support siteban - I can image what currently site-banned editors are thinking right now. Jeepers, I was site-banned for a whole year (2012–13) for arguably less disruptive behavior. We shouldn't be seen as giving preferential treatment to any editor. PS - I did look over their block-log & WP:UNBLOCKABLES did cross my mind. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin comment) - We shouldn't have any WP:UNBLOCKABLES, and having such a prolific edit history is not an excuse for this amount of behavior issues. Edit count alone doesn't make someone a "net positive", and I agree with Ivanvector's thoughts above. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• I somewhat reluctantly support this. Reluctantly, because Justin has been here for a long time and is indeed prolific--but from that record we need to subtract the amount of disruption and busy-ness caused by edit warring and blocks and discussions. The "no reverts" promise is something, but this--they didn't even take it back. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe I'm missing something, but that actually seems like a reasonable question. It wasn't immediately clear what Doug Weller was trying to accomplish by posting that comment. Without context, it did rather smack of gravedancing. Perhaps I'm bending over too far backwards trying to be gracious to Justin, but I think we need to be especially careful to be fair to an editor when we are talking about banning him. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  I also thought Doug's comments were gravedancing, although coming from the same frustration being expressed in this discussion and so maybe fair comment. I thought about saying something at the time but I really thought that nobody would unblock Justin again and it would be better to let it blow over. Anyway I think Justin's response was a reasonable reaction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, I thought you'd know Doug a bit better than that. No editor whose career is on the line should respond in that way. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think I know Doug just well enough to believe he intended to "describ[e] factually, solely for the information of other editors, disruptive activities that resulted in a block" (the last bullet under "what is not gravedancing"), but a reasonable reading of Doug's words sounds more like "you deserve to stay blocked this time", particularly with Doug's later reply that he could see why Justin wouldn't want him to highlight his 28 or 29 previous blocks, and that tips the scale pretty far in the other direction. By "frustration" I mean that when I saw Koavf's username struck through in my watchlist I thought something like "fucking Christ, again?!" and so maybe I crossed Doug's words with my own emotion. But whatever it is, if Doug's comments were fair then so were Justin's replies. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector@Lepricavark I've been wondering if I should reply, but I've decided I should. Did you see User:Bishonen's comment above? Bishonen blocked Koafv from Antifa after I asked Koafv a question about an edit he made to the article which I reverted and the discussion on his talk page spiralled rapidly downwards. Among other uncivil comments, "Doug left semi-literate edit summaries that made no sense to me: that's a fact. He even comes here and writes half-formed sentences and writes responses to himself asking himself questions:" I didn't know anything about this editor at that time so far I can recall but I was left with the impression of a very uncollaborative and unpleasant editor. At the time I hadn't realised he had a long block history. When I discovered it during an earlier exchange I was gobsmacked - there aren't that many editors with such a long history of blocks. My opinion then and now is that we don't want editors like him, 2 million edits notwithstanding. Obviously other editors I respect disagree with me on that. Also please see User:Ritchie's response to my last post on Koafv's talk page. In retrospect it would probable a better idea for my section heading to have simply suggested to any Admin considering an unblock to look at their block log.

  Maybe also take a look at Kofav's response to User:Fram's mild comment about his not using reliable sources. Koafv accuses Fram of harassing several times there (it seems to be one of Koafv's favorite words) and lying. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• (Fixing Doug Weller's ping of User:Fram. Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC).)

Yes, I did see Justin's incivility toward you and I am sorry that you were subjected to that. (Obviously, Justin is the one who should be saying sorry, but that seems unlikely to happen.) I don't believe that your intent in leaving those comments was to gravedance, but if I was in Justin's shoes I probably would have perceived them that way. If I was in Justin's shoes, I'd also like to believe that I wouldn't edit-war so much or attack the literacy of clearly literate editors. That sort of thing is why he finds himself on the thinnest of ice, with even supporters such as myself ready to withdraw our support if he doesn't behave angelically moving forward. But my concern is that when an editor is on the verge of being banned, it is easy to begin seeing everything they do as further evidence that they should be banned. I can't fault Justin's response to your comments about his block log, and I don't think it is fair to use them against him. But again, just to be clear, I do not think you were in fact gravedancing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. But I have to note it's not just me he's been uncivil to. Which makes me wonder whether if he is unblocked civility should be a condition. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: apologies for suggesting you were engaging in gravedancing; I meant to describe how your comments could be interpreted that way by someone not familiar with the situation, and I see that I made a poor job of it. In fact I was not aware of those other issues: I largely ignore Koavf's user talk and didn't look beyond the unblock request when all this happened, so I guess it's me that's "not familiar with the situation". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector don't worry about it. Happens to us all and in fact I missed his attacks on Fram and had forgotten about the attacks on Bish and me even though I think he's the only person who's ever called me illiterate! Otherwise I would have mentioned them earlier. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support (Non-administrator comment) per what others already said. Having some kind of "celebrity" status does not make it acceptable to keep breaking the rules and getting away with it. Every editor must be treated equally and "2 million edits" is not a justification (along with extensive block log, which just shows that this is a problematic editor). – sbaio 18:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose he's offered us 0RR. Let's give it one last shot. If he fails to adhere to this promise, I will support a ban. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. According to his block log, he's been blocked in the past for violating a 1RR restriction. I see no reason - and certainly not his contribution numbers - to do this again. It feels like a broken record.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per my reasoning in the section just above. Jusdafax (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• I do not necessarily object to a site ban at this time, however I am willing to give a 0RR restriction a chance. SkyWarrior 02:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose In the spirit of WP:ROPE. Curbon7 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Have you checked Koavfs block log? I think he has ran out of rope by now

  ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Bbb23. Enough, really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, first preference, regrettably. Enough is enough. We've given him plenty of rope, and he has hung himself, as the metaphor goes. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, first preference. I thank Koavf for the effort he has put into the encyclopedia, but the block log and the recent incident with Bishonen/Doug Weller are too damning. I have no reason to believe that any restriction imposed on editing will in the end be adhered to. It is likely a future block or sanction will be needed, even if it takes awhile, and this discussion will most likely happen again regardless of any restrictions which may be imposed. Not a good use of community time. I think we need a strongly enforced and decently long separation from Koavf before we consider granting WP:ROPE again; he's had more than enough until this point. —Sirdog (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support I am not convinced that he will comply with any editing restriction. Scorpions1325 (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:RECIDIVISM. Every single block leading up to this point are all because of edit warring. This isn't a mixture of vandalism, edit warring, sockpuppeting, legal threat blocks all piled together and inflated the block log. He has already been indef'ed twice. Why are we awarding rule-breaking behaviour? And if he didn't get the message after having indef block lifted the first time, why do we think his behaviour will improve second time around? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support While the contributions of Koavf are appreciated, they cannot be allowed to outweigh the user's numerous violations of the rules, including sixteen blocks for edit warring and five ArbCom revert restriction violations. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Having re-read Koavf's talkpage including the Fram business, this is where I land. Bishonen | tålk 09:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC).
• Not opposed - after some discussion I can't remain opposed to sitebanning, but I'm wary of supporting. Many of the comments here refer to WP:UNBLOCKABLES, and I fear that some of them are supporting this action not because Koavf's behaviour warrants a siteban on its own merit but just to make an example of very prolific users, or as retribution for less-prolific editors who were banned for less. We have not ever and should not now start blocking users to make a point of demonstrating their infallibility, and I hope that anyone who has already commented in that vein with reflect on their comments before this closes. That said, the years-long issues with edit warring coupled with a growing pattern of unpleasant interpersonal conflict suggests that Koavf's tenure on this project is rapidly approaching its end. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. We're past warning in this case, which is truly a tragedy for Wikipedia. Like others have mentioned, Koavf doesn't seem to restrain themselves even when they are aware they are acting disruptively. If this proposal fails, I'd be okay with Tamzin's 0RR compromise. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - This isn't a case of harassment, abuse of power, sock puppetry, personal attacks, or some other severe issue -- it's edit warring. It's frustrating, and at some point enough is definitely enough, but it's a narrow behavioral problem with clear options for remedies which should be tried first -- and we have possible interventions available which are meant for this very purpose. When making so many edits it'll be nigh impossible to avoid accidentally or unthinkingly reverting something, so I don't know how long it will last, but it's worth trying. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Koavf has been blocked only a few times in the 13 years despite making over 2,000,000 edits. The few makes he has made have been: minor, did nott feature any canvassing, crude language, sockpupptry, or any other disruptive editing other than reverts themselves. Koavf has not been shown to be generally uncooperative or disruptive and these incidents have been the exception, not the norm. We can't keep losing big editors to minor incidents like this. See further reasoning in my section. Ovsk (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I note that this user has made nine edits, six to this page and the other three in their user space. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support as first and only option At some point, enough is enough. I don't care if a net positive is removed for the sake of bringing in twice as much negative. He has no restraint, it's already been proven before. — Moe Epsilon 12:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. Excessive. BD2412 T 17:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rhododendrites. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. If a user is given an unblock, along with a specific condition they must keep in order to remain unblocked, they must not be reblocked unless their behavior after the unblock either violates the condition or would be completely unacceptable for a normal user. The unblocked ck may have been bad, but 0RR is a clear rule for him to follow. As long as he doesn't violate this rule, don't reblock. Animal lover |666| 23:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that on a net balance, Koavf likely brings a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Certainly no editor gets a free pass, but certainly the context of their vast positive contributions need to be taken into account. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural comment: I've closed proposal 1 as successful, and proposal 3 as unsuccessful. Courtesy ping to @CaptainEek, M.Bitton, Ajpolino, Espresso Addict, Pawnkingthree, Polyamorph, Number 57, and Star Mississippi, who weighed on at least one of the other propsals and have not opined whether a siteban remains necessary here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron: thanks. BTW, I didn't receive a notification (probably because the pinging was done as part of an edit change). M.Bitton (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Weird! let's reping @CaptainEek, Ajpolino, Espresso Addict, Pawnkingthree, Polyamorph, and Star Mississippi. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Theleekycauldron. Not sure if I didn't receive it or I missed it. From my POV, no indef needed. Other solutions can address the problem until/unless it recurs. Star Mississippi 15:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I am not familiar with the details of this issue, but just looking at this thread, it appears clear to me that any person generating so much overhead for fellow editors, and with a block log that takes up more than one screen, is a net negative to the project. Productive editors quietly generate articles, not drama. Sandstein 07:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think this is necessary, as the 0RR is already effectively a ban: I have no confidence Koavf will be able to abide by it. Would be awesome if I were to be proven wrong. —Cryptic 10:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support siteban (as a non-admin), and theleekycauldron's close of the above proposal was premature, as presumably many commenters would have believed that simply dropping off a support in another section would be sufficient to count as an implicit oppose to the earlier proposal. One of the classic problems with managing problem users is what to do about someone who engages in low-level unpleasantness for a long period of time but without jumping completely off the rails, and Wikipedia is unusually inept at this. Rhododendrites says above that koavf "only" engages in edit wars. So? Aside from the uncalled for abuse toward Doug Weller linked above, even if we grant for a moment that the only problem is edit wars, someone who has edit warred that much should still be blocked! This is not a hard behavioral criteria to meet. To productively move forward, if there's a case for unblock, there's a slow but powerful way to do it: contribute productively without incident for a long time on another WMF project. Do that, and an unblock request might have merit. But just more promises? SnowFire (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Not my first choice, but ultimately I don't think they should have been unblocked and I would be amazed if they didn't trigger their 0RR within the next few months, so it might just be best to get it done with now. I agree with some of the comments above about that their repeated unblocking (despite probably having one of the longest block logs on Wikipedia) is not fair to other editors who were not given so many chances. Number 57 14:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  "...so it might be best to get it done with now", is there a WP:THOUGHTCRIME in the glossary? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I would prefer to try the 0RR first. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. Therefore, it is right to give the user a final chance to operate under the terms of the 0RR editing restriction. Polyamorph (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weak oppose prefer to try 0RR first, per my comment on the proposal above. That said, I don't have a ton of hope that 0RR will work, and I understand why folks think an indef/siteban is the only way to prevent further disruption. Ajpolino (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support a Site Ban although with eligibility to apply for reinstatement in six months. This is an editor who has been habitually edit-warring at least since 2006, when he was first indeffed for edit-warring, and is regularly unblocked. As a comment, the designation of certain editors as unblockable should probably be unbannable, because blocks do not stick to these users. The community needs to ensure that this block sticks. This is an example of how ArbCom should sometimes review the sanctions against editors with long block logs if the community is split. If there is consensus for a ban, Koavf should be banned by the community. If the closer determines that there is a rough consensus against a ban, this case can also be closed. But if there is no consensus, this case should be sent to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose (and "you've got to be kidding me"), the project is much better with Koavf editing than without. A good and productive volunteer editor, so good that there could be a holiday named after him (oh wait, there is). Now that Koavf has agreed to accept an ankle monitor and become a forced-to-be-friendly Wikipedian, things will probably go well. Seems like a win-win situation. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose An intermediate sanction has received unanimous assent. Lets give that a chance before tossing the baby out with the bath water. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  How many last chances have we given him already? Even if the end result is unblock, this is just kicking the can down the road until ArbCom steps in (like Brownhairgirl's case) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose it's true that they have been blocked something like six times in the last 12 years or so, but the blocks were for edit warring (not vandalism or personal attacks). Ultimately, they remain a net positive (i.e., they give more to the community than they take out), so let's give the 0RR a chance. The incident with Doug (an editor for whom I have a lot of respect) that I missed previously is really unfortunate, but it's also out of character and I'm sure that they will find a way to make amends. M.Bitton (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - This is absurd. Site bans are for egregious misconduct, not stupid crap like edit warring. Edit wars are, in the large scheme of things, mildly annoying at worst. WP:AN3 is thataway if/when he edit wars again. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support to save some time before we do this song and dance in a few months. Some men, you just can't reach Mach61 (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The editor's specific multi-block-worthy issue is editwarring, and the 0RR already passed above makes even the faintest whiff of that behavior an insta-ban, so there is no cause for a site ban now, if we can get Koavf's productive side working on the project again with his one unproductive tendency completely walled off.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: 0RR and no unilateral unblocks is the least restrictive alternative and pretty much a last chance, given the number of supports for a site ban right now. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: No reverts restriction

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

---

Making this separate from Tamzin's very similar restriction because of what I expect to be a controversial caveat.

Koavf is subject to an indefinite "no reverts" restriction: Koavf may not revert any edit for any reason, including the usual exemptions in the edit warring policy. For clarity: any edit that is flagged with the mw-undo, mw-rollback, or mw-manual-revert tags is a violation of this restriction, excepting only self-reverts. Additionally, Koavf's rollback permission is revoked, and he may not hold the permission while this restriction remains in force. If an administrator blocks Koavf for violating this restriction, he may not be unblocked without a consensus at the administrators' noticeboard. This restriction may appealed at the same noticeboard after one year, and every six months after an unsuccessful appeal.

• Support as proposer. Many of Koavf's past blocks have been over good-faith misinterpretations of what is considered an exempt revert. This restriction removes the confusion: no reverts, period. Yes it's a bit draconian but nothing else has worked, and admins still have discretion to warn instead of rushing for the block button. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• I will support this if you can incorporate Tamzin's 'no unilateral unblock' wording. GiantSnowman 21:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  The part starting with "If an administrator blocks..." is copied directly from Tamzin's proposal, except I added that appeals must be at this noticeboard as well. Did you mean something else? That was certainly my intent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. GiantSnowman 19:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to support this, but slightly hesitate over the inclusion of mw-manual-revert. According to Special:Tags, that covers "Edits that manually restore the page source to an exact previous state". Per mw:Manual:Reverts § Manual revert, MediaWiki by default looks at the last 15 revisions to determine that. I can't find what it's set to on enwiki, but my recollection it's either the default 15 or 10. I'm not sure that, in all cases, leaving the page look like it did 10 or 15 edits ago will lead to something that a human would perceive as a revert. Like, suppose User A makes 7 edits adding incoherent nonsense to a page. On edit 8, User B, a newbie who doesn't know how to restore old edits, manually reverts most of that, but makes a small spelling error in the process. Six months later, Koavf stumbles upon the article, notices the spelling error, and fixes it, thereby returning the page to its state before User A touched it (edit 0). No reasonable admin would call that a revert, but MediaWiki would, as I understand it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Same as Tamzin, I don't think this should be based on MediaWiki tags, but on human judgment of whether an edit is a revert. Still, saying that, I'd prefer this option to a site ban or indef block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• (Without studying the merits of the case), shouldn't the admin who blocks Koavf be able to rescind the block? Suggest "he may not be unblocked" becomes "he may not be unblocked by another administrator". Zero^talk 02:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• No, I don't think so. If this passes, and I hope it doesn't, we want to give the unblocking decision to the community, not to the first sysop to get to the block button.—S Marshall T/C 14:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  But being able to undo your own actions is SOP for admin actions, so we should be aware this is a pretty big departure from standard procedure. Courcelles (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• That seems like a lot of pressure to put on the blocking admin, also a measure of power inordinate to their office (it would essentially give Admins individual ownership of blocked users). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• This is just proposal #2 with a delay on it. If Koavf was capable of changing his behaviour, he would long since have changed it.—S Marshall T/C 14:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Responding to the points above, I've struck the "clarity" part about relying on software tags. I was looking for a very black-and-white solution to avoid misjudgements and disagreements, but the tags themselves are also subject to error, and I can't say I disagree with any of the other points made. As for unblocking by the blocking administrator: I don't agree, with the possible exception of obviously erroneous blocks, but even in that case I think it would be preferable to review at AN (such a review ought to be pretty quick anyway). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as (I think) strictest potential restriction short of another block or ban. GiantSnowman 19:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: As a purely technical issue, I sometimes make edits (often to templates or stylesheets) that end up with the mw-manual-revert tag because there happens to be an old revision somewhere in the history of the page with the same source code, despite these not actually being reverts (i.e. having the same code as a revision from several years ago where there's been dozens of subsequent modifications). jp×g🗯️ 00:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support and I don't have a strong preference between this and Tamzin's. This gives Koavf the .0000001 % chance he'll actually this time for real no backsies change, and we maintain his positive contributions to the project. I don't want to see him site banned, but that's not really our call. I mean it is, but I share the hesitation that it would pass. If he ends up indeffed again, and that's not our fault, it's his. No one is forcing him to make these edits that he knows are a problem/ Star Mississippi 01:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of Tamzin's proposal. SkyWarrior 02:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, 2nd preference to siteban. As said above, most of Koavf's issues have been misinterpreting 3RRNOT, so if something does it without banning 'em, this is it. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposal: No punitive blocks

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

---

Wikipedia's blocking policy states Blocks should be preventative, not punitive and Blocks should not be used [...] if there is no current conduct issue of concern. Given that edit warring only lasts for a short while, why was Koavf blocked indefinitely? Well, the answer usually given is that it's indicative of wider conduct or behavior. While this is an important exemption, I do not believe that applies here. While an editor who is extremely disruptive and does lots of problematic behavior and is generally disruptive should be blocked indefinitely, Koavf is not that. Koavf's conflicts aren't any more than should expected for how much he has contributed.

Editors are human, and humans aren't perfect and we recognize this, that's why we allow formerly disruptive editors and even vandals to get second chances. Inevitably, conflicts will arise and out-of-conduct editing will occur for everyone, however, that should not be seen as indicative of wider issues with an editor. Wikipedia's current blocking system is, unfortunately, like a fuse for long-term content editors. Once the fuse is lit, it starts burning; and once someone makes enough mistakes (which will happen inevitably), they get permanently banned. This has happened to far too many of our most productive editors and it has to stop. We (as a community) need to get better at differentiating between inevitable minor conflicts and actual behavioral issues.

Therefore, I propose:

Koavf may not be blocked for edit warring for more than 72 hours at a time unless there is consensus at AN or ANI

• Support as proposer. Ovsk (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You created an account today and all of your edits are to this proposal. Yet you sound as though you've had a lot of experience of Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 08:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, 2 of them were to your user space. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I came here from Wikipediocracy. I am rnu there. Ovsk (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Such an arbitrary and severe restriction on normal admimistrative discretion is unwarranted and unwise. If an administrator believes that a 96 hour or one week block is justified by the specific circumstances, I fail to see why their hands should be tied in this fashion. Cullen328 (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Ok, I can see how "72 hours" may seem too arbitrary. Would you prefer if it said Koavf may not be blocked for edit warring indefinitely unless there is consensus at AN or ANI instead? Ovsk (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, Ovsk, I see no reason to restrict an administrator's power to block an editor who has 29 previous blocks. A few may have been bad blocks but most were legitimate. It is not at all uncommon for me or other administrators to indefintely block disruptive editors without consensus at ANI or AN. Why should Koavf have a carve-out exempting this one editor from normal enforcement procedures by administrators? Cullen328 (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328:

> It is not at all uncommon for me or other administrators to indefintely block disruptive editors without consensus at ANI or AN. Why should Koavf have a carve-out exempting this one editor from normal enforcement procedures by administrators?

As I stated before, edit wars are temporary. And since blocks are preventative, indefinite blocks for edit warring should only be given out to user's whose behavior is fundamentally uncooperative and disruptive. I already stated why I don't think Koavf is that. Ovsk (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit wars are temporary only because edit warring is contrary to policy and edit warriors get blocked by administrators. Your personal opinion, expressed in good faith I assume, about the severity of Koavf's misconduct to date should not be a pretext for tying the hands of administrators dealing with future misconduct. That's my view of your proposal, at least. Cullen328 (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: My proposal is not about theoretical future major violations, it's me expressing that minor breeches of policy shouldn't slowly "burn the candle" to the point where major content editors get blocked. Ovsk (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ovsk makes a good point there - I agree. Even if repeated (at fairly lengthy intervals), these are minor (and relatively harmless) offences. Babies, bathwater, and all that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not theoretical here, this user has 29 previous blocks. To quote Dr. Phil, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. By your own comment, someone who "does lots of problematic behavior and is generally disruptive should be blocked indefinitely"- if 29 blocks is not an indication of "generally disruptive", what is? Do they need to be locked up and the key thrown away? No. Good contributions are certainly a factor here, but I am very skeptical that admins' hands should be tied for this specific user. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite is not permanent, and (if such a block were issued) if it is felt that an indef block of this user was improper, that can certainly be discussed. That's the safeguard here. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

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

OP blocked as a sock so striking through their comments. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure

Likely soon time for this entire discussion, to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said in my close of proposals 1 and 3, I'd like to give those who voted there, but not on the siteban, some time to weigh in before the discussion is closed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

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

CAT:UNBLOCK is quite backlogged

• Not to pile on requests but quite frankly we could use help on reviewing unblock requests; there's been well north of 100 open requests for some time. I've reviewed most of them at least once so I'm technically not supposed to again, but I have closed some very clear, obvious ones. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  In case any admins don't usually deal with these and want to help - just hop over to Category:Requests for unblock for the backlog. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am abstaining from reviewing any unblock requests after the consensus against unblocking Koavf. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Uh, the point is that a given blocking admin should be notified prior to an unblock action. If only as a courtesy. El_C 18:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  And as noted in WP:BLOCK: If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• I looked at this category yesterday, and just felt overwhelmed by how difficult the judgement call is on a lot of the RFU's. You try and balance assuming good faith with not being naïve, the various parties that may need to comment (blocking admin etc.), and it just wasn't something that can be done easily. Not to mention second-guessing your own judgement. Make no mistake, I think this category is one of the hardest for an administrator to work in, and anyone who does do regularly or resolves the more complex ones deserves to be commended. I'll try chip in and do a small handful of the easier ones, but where I feel out of my depth I might just drop a comment or suggestion and leave another admin to actually make the final decision, as I feel a bit shaky in this space. Daniel (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but occasionally you get to unblock someone and they become constructive editors. It doesn't happen often but it's pretty rewarding when it does. --Yamla (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we need to review some as a team and bring some of them here. Coördination of effort and team work might make it better. I always feel overwhelmed there. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Given how many there are in that category, maybe just paste all the unblock appeals that aren't clear-cut declines or accepts into a mass section on here (maybe divided by headings for each user) and have the community either endorse or overturn the blocks. Might be a good strategy for the future if the category gets backlogged as well, and it's certainly easier than having block appeals lingering for two to three months. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Wut? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Gah. I had forgotten the mind-numbing tedium and futility of working this area. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 also. I thought something similar a couple of days ago, but good to hear it from another voice! Maybe a subpage given it'll be a heck of a lot of content? Daniel (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Consulting on difficult unblock appeals is a very attractive idea, but isn't that liable to turn blocks into community sanctions, bans per WP:CBAN "Editors who ... remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"."? I have seen blocked editors warned that asking for an appeal to be copied to WP:AN has that risk, and I guess that would apply to WP:AN subpages too. NebY (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Not if we carry it here on our own. And not if we stipulate it does not. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I need to prioritize CAT:UNBLOCK over UTRS. Having said that, if any admin wants to carry an unblock/unban request from WP:3X banned and globally locked Michaelshea2004 from UTRS appeal #83145 to AN, it would be a good thing. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I have a better idea. I'm inclined to unblock this person per ROPE and per MAYBE THEYRE NOT A CHILD ANYMORE--I'll just restore talk page access and see if they can actually behave, OK? Drmies (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Sorry, they are globally locked and 3x banned. Someone, probably me, needs to schlep their appeal to here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, you would make Yamla very unhappy. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: they're not banned as far as I can see, and they're only blocked here--what am I missing? Yamla, am I out of line here? What I see is someone who a year and a half ago was acting like a total ass, but I don't see that in their latest UTRS appeal--it seems to me that they grew out of it, maybe. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, but User:Michaelshea2004 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaelshea2004/Archive -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I expect to carry Michael to AN tomorrow. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, @Drmies, so as not to waste any more of your time on this, please see Special:CentralAuth/Michaelshea04. There you'll also find the de and it unblocks, both of which were self-requested. – bradv 02:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Just brought Drmies up to speed. Need my beauty sleep for all this schlepping -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I always saw that rule as more of a "if the community has to actually take the time to review your unblock request, and they endorse it, then it stays". In this case, I'd see unblock requests that just happen to have some attention on AN to give an opinion from non-admins as not being community endorsements, necessarily. The sticking point would presumably be that even if the block appeals were copied here, an uninvolved administrator would still just be considering comments as if they had been made on a blocked editor's talk page, not as if they were a formal community sanction. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That analogy makes sense - thanks for taking the time to lay it out. NebY (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Damn these take up a lot of time. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for your help on the one, User:Deepfriedokra--and sometimes they're actually interesting. I think I've handled half a dozen and it feels like I spent two days on it, haha. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Sadly, there's not a lot non-admins can do here. I'll occasionally take a look at CAT:UNBLOCK just to see if there's anyone worth unblocking. A lot of them tend to be edge cases no one wants to decline (an observation I believe I am borrowing from the late Nosebagbear ). I always feel bad for those folks. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I do feel bad about the long backlog there, but generally the unblocks sitting at the back of the queue are the nth one by the same user and are borderline - the people with good unblock requests generally do get unblocked pretty quick I feel like. Galobtter (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks y'all. Now 69 pages in CAT:UNBLOCK -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nice. El_C 18:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yay, us! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like we are steady state in the fifties. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Name change requests

Quite a few unblock requests are from username violations requesting a change in username. Sometimes the username they want is unavailable or inappropriate, but when they settle on a suitable name the process becomes quite muddy and badly documented. The only people that can actually perform the rename are global renamers - I used to be one, briefly, but didn't use it enough to warrant having it. The only ways of requesting a change in username involve the a user making a request for their own account. So I think the correct process is to unblock the account so that they can put in a proper request - despite having already requested a new username on their talk page - UNLESS the unblocking admin also happens to be a global renamer, in which case they can just do it there and then.

What we don't seem to have, unless I'm missing it, is a way for admins without global renaming permissions to put in a request to global renamers, saying "I've reviewed this, I've checked the new username is ok and available, please perform the rename so that I can unblock them".

I feel a bit reluctant to unblock accounts with a prohibited username and just trust that they'll put in a rename request in some unspecified timescale, and have to keep an eye on them until they do so. So we end up with a situation where I review an unblock request, check the username they want, everything looks ok, but I can't take it any further.

I expect I'm missing some noticeboard somewhere that solves this problem, but it doesn't seem to be documented at WP:UN, WP:BLOCK or anywhere else I can think of looking. Is it as bad as I think it is or am I missing something obvious (wouldn't be the first time)? Apologies for the wall of text, I've hit this problem before and it's very frustrating. WaggersTALK 14:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If there is any renaming to be done, I can do it. I then remove them from the renaming queue. If they don't make an acceptable unblock request, they stay blocked. The unblock queue has gone from > 100 to about sixty, So, progress. And yes, tldr; -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason I became a renamer was because I would unblock people to change names and they would not. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I assume blocked users still have access to m:Special:GlobalRenameRequest? Galobtter (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Trouble is some renamers decline because of the block. Crazy, I know. I go by the renamer queue several times a day. It can be fun and rewarding. Now I've shifted focus from blocking to unblocking. Still backlog is about 60. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock/unban request from Nyantiaz

• Nyantiaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nyantiaz/Archive
• User was WP:3X banned and checkuser block. Yamla has cleared the checkuser aspect.
• I'll leave the question of renaming to the stewards once user is unblocked.
• Couertesy ping @Bbb23:

carried over below

Hello! It has been asked of me that I make another unblock request that is reworded. I will try my best to write as clearly as I can. I read over the Guide to appealing blocks and I hope this helps my writing also. In 2019, or around that time, I vandalized a series of pages on a number of accounts within the same day(s) on Wikipedia. I purposely and explicitly changed several things about these pages in order to "grief" these and, well, vandalize. I then maneuvered the block in the years following——until around April of 2023——by creating new accounts or editing offline on different IPs, which is known as sock-puppeting. I made several block appeals ranging from when I was banned from editing to now, mostly without understanding the gravity of what I had done. In the month of 2019 that I was banned, I was 15 years old. I continued this charade until maybe 2021, when I fully understood why vandalizing, especially on Wikipedia, was wrong. However, I wasn't matured enough. I began editing on the aforementioned accounts that I created, or on other IPs. Although I had stopped vandalizing within the same year I was banned, it did not justify me evading the block. As 331dot said, I disregarded the policies through and through.

I am now making another unblock request that I am trying to word to the best of my ability. I may not include every detail, and I may not remember every detail, but I am trying my best not only to summarize what it was that led to my ban, but the actions that followed thereafter. I have stopped editing on Wikipedia since April of 2023, though I know that alone does not prove I should be unbanned. I will try to express my sincere intentions to improve Wikipedia through the next paragraph/bit of writing.

I vandalized in 2019, and sock-puppeted in the years following. There is no excuse, as nothing I say will change the fact that I did the aforementioned actions that led to my block. I fully promise with all my heart that I do not intend to commit these actions again, or disrupt Wikipedia as I did before in any way. My intent following a potential unblock would be only to improve Wikipedia. Contributing constructive edits to articles rather than destroying them, helping update these articles and etc. I want to help the community and although I know I've broken the trust in my past, I want to do what I can to rebuild that. Editing on Wikipedia is something that helps tap into my interests and passion, and it also helps other people as it provides information. I did not think of this in 2019; it was just something I did for fun before I unfortunately vandalized. I promise that I will not vandalize, nor sockpuppet, again. On the topic of accounts, if this unban request should hopefully be reviewed and accepted, I do want to either reset this account or create a new one and leave this behind. As a sort of fresh start, + I don't go by the name Nyantiaz anymore, and it's uncomfortable for me to use this.

Thank you very much for reviewing my unblock request in advance, and I hope I've answered every question that would still be here. I am going to ping the original administrator behind my block, @Bbb23: and the other administrator who has been reviewing these, @Yamla: so that my request will hopefully not go stale. I hope this doesn't inconvenience you. Once again, thank you for your patience and time. Nyantiaz (talk) 9:18 pm, 5 January 2024, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC−5

For constructive edits, I've always loved celebrities and actors, as well as things related to film and music. I'd try to keep articles of varying pop culture timely and updated, since I've seen so many that need it. With sources, of course. Sometimes, I also see at random articles that are unfinished that I could possibly fill in the blanks for, etc. On the matter of creating another account, I am perfectly fine with resetting this one and changing the name. I am very uncomfortable with the name "Nyantiaz" now, so the name would be a priority. I want to reset my account as a sort of "fresh start" to start on a blank slate. Nyantiaz (talk) 10:21 pm, 6 January 2024, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable unban request. They have not been evading the ban per checkuser and is sincere about understanding that what they did harmed the project. Hoping this will lead to constructive edits I support an unban. I will note that to change their name they should either change the name of this account (which doesn't clear the edit history) or create a new account that clearly indicates a connection to this previous account somewhere if they are unbanned, so "resetting" the account would not really be possible. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• I thought I supported this already addressed my concerns-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support good appeal. If unbanned, I'd recommend using WP:CHU/S so the edit history is preserved. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support The appeal seems sincere, and it is reasonable to conclude that a 15 year old vandal has matured since 2019. Cullen328 (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Hoping to forestall archival by the bot. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  • close? Is this sufficient, or do we need more?

  -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  If no one has any objections I think this is good to close. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. – robertsky (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support I think this is a good quality request as far as WP:GAB is concerned and indeed fufills the requirements of WP:SO. SG5536B (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock/unban request for Michaelshea2004 aka Michaelshea04

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

---

Michaelshea2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aka Michaelshea04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); UTRS appeal #83145; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaelshea2004/Archive; user is globally locked and WP:3X banned. If user is unbanned here, will need to ask the stewards to unlock his account.

Originally blocked as WP:NOTHERE by @DatGuy:, user socked till they were banned. User has lost the login for Michaelshea2004 irretrievably, so wants to unblock Michaelshea04. @Yamla: CU'd on UTRS appeal #83080 and found a VPN in use. User says he has turned off the VPN. User will need to respond via UTRS, which will require some lifting and toting.

Here is the request:

Hello, OK, So I have submitted/filed an appeal on here before, but it was neither approved nor declined, because it expired. There is going to be a lot of information that I am going to have to leave out because of this word limit, but I will try to be as genuine as I possibly can. Part of the reason I am here again is because it will hopefully help my appeal to the stewards about my global locks, and an administrator on IRC has recommended to cross-post this on the Administrators NoticeBoard. 

So here goes. On the 22 August 2022, I was indefinitely blocked because of my vulgar edit summaries. What I didn't realize at the time, was that I was being blocked because of the edit summaries, not because of the edits themselves. This was the only account that I continued my vulgar edit summaries on, apart from editing from a few IP addresses with those same or similar vulgar edit summaries. Then with my other sockpuppets I changed a few computer articles from past tense to present tense, and edit-warring with another user that I had trouble with in Discord at that time. I was banned from that Discord server right around the time I was doing this. I also went to cause trouble on other wikis as well, leading to my global locks that I recieved on the 18 February 2023. A few more edits and generally causing trouble on Meta and giving you and the stewards a hard time as an IP user, I finally worked up the courage and realized that I had to leave if I ever wanted to have a chance at being unblocked and unlocked. That was on the 28 March 2023.

I have absolutely humiliated myself and embrassed myself and I absolutely deserved everything that came my way over those almost 7 months that I have been causing trouble. And for that, I really am truly sorry. I want to clean up the mess that I have caused. You will never understand or comprehend just how much mental distress this whole problem has caused not just me, but probably some of you as well. That was from my first appeal. 

If I cannot be unblocked to be vanished, I will do anything to earn back the trust of your community. The Second Chance involves improving a few existing articles, something that I did in violation of my block. For example, I made a large edit to Norton Antivirus almost a year ago, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norton_AntiVirus&diff=prev&oldid=1131920086. Though it was in violation of my blocks/bans/blocks. It was mine. I can also add some more information to the product activation seection, such as explaining the internet and phone activation. I can also add some more information about the early DOS versions of the software. I can also add information as to what the controversies with that antivirus is, such as slowing down a user's computer. I can also change most articles of most computer/abandonware articles from past tense, to present tense. (Without the vulgar edit summaries or the edit warring, of course.) Something I did in violation of my blocks/bans/locks. I can also add to the Central Point PC Tools software that earlier versions of that software will not run on later versions of DOS. As well as mention that there is a few versions for Windows as well. 

This is not an exhaustive list of articles that I can improve, but it will hopefully show you and demonstrate to you that I can improve at the very least this side of Wikipedia's articles. I hope this is sufficient and convincing information. Thank you for reading if you did, Michael Shea.

carried over by me.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. I don't think we should unban simply to vanish the user, and I believe any constructive edits (if we can believe that) would simply be the absolute minimum required to vanish. This username doesn't appear to be particularly identifying (more than 48 million hits on google) and given the user repeatedly set up sockpuppet accounts with variants on that name, I think this should fall under "oh no, the consequences of your actions". That said, any reason not to restore talk page access to the other named account, Michaelshea04, and have them respond there? So far, we haven't actually confirmed this request came from them (though I am sure it did). --Yamla (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  That would require unlocking Michaelshea04, and I don't know how the stewards would feel about that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  PS: We have, on some occasions, WP:VANISHed and left blocked. The stewards have not exercised that option in this case. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Appellant's reply carried over:

  Oh thank you. Thank you so much. Now, about this vanishing, I don't plan to immediately vanish yet, I am planning to stay away from the English Wikipedia and other projects if I am unbanned/unblocked/unlocked. I am planning to be mostly active on Meta-Wiki for a little bit, but that's about it.

  carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Noted user's replies that I carried over. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  A second chance would be warranted had he not already squandered so many opportunities (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaelshea2004/Archive) and if he had not already shown that he currently lacks the competence needed, In this appeal, he has vacillated from wanting to return to wanting to vanish to wanting to not edit ENWIKI but to edit META. You can see via global contribs what past contribs on META were like. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Note to closer One year appeal ban works for me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose unban Setting aside but not discounting the impression that this unblock request is gaming the system to give the appearance of "being in good standing," a requirement of WP:VANISH, the question becomes, "would the appellant be an asset to Wikipedia." I'm afraid not. The examples of constructive edits appellant offers include an unsourced edit to Norton Antivirus and changing the tense of verbs. However, he changed tenses in the past, and it proved disruptive for him to do so, if one considers the times he was reverted. Repeatedly, on more than one account. This repeating the same behavior expecting different results along with unsourced editing raises to me the question of competence to edit the encyclopedia. Perhaps this unblock request was not thought out thoroughly in a belated effort to the game the system to be vanished, and perhaps in six months or so of working toward the goal of returning to Wikipedia to contribute constructively, the appellant might better present a case for unblocking. However, he is not ready now.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Reply carried over.

  "Did you take into account the fact that I stayed away for actually longer than 6 months actually as per the standard offer?""

  Reply carried over. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose unban This is not the type of situation where I'm prepared to make a lot of exceptions, or ask others to jump through hoops for. Individual is and has been a net negative for the project so the granting of favors isn't really an option here. Dennis Brown 2¢ 07:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  DFO waves at @Dennis Brown:. Hey. Long time no see. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Hoping to forestall archival by bot -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose unban Completely agree with Dennis. Why should we jump through hoops for someone who is so very unlikely to contribute positively. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose no. I also don't understand why they think changing the tense of articles would be a positive thing. Secretlondon (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• comment Someone in IRC claims to be appellant and claims unable to reply to this ticket. I will expire this ticket (83145) and appellant can create a new one. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  • General replies carried over from UTRS appeal #83545:

  (reformatted by DFO)

  This is a continuation of my previous appeal, more information is here. Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Unblock/unban_request_for_Michaelshea2004_aka_Michaelshea04. A few things that I want to mention, I do realize now that I was acting like a total degenerate, to the point where I can't overstate it. I never should've spoken to you or anyone else in the way that I did. While I still stand by my opinion that the edits themselves were only minor, Again, I failed to realize that they were the edit SUMMARIES that led to me getting blocked, banned, and eventually globally locked.

  
  

  It was only about 2 months after my (redacted) when I was initally blocked. Now, I'm (redacted) this year and it's about time that I am to grow the fuck up. I've been contemplating giving you all a public apology in the rare event that I am unblocked/unbanned/unlocked. Everyone is opposing my unban for mostly because of my behaviour around changing the computer/abadonware articles. If no one wants me to go back to that, then thats fine. I will not do that again, especially since some of the members in that Discord server that I was in disagreed with me in regards to changing the articles from past tense to present tense and would help with reverting my edits.

  
  

  But what about my other edits that I proposed, such as to Norton Antivirus, such as the product activation, as well as mentioning that version 5.0 of the Macintosh version is the first to ship on CD?. Deepfriedokra: When I changed the computer/abandonware articles from past tense to present tense, Yes, they were reverted almost every single time. Some I would get away with, but very little. Most articles would end up being semi-protected for 6 months at the longest time because of my block/ban/lock evasion disruption. Yes, I did engage in edit-warring, as mentioned by Czello on the 11 November 2022. While I would still think that articles like the ones that I was obsessed with should be in present tense, not past tense, I would also agree now, that looking back, they were just articles. If they are to be in present tense, so be it, I was worrying over a damn article when I should've had more to worry about in my own personal life. If it's reverted, it's reverted. There's nothing that I could've or should've done about it.

  
  

  I'm also curious as to why you think I am "gaming the system." to give the appearance that I am in good standing. I'm not trying to be an asset, as I clearly never was in the first place, but, as Yamla said, any constructive edits would simply be the absolute minimum required to vanish. Yamla: as I stated in one of my responses posted, I am not going to vanish yet, as I will be active for a little bit on Meta/Wikimedia. I'm curious as to why you don't believe me when I proposed my edits in my appeal. Why don't you believe me?. Even though my edit proposals are ones that I have done in violation of my blocks/bans/locks.

  
  

  But as I have explained to Deepfriedokra, if they are reverted, they are reverted and there is nothing that I can or should do about that in the case that they are. And what specific part of my appeal would you have wanted me to respond to on my talk page if I wasn't globally locked?.

  
  

  Dennis Brown: Can you be more specific as to why you are also opposing my unban?.

  
  

  Pawnkingthree: I feel that you are taking into account my vulgar edit summaries, which I realize now, that was the very wrong thing to do and I never should've spoken to you or anyone else that way.

• Secretlondon: If changing tenses from past tense to present tense isn't going to be positive, and no one is going to agree with that. Then I will forget about that.

  
  

  carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  I forgot the pings-- @Dennis Brown, Pawnkingthree, and Secretlondon:-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose unban to let this user make a few token edits to then subsequently vanish. It wouldn't make up for their past actions. If they want to leave, they should just leave. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Carrying over from UTRS appeal #83552. --Yamla (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If you or anyone else really doesn't want me to vanish. I meant vanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelshea04 (talk • contribs)

331dot: You also mentioned that if I want to leave, I should. But I'm afraid that it is much more complicated than that. Far beyond what you or anyone else might be able to comprehend or understand. But if you don't want me to vanish, I'll just stick a retired template on my talk page and logout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelshea04 (talk • contribs)

Courtesy ping @331dot:-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose unban And I see that it is WP:SNOWing here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, but allow vanish at stewards' discretion. No good case is made for an unban, but I also don't see an obvious reason to prevent this user from requesting a vanish, if they wish. Since the user is locked, this should be left to the stewards to decide whether to grant such a request, if made, but I don't think the enwiki block should be taken as standing in the way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. As a renamer, I've taken part in discussions in which we decided to vanish a blocked user and left them blocked. My sense is that there has been discussion among the stewards at length about this user's request to vanish. Were it up to me, I would. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Welp, I guess that question has been answered. 😢 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• You asked for more specifics as to why I opposed, so I am obliging. In your latest appeal, you said "it's about time that I am to grow the fuck up", to which I agree, and even give you a little credit for the epiphany. When you do manage to "grow the fuck up", please feel free to come back and ask to have the ban lifted. I think you will find people are more supportive, myself included, at that time. I would wait at least a year, but it is your choice. Call it a gut feeling or whatever, but I don't think you are there yet. Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, I've deep respect for Dennis and would trust his "gut" unreservedly. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Schlepping replies from UTRS appeal #83552, with pings and formatting added.

@RickinBaltimore: Huh?. What do you mean by that?.

@Tamzin: I do not want to be vanished without reversing my blocks/bans/locks. Everyone else and probably any future opposals: OK. So I can't change the computer/abandonware articles from past tenses to present tenses, I can't vanish, I can't go to other wikis to help my case because I am globally locked, and I am not taking any chances as an IP user. I know I'm getting overwhelming unanimous opposals, but I'm probably going to give you the same information in 6 months time. So is there anything else that I can possibly do to earn back the trust of you and your community?."

Carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A good way to earn back the trust of the community and prove you are here to build an encyclopedia would be to ask admins to let you go through the {{2nd chance}} process, showing your ability to edit constructively an article in a substantial way (i.e. more than changing tenses). Good luck, ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 11:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Non administrator note Oppose User has been spitting out vulgarities, insult other editors, make inappropriate edits and also changing the tense of articles (without good reason) throughout so many of their edits I can find. With all his brazen actions, why even trust him now? I honestly believe that the abuser is still not here to improve Wikipedia at all even after I read the request. There is nothing in mitigation to push me to the support side. They wanting to vanish does not help anything at all and will not cover for their past actions. SG5536B (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "2nd chance" is false hope, it isn't going to happen, not with a banned user. No admin could issue a "2nd chance" if they wanted to, only the community as a whole can unban a user, since it was the community that issued the ban. I'm sure you meant well, Chaotic Enby but this is bad advice and the system doesn't work that way. There is no second chance. He can wait a year, and maybe at that time, do a proper and respectful request for review and his odds will be better. Editing here is a privilege, not a right, and the privilege was squandered the first time around. They say time heals all wounds. How much time, I can't say. But the odds of it happening in less than a year from now are approximately zero. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies. I didn't mean that 2nd chance alone would be enough, but that going through it could maybe convince the community that this user is able to edit constructively. But you make very good points, thanks a lot for your answer. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not an option. Too late False hope. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I understand, thanks. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  OK so I was going to ask for the 2nd chance but Deepfriedokra doesn't want to give me that option unfortunately so if I can't do anything else then I will wait a further 6 months and appeal again, I know Dennis Brown wants me to wait at least a year, but I will wait 6 months and see how I feel then. I already know that my appeal here will eventually fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelshea04 (talk • contribs)

  Comment to closing admin: Very strongly suggest a prohibition on further unban requests for at least one year, based on this. --Yamla (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yamla: Huh?. Why not 6 months?. Deepfriedokra told me in my initial appeal that I only need to wait 6 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelshea04 (talk • contribs)

  So we don't have to go through another pointless exercise with no chance of success in six months. You don't just get to exhaust us into submission. --Yamla (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  What Yamla said. I said one year primarily because that is the minimum time your appeal will have a snowball's chance to pass, and it still depends on your tone. Remember, when you appeal next time, people WILL look at this appeal, so choose your words carefully. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Uncontroversial page move

Can someone please move Good Day for Living (song) to Good Day for Living? The latter is currently a redirect to the artist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, you may get quicker responses at WP:RM/TR for this sort of thing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, when posting at night, don't necessarily expect an answer before morning. Primefac (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Extraordinary Writ for taking time out of your day to perform the page move. Your service is appreciated! _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We're all over the world, to be fair. Secretlondon (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock/unban request from Phrasia

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

---

Phrasia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned (presumably under WP:3X) and is requesting this be lifted. Here is their request:

I am requesting to be given another chance/to be unlocked. I believe I have to go to through the standard offer (WP:SO) procedure (as circumstances to my ban, were due to sockpuppet evasion. I was initially banned several years ago, due to edit warring. Instead of properly appealing that ban, I created sockpuppets, and  I take responsibility that was an incorrect thing to do against the rules. I feel that I am a good editor, despite sockpuppets I opened up, without going through the proper procedure, and I realize that was wrong. I have not created any additional sockpuppets, or have ban evaded. I promise to abide by all wiki guidelines, and I will be a great contributor. Thank you. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2024

I would also like to add that in addition to the fact I enjoy the Wiki Encyclopedia/Wikipedia, I appreciate the Wikimedia projects greatly as well. (Wiktionary and Wikimedia Commons in particular I find very useful). However, to be honest, no I have not made contributions to Wikimedia projects, as I mostly edit pop culture/music/entertainment media related articles, and adding sources/metadata to incomplete media/music/leisure information etc. I take full responsibility for my haphazard past as a Wikipedian, and I'm sorry for that. I will admit that in the past due to my own ignorance and fault, I wasn't fully aware of wiki protocols when it comes to discrepancies between other Wikipedians/editors. I apologize for that. I also admit my mistake of not sorting out my suspension on this account, and secretly using sockpuppets to evade that. But I am asking for a second chance please. I will of course be a wonderful contributor, abiding by all wiki rules, regulations, guidelines, procedures, and protocols. Thank you. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

They agree to a WP:1RR restriction, given the previous edit warring. CU data shows no evidence of recent ban evasion; I believe the last instance was Bronoton in June, 2023. The blocking admin is Timotheus Canens back on 2011-11-16 (more than a decade ago) and I will inform them of this discussion. --Yamla (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• question from DFO I see concerns raised over unsourced edits. How do you address those concerns?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Forgot to ping. @Phrasia: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  carried over @Deepfriedokra I have gotten better at adding/citing sources, and references. I agree that I have a history of past issues with this. I assure you, that this will not be a problem anymore, and I am familiar with adding sources to my edits/contributions. Thank you. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 7:37 pm, Today (UTC−5)carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• support unblock with 1RR restriction. and one account restriction. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support with 1RR and one account restriction. 13 years is a long time to grow up although they socked fairly recently. Last chance saloon etc etc, Jip Orlando (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support With 1RR restriction. Lorstaking (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment At this point, the discussion has gone on longer than 24 hours with (so far) unanimous support. Later today, I plan to close the discussion and lift the block unless anyone objects. --Yamla (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Comment by Loyalmoonie

It has been brought to my attention that the above user has been unblocked after having a history of violating WP:3RR, WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. Per the closed discussion above, I cannot and will not intervene or comment directly on supporting or opposing. If the aforementioned user truly does desire to do better on Wikipedia and has proven to the community as such, then I shall not stop him from returning. However, as someone who has had to deal with being personally attacked by said user, I feel that I need to reach out to the admins to request that a further restriction be in place that requires Phrasia to refrain from all personal attacks (including, but not limited to, calling editors homophobic for disagreeing with his edits[1], etc.) when he is in a dispute and/or when another editor reverts his edits. His attacks against me (and other Wikipedians, for that matter) were very hurtful and not very contributing to any kind of dispute, forcing me to request admin assistance in the first place.

I also would hope that Phrasia will understand, in accordance to his past edits on his prior sock accounts, that any genres and categories he adds to any articles must be backed by verifiable sources.

If Phrasia truly does want to do better, then he will have my benefit of the doubt at this time. That is all I need to comment.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Could another admin

take over carrying Michaelshea2004's replies over from UTRS appeal #83145;? I'm losing availability. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Is the message box one types into UTRS still limited to a single line, though? El_C 05:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@El C: As many lines as I've need but w/o formatting. 😀 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Yamla: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for closure review (image collages in year articles)

I'm requesting a review of this RFC closure. I have discussed this with the closer, who I hoped would recognise my concerns. Both the closer and another admin (User:Tamzin) have implied in their responses that I was trying to intimidate the closer, which I certainly was not. It was, however, very distressing to see one of the supporters of collages immediately restoring all collages, regardless of consensus on individual article Talk pages, before the ink was dry on the closer's decision. The "winning" argument was summarised by User:Sdkb as "image selection falls within normal editorial discretion and is therefore not OR/NPOV"; the mention of OR is a red herring. As far as I can see, throughout the discussion - as pointed out by User:voorts when they previously attempted to close the discussion - those arguing for removal have focused on the fact that attempts to summarize a year with a collage is inherently subjective and thus contrary to the NPOV policy. After waiting weeks for the closure request to be implemented (see User:GoodDay's perceptive comment here), it was rather unexpectedly closed on the same day that two last-minute "against" votes appeared, i.e. not "when the discussion is stable" as advised in Wikipedia:Closing discussions. It seems that User:Sdkb did not notice the unfortunate timing, but the main reason I am asking for a review is that I believe the arguments have not been adequately analysed. Deb (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Saying that they are OR / Synth and that they are subjective is the same thing in this context, surely? And the argument that image selection falls within normal editorial discretion and is therefore not OR/NPOV, which the closer noted, is clearly an answer to that, so it seems like you're just using different language for arguments that the closer plainly did consider. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• I did not say you were trying to intimidate Sdkb, and I do not think they said that either. Since the RfC is now being reviewed properly, this hopefully moots the concerns I actually expressed, so we needn't get into them, but I just want to be clear on what I didn't say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• The discussion between Deb, myself, and Tamzin can be found in this thread on my talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• I've been so discouraged, upset, angry, disillusioned, in disbelief, frustrated, etc, over the course of the RFC-in-question? I don't think there's a lot more I can complain about. If the close/decision of 'weak keep' does stand? and future disputes over what images should/shouldn't be in said-image collages, occur? Then, I'll just simply say to the pro-keepers - I told ya so. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• [uninvolved]. There's a lot of confusion in that RfC, with several people talking about collages beyond just their use in articles about years, which is what was proposed. Even some people who didn't explicitly opine on other kinds of collages seemed to be talking about collages more broadly. In part for those reasons, I have a hard time seeing consensus for much of anything in there, personally. It's only a slight difference from Sdkb's closure, but I'd probably say "no consensus to remove collages from years article" with a suggestion, if someone were to run it again, to more carefully advertise the discussion and to set clearer expectations about what it is or is not about (perhaps even having separate questions about decades, etc.). I think Sdkb's closing statement is generally reasonable, but I would ask for clarification about the boldtext conclusion. Specifically, "consensus to keep" would seem to override article-level consensus-building processes that many of those opposing removal argued for. Is it perhaps more accurate to treat that statement as "no consensus to remove"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  I speak to some of that in the last paragraph of my close. Regarding years vs. decades/centuries/etc., there was some post-close discussion on that. I provided a clarification here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• A tangential thought: Have we had a recent discussion over collages more broadly? It might be good to have that broad RFC, if people seem to be chomping at the bit for it. Its outcome might help inform what to do with more narrow collage RFCs - I doubt it could actually succeed at completely removing collages (though who knows), but if it demonstrated overwhelming support for collages in general that would provide more firm grounding for disregarding comments in specific RFCs like this that are plainly premised on the logic that collages should never be allowed anywhere, whereas conversely if it failed to reach a consensus or if there were a lot of people expressing mixed feelings then that could provide support for more RFCs like this one to narrow down the scope of when and where collages should be allowed. --Aquillion (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• My reading of this is similar to that of Rhododendrites above. The argument to remove or disallow such collages across the board was successfully refuted: in particular, the argument that image selection is subject to bias was strongly countered by the argument that text selection and emphasis is also, including in many of the examples presented. I don't see how the RfC has consensus for each of the individual collages on year pages. Those were, and should continue to be, governed by normal editorial processes. No consensus to remove is my reading. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Having had a look, I perhaps might have closed this as no consensus, but the result is effectively the same, and I cannot see how this could have been closed in favour of removing the images. Ultimately there was no clear winning policy/guideline-based argument and I agree with Sdkb that the strongest case made was that choosing images is always a matter of editorial discretion (which isn't the same thing as an NPOV issue, because trying to ensure NPOV can be a consideration in the decision of which images to use). And I say this even though had I taken part in the RfC, I would probably have !voted for removal on the basis that agreeing on which images are suitable is a very hard task and not having them would probably avoid a lot of arguments. Number 57 22:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• [involved/for removal] Endorse the close. There are points I'd disagree with in the close (obviously) but I agree with Number 57 that there was no consensus for the removal of collages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Speaking as the one who opened the RfC: this has been a debate raging off and on for a while, at least a few years. The main issue is that many of the editors active in this area are newer editors who have few edits outside of designing collages for these articles, and WikiProject Years as a whole has issues with subjective inclusion requirements enforced and debated by its members. I opened this RfC in the hopes that it would set a general standard and smooth over some of the constant debating. I have my reservations about how this discussion was closed, reopened, and then abruptly closed again, but I also acknowledge that this could really go either way. Overall I agree with the assessments of Vanamonde93 and Rhododendrites. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I was rather involved in this discussion, so I don't know what my opinion is worth here, but I was rather displeased by the original way the issue was handled: a talk page discussion on a mostly inactive Wikiproject, with a poorly advertised RfC, purported itself (after the participation of barely a dozen people) to represent a binding consensus for massive changes across thousands of articles. Something like that should be, at a minimum, mentioned on one of the village pumps, and probably on WP:CENT (I was the one who added it to the latter). It's also worth noting that, after being presented to a broader audience, additional comments showed dramatically different consensus -- this is strong evidence that the original discussion was a local consensus of a few regulars. Like, it's not a good way of running things: what should happen if me and two of my buddies create a "WikiProject 2020s United States Presidents", hold a unanimous RfC determing that Donald Trump and Joe Biden should both have "is a moron" in the lead sentence, and then went to edit the articles on the basis that we'd achieved consensus? jp×g🗯️ 04:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

My memory may not be 100%, but it seems to me that @4me689: was the first individual who began adding image collages to Year pages. We haven't heard from them, since last October. Figuratively speaking - Where's the spark, that began the fire? GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse close (involved as !voting and as previously closing this RfC): I probably would have closed this new discussion as no consensus because I think we have a case of two ships passing in the night here, but I think that Sdkb's read of consensus was reasonable. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved) Endorse close by Sdkb as a reasonable reading of the consensus and within closer discretion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weak endorse. I was involved, on the remove side. I agree with the OP that the closer over-dwelled on the NOR question when the principal issue raised again and again was NPOV, but the result still would have not been a consensus to remove the collages, so there would be no point nit-picking the close and re-opening the discussion or having someone else re-close it, since we'd just get the answer practical answer. That said, I think think the "I have victory! I'm going to restore every collage no matter what without discussion!" antics that followed are worth examination and probably a lot of reversion, except in the few case there is an affirmative consensus on the specific article's talk page to retain a specfic collage. The fact that they were removed in the first place already means they are a challenged.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  That said, I think think the "I have victory! I'm going to restore every collage no matter what without discussion!" antics – Before anyone calls this a misrepresentation, this edit summary by Koopinator, the editor who requested that the RfC be reopened and then mass restored the collages, caught my eye. Both the mass removals and the mass restorations were unhelpful, but this is part of a larger never ending battleground approach to the topic area that needs more attention from experienced editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I will admit that I liked the result and I celebrated a bit in an edit summary. I quickly realized this was poor form, but there's nothing to do about it now. However, I disagree with the characterization of "I'm going to restore every collage no matter what without discussion!" - I skipped over 1977 because, in the talk page, it said that the collage was removed due to unresolved matters on the talk page and not due to the RFC. Furthermore, there were other pages were there were local reasons for not having a collage and I missed them. In these cases, User:DementiaGaming reverted my edits, and I do not intend to take further action to restore the collages on these pages. Furthermore, I stopped restoring collages as soon as Deb left a comment on my talk page. As for "The fact that they were removed in the first place already means they are a challenged." - you have to remember that the great majority of these were removed solely due to the original (overturned) RFC result to remove. Koopinator (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: dirty pic on nf1 page

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

---

Can this image be removed as i think its illegal and dirty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurofibromatosis_type_I I found it while searching up mu condition Its the first image it appears to a medical photo but its very indecent and with sick people out there I think it best removed I dont know how to contact support or report it that's why I posted it on you as you seem to be a administrator oreditor 86.21.74.8 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The picture is neither illegal not dirty. How would you suggest illustrating this condition? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry i have sight problems i throught the picture was not covered up and jumped the gun. Upon relooking at the page it covered it

Sorry for wasting your time 86.21.74.8 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Can an uninvolved admin please step in over toxicity and BATTLEGROUND at darts-related pages?

Affected pages span at least 2024 PDC World Darts Championship, 2023 Grand Slam of Darts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Darts, and their associated talk pages, as well as user talk pages.

Edit summaries should be checked too: (Redacted) (diff) and (Redacted) (diff) and (Redacted) (diff) JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm still checking the issue, but I've blocked Penepi for a week for now for their personal attacks. Any uninvolved admin may lengthen the block if they see fit. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've extended Penepi's block to indefinite due to the sheer extent and cruelty in all the shown diffs. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the very quick response! I think that editor was the main antagonizer in these articles. The atmosphere there is still pretty BATTLEGROUNDy and OWNy, but that can hopefully be remedied with more editors looking into it and isn't so urgent. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that ItsKesha appears to have been edit warring on some of those articles. Since it's stale now, I don't think a block is needed, but they should consider themselves formally warned not to do so again.

In the future, they should consider seeking administrative assistance when they see another user personally attacking them, instead of allowing it to go on. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

IMO there's been some "goading" from ItsKesha, as a minimum. Does "Nobody cares about the opinion of you logged out losers" [2] get over the civility bar? or "Sad act"? (I've been editing there but trying not to be "involved") Nigej (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll remove those comments and I profusely apologise to all involved for such embarrassing, insulting and time-wasting behaviour. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nigej: I'm still reading all the linked pages, but yes, I agree with you that ItsKesha didn't facilitate things. I'll also note that their behavior at Talk:2024 PDC World Darts Championship has been poor. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, ItsKesha is disruptive and repeatedly engages in personal attacks. In addition to the edits at the darts talk page mentioned above which they have now removed (calling other editors 'sad act', 'losers' etc.), there are also edits elsewhere such as this ("lol @ u") and this (calling another editor an "oddball") which are indicative of a wider attitude problem. Indeed, a quick look at their contribs in general show a clear pattern - multiple reverts to the same article(s) over & over again. They seem to obsess over an article and try and bully other editors into keeping their preferred version through reverts and insults, and once achieved they move onto another article... GiantSnowman 20:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Other edits by ItsKesha at the talk page which remain up - "You don't half talk some shite" and "you talked a load of shite". I cannot see Penepi's edits that have been revdeled, but how do they compare to ItsKesha's comments/conduct? GiantSnowman 20:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Penepi's were about 2000x worse... JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, then what's 1/2000th of an indef block... GiantSnowman 21:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman Here's a much milder example of the PAs (this one was at least removed by Penepi). Can you please revdel that span of history? The rest of the comments in that chain are pretty typical for interactions here. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

E.g. their response prior to deleting that comment. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you please confirm exactly what edits to revdel? GiantSnowman 10:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman Have you looked at those diffs? It should be clear from the content which span of the history should be revdeled. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You've asked to revdel a span, but provided one diff.... GiantSnowman 11:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I've revdel'ed the more egregious one from the ones you posted here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Should this diff also have its edit summary revdeleted? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That should be all. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why there is so much animosity over darts, but there is. While Penepi has shown the worst behavior, ItsKesha's behavior has been subpar, usually adding more heat than light to the discussions they participate in. I wonder if a formal warning to be more WP:CIVIL and avoid commenting on other editors would suffice for now. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You mean like the previous warnings for disruption/conduct/civility that litter their talk page going back 3 years? See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#User:ItsKesha and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344#ItsKesha's removal of major WP:RS contents claiming then not notable based on personal views and accusing me of lack of sourcing tag when very line of the aricle was complient with WP:PW/RS and this edit warring warning from October 2021. They were also blocked in July 2022 for personal attacks. Clearly all of this has had zero effect on ItsKesha given they continue the behaviour. GiantSnowman 20:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes it had zero effect on me when I was accused of violating copyright and plagiarism and nothing was done about it by administrators when I reported it. Remind me why should I have any faith in the process of reporting somebody to the administrators? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

TBF, ItsKesha has been trying to bring darts articles in line with policy for a while and has been met with quite hostile resistance from what seems like a LOCALCON walled-garden, including from another now-blocked-and-TBANNED editor. Their approach has often been antagonistic, passive-aggressive, and POINTY, but IMO the responses to them by some of the darts editors have been way out of proportion and non-policy-based to boot, so I can at least understand a bit of their frustration. JoelleJay (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thing is, being frustrated isn't a reason to not be civil. I'm equally as frustrated by some of the responses on that page, but you can't make such aggressive comments here. I wouldn't consider myself uninvolved at this stage, so maybe one who is could have a word with all parties. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've had run-ins with ItsKesha in the past, so will leave it to others, but suggest a final warning for civility/personal attacks/edit warring for ItsKesha, with an indef block if it happens again. GiantSnowman 10:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I will note that since this discussion started, they continue to repeatedly revert/edit war with other editors, see 1, 2, 3. GiantSnowman 12:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

And those reverts show yet another example of them not understanding a policy they’re trying to enforce. In this case the difference between the concepts of primary&secondary sources on one hand, and first-, second- and third-party sources on the other hand. Tvx1 12:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How are the Professional Darts Corporation are not a primary source for the Professional Darts Corporation World Darts Championship? ~~~~ All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Because primary≠first party. How can you not understand that??Tvx1 13:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I suppose this is the exact tone we should be taking when trying to have a discussion. Right admins? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that’s on oversimplification of the issue. The reality is that they try to force these articles to match their view of what the policies should be. The multiple talk page discussions going on right now on the 2024 PDC World championship article’s talk page show that they have little actual understanding of the policies they quote. And when multiple editors point out the incorrectness of their arguments, they show no intent to accept that.

Therefore, seeing as they already received a topic ban elswhere but changed nothing of their behavior but rather moved to another topic to do just the same, I strongly suggest an indefinite block until such time they can prove they are here to build an encyclopedia. At the very least they should be subjected to a topic ban from darts. Tvx1 12:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, given the ongoing reverts this morning (after this discussion started) which I have just noted and linked to above, it is becoming increasingly clear that only an indef or topic ban will stop ongoing issues. I'd obviously prefer a topic ban to an indef, but I'm not convinced that with a topic ban they won't just direct their attention elsewhere. GiantSnowman 12:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

However we can't put all the blame with ItsKesha. Comments like your's just now "I still don’t understand why something that was used for years without anyone having a problem with it, has now become all but unacceptable." (and other similar comments by other editors) show a reluctance to listen to comments from "outsiders". Nigej (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Nigej I have posted my thoughts at the bottom of the thread, but in line with my view posted there, this has been an ongoing issue for about 12 months, and part of the consequence has been a massive drop in darts articles this year. I think frankly, that people are fed up with ItsKesha and their presence is enough for people to feel backed into a corner and come out fighting. That is not okay of course, and I am guilty of that myself to a degree, but this is something thats been building for twelve months, comes to a head during the worlds when more editors are active, and will no doubt happen again next year if left as is. Dimspace (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How much of the dropoff in darts editing this past year could be attributed to JRRobinson being TBANned from darts and then indeffed? JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That has probably had some impact. But there have also been ongoing arguments over notabilty. The Darts project sadly has not established a structured notability scale for events, so in the absence of one there have been disputes over what is notable, and predictably, from what I saw earlier in the year, ItsKesha was at the centre of that with their "interpretion" of notability criteria. But you are correct, JRRobinsons absence would have had an impact. Equally, people who have watched from the sidelines like myself who could contribute more don't have the inclination to throw their hat in that particular warzone :D Dimspace (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Should add, a lot of have fallen foul of issues of sourcing, and the primary sources issue, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Darts#Better_sources_for_darts_articles which I know is something Itskesha has been hot about (I'm not getting into a right or wrong on that one, but thats been part of the reduction as well). But again as noted elsewhere, the approach from people like ItsKesha has very much been "not sourced properly DELETE IT" "doesnt fill a certain criteria DELETE IT" as opposed to how can we work together to remedy those things Dimspace (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a notability guideline for darts: WP:NSPORT, which requires the subject to meet GNG and on top of that requires all athlete articles actively cite at least one IRS SIGCOV source. ItsKesha's interpretation of notability criteria is correct. JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Working with others to establish a notability list for Darts and listing the guidelines, being specific, explaining reasoning, however, would be far more productive, than just stamping feet and fighting. People can see a wall in their path and just knock it down, or they can work together to cross it. Dimspace (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What I would add, is WP:NSPORT is largely aimed at notablity of individual sports men, women and teams. When it comes to events, it is very vague, generalised, and extremely open to interpretation, but, any discussions on darts events notability have just been "its not notable" "yes it is" "no it isnt" as opposed to objective. WP:EVENT is possibly more relevant. but. getting sidetracked a bit here. But I think formalising event notability over the course of 2024 could solve some issues. Dimspace (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, any notability criteria created for darts events will have to be a very strong predictor of GNG and SUSTAINED independent secondary significant coverage (per NEVENT). Project-level notability criteria are treated as essays and hold zero weight at AfD, so it really wouldn't be productive to pursue this if the hope is to protect certain classes of articles from deletion. Pinging @Nigej who also has experience at NSPORT discussions and might have more background on non-biography stuff. JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would not view it as protecting certain classes from deletion, but, having an established, discussed, agreed, list of notable events, is a lot better than having editors fighting with each other over their perception of notability. (as long as those establishing, discussing and agreeing are objective and able to look at more than one point of view lol) 01:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What is "ItsKesha was at the centre of that with their "interpretion" of notability criteria" even in reference to? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is that supposed to mean? I listen very much, I just say that I don’t understand why there is such a big drama about this. I have even offered you a simple solution to your biggest concern with the content. I find this a really low blow from you. Meanwhile the user that this discussion centers on, who doesn’t show any less reluctance to listen to outsiders, has even broken WP:3RR. Tvx1 13:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems from comments below that ItsKesha finds some of your comments "low blows" too. Nigej (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see any comment that references me below at all. Your snide remarks are totally uneccesary here. They do nothing but detract from the issue at hand here. Tvx1 15:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean you've just made a comment here advising @Lee Vilenski to "learn to read". I'd say that's definitely a low blow. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

No, that’s a comment on the point in reaction to someone who clearly misread a comment I made in that discussion. But that doesn’t even matter. It’s my behavior that was reported, it was yours and that is what you should discuss.Tvx1 19:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It is a bizarre comment over six months after the last comment in that thread. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• I see that the arguments from the talk page are starting to leak into here. Have any of the involved parties asked for assistance from uninvolved editors at WP:RSN about whether those PDC reports should be considered a primary source? Moving on from that, can someone point me to which topic ItsKesha has been banned from? I see nothing on their talk page or at WP:AEDR. I think a final civility warning to ItsKesha should help reduce the heat in these discussions, and I wouldn't oppose a WP:1RR sanction to prevent slow edit wars. Concerning the overall darts topic, I think a reminder to all participants to remain civil, respect WP:BRD, and seek assistance from third parties when a discussion appears to be going nowhere wouldn't go amiss. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  In future I won't even try and collaborate to improve these articles, I'll just work independently because this is so unbelievably boring. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I do not think this is the answer you want to give. Saying you will not collaborate is a big no-no and the alarm bells are ringing louder for me. GiantSnowman 14:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  See, this is another indication that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Tvx1 15:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'll edit to improve articles, I just won't bother asking questions to the community. Why should I even try when I am made out to be the villain and targeted simply for asking a question? Look here and read the first four responses I received. Three of them are absolutely pathetic and I won't subject myself to this going forward, and you can't sway my opinion. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

ItsKesha"read the first four responses I received." the first few responses, my response included are not ok. However, bear in mind two things. a) Nobody had a foggiest idea what stats you were claiming were against WP:SYTH, and even after discussion, and head scratching b) it was established very quickly that they were not against WP:SYNTH. And here's the thing, throughout that thread you refuse to actually explain why you felt they were against WP:SYNTH (Or even which stats you thought were against WP:SYNTH. All you did was repeatedly quote "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". You wouldn't actually elaborate on what your issue actually was. So a month long argument (Where nobody actually understood what your issue was in relation to WP:SYNTH ends with "ItsKesha was quoting wiki policies that didnt even apply" again. And so the cycle starts again. Dimspace (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Again, saying you are going to continue editing (without dealing with the attitude and behaviour concerns that have been raised here and elsewhere) AND that you are not going to collaborate indicates you will continue disruption. Comments like "you can't sway my opinion" means there is little point in the community working with you as nothing we do will have a positive effect. In short, the more you post, the more supportive I become of an indef block as the only way to prevent ongoing issues. GiantSnowman 15:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  So not raising issues is disruption, but raising issues is disruption. Brilliant. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  There is a whole lot of background to why these were the first four reactions you got from these people. These are the many interactions you had with them during the last year or so, including on the article on the previous edition of the sports’ world championship. "you can't sway my opinion" is the core attitude issue you have been displaying throughout that period and is the reason why were here, yet you show no understanding at all. Tvx1 16:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think ItsKesha needs an indefinite block for their behavior discussed above. The battlegrounding is just too much. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Can you explain the "whole lot of background" then, so I can learn from it? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  The battleground behavior is detailed above, and I believe you have responded earlier. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would say some of the darts "regulars" have displayed quite a bit more battlegrounding on the darts pages than ItsKesha. Those pages need a serious overhaul by uninvolved editors. JoelleJay (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  See that’s the core issue here. People like the reported user and you unfairly treat the regular editors of these articles like a nuisance. Like an annoying band of rebels that need to be squashed. I’m not even part of that community and I’m still appaled by the treatment they have been given. Maybe what it needs is not for outsiders to barge in with a lecturing attituted trying to enforce their personal views. Tvx1 14:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  P&Gs are not really "personal views"... JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Interpretations of them are. Multiple editors on those talk pages have carefully read those guidelines and properly adressed many of the incorrect claims regarding these guidelines and policies in the talk page discussions. Yet instead of reading and accepting these replies and collaborating, you and the reported user keep treating these people, who actually have invested a considerable amount of time in reading and adressing your concerns, as a pest that needs to be eradicated.Tvx1 19:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tvx1: please tone down your rhetoric. No one here is treating the regular darts editors as "a pest that needs to be eradicated." An uninvolved user saw an issue occurring on a certain topic of the Wikipedia and we are discussing to reach a consensus on whether this is a chronic issue and how to best deal with it. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Isabelle Belato, this comment shows clearly what I meant. A call for outside editors to come in an and overhaul the project. Treating the current regulars as if they have no good intentions or at the very least wouldn’t be willing to colleborate constructively. If find that very respectless and I can sympathise in a way with how this people have reacted to such treatment. Tvx1 00:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I said some of the darts regulars, which includes two editors indeffed for NPAs and battleground behavior... And content can need to be overhauled without it impugning the motivations or collegiality of other editors. There are still synth issues1 and misunderstandings of notability, PRIMARY, and independence that need to be addressed. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I tried to offer my opinion -- that the tournament draws and schedules formulated and released by the tournament itself are primary (and non-independent) as they are original materials ... close to an event ... written by people who are directly involved -- but was told by Tvx1 that my comment didn't make sense and that I was incorrectly conflating secondary sources and independence... JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  JoelleJay What I would say, is when the battle is already raging, any opinions are probably going to be shot down because peoples backs are already up. Now probably isn't the time to be saying whats wrong with this years article, emotions are running too high. I think there needs to be a period of calm, and a built towards next year to be honest. Dimspace (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Can we please leave the content discussion out of this? This is not the venue for this.Tvx1 04:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I summarised it in the 2023 Worlds talk page. Basically Kesha seemed to come in from out of the blue, and unilaterally decided that about half the article failed some policy and just slapped a ton of "fix this" templates all over the place; as opposed to... well, fixing it. That same attitude seems to have continued over the year, and is coming to a point again now during the 2024 Worlds. There was little collaboration until I had to call out the 3RR that was ongoing, and even then I don't think any of the discussions really amounted to much. Hence why there's still such an impasse over the whole thing.

The sticking point over notability is going to remain though. Darts is still a relatively niche sport, it doesn't have the same amount of eyeballs on it as other events that Sky and ITV broadcast; and because of that the resulting neutral coverage is also lacking. Snooker — another of matchroom's portfolio — gets a lot from the BBC because they actually broadcast it; but unfortunately they don't offer that same level of effort to darts or pool. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 02:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You accused me of being "biased against most darts articles on the Wiki" for nominating an article for deletion. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That does sound rather unreasonable (and I've had something like happen to me, so I empathize pretty direction). PS: I hope you realize that put putting "All my warmest wishes" on every other post comes across as robotically insincere and false civility. It is liable to rub a whole lot of people the wrong way, even those you're not addressing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I can’t believe we’re letting us be mocked like this. It’s New Year’s Eve for crying out loud, we should be celebrating with our families and friends, not be dealing with this. Granted, maybe for some of you it’s maybe already the morning of New Year’s Day, but still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs)

Ok, throwing my two-pennorth in as I have been watching the talk of all darts pages since late last year after things blew up on the 2023 World Championship talk. Darts articles are not perfect, and there are areas as have been brought up by people like NigelJ etc where things can be improved, but there is a way to work with existing editors, discussion, compromise, and explaining decisions. Itskesha since late in 2022 (as far as I am aware, it could even be earlier) has behaved as a bull in a china shop on darts articles. Filling articles with various banners, sourcing need, 1st party sources, etc etc, kicking up a storm over notability, and in many instances citing Wikipedia policies that when actually looked at have zero relevance to what he is flagging. His general passive-aggressive approach (for example, his constant even when baiting people, well wishes) has got a lot of peoples backs up. The net effect has been in 2023 the number of darts articles has dropped massively, many events no longer have articles for them, and a lot of editors have simply backed off the darts community completely. For much of the year I have just been watching, and yes, over December I have decided to butt heads with him, which I probably shouldn't, but honestly, my impression is very much that while he maybe intends well, his forcible opinions (which very often are based on poor interpretations of policy), and his general passive aggressive, non-compromising approach, is a disruption to the Darts community as a whole. As I say that as someone who does not edit on Darts, but read the articles, and have been paying very close attention to talk. (But yes, I will admit I've been like a dog with a bone over the last month). As I say, Darts pages are not perfect, but there are ways of working with the existing editors to improve and develop the pages, and going in, sticking banners everywhere, misinterpreting wiki policies, and being at the centre of every single argument, are not the way to improve things. His aspproach alsi is very much "This doesn't fit the (poorly interpreted) rules so delete it", as opposed to "how can we rework it to make it fit the policy guidelines better"Dimspace (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, this all started last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_PDC_World_Darts_Championship and has gradually built over the course of 2023. So whats going on on the talk page for this years World Championship is not the full reflection, this has been a 12 month brewing battle. Dimspace (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, it appears at least two regular editors of darts articles have already ended up indefblocked because of this ongoing situation.Tvx1 19:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure who posted this last comment ^^ but yes, this is a side effect, that Darts is losing its most "passionate" editors because of this ongoing conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs)

• Related, would an admin please look at Draft:Alex Spellman and this change an IP tried to make to sports notability? I blocked the first IP as they were being generally disruptive but there's not enough with the new one desipite my spidey sense that it's blocked editors logging out. I know that JRR is far from the only problematic one in this area, but it's who it reads to me. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JRRobinson/Archive exists, but nothing we can do with IPs so I've not bothered filing Star Mississippi 16:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Without sidetracking completely, " Have won an event hosted by either the Professional Darts Corporation or British Darts Organisation." yes, support. " Have participated in the PDC World Darts Championship." as someone who loves the sport of darts, no, not even close. Participating in the worlds is not notable. For me notablity would not start until they reached the last 16, or had multiple appearances in the world championships. A single appearance is not even close to notable. I would say 90% of big darts fans would have to google who Alex Spellman even is :D Dimspace (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This is again a discussion we should not hold here. This is not the venue. So, please focus on the ANI report at hand. This section is already lengthy enough as it is. Tvx1 19:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Section break

Okay, I hope this is appreciated but I decided to please a section break here because the above discussion was suffering from a lot of sidetracking and became difficult to follow. So I hope we can refocus on the issue at hand. The reported user has shown no insight into their behavior, has no demonstrated to have headed lessons from a previous topic ban and has not shown any willingness to change their attitude in the right way. Therefore I think it would be best to try to find a consensus on some action. Personally I still feel WP:NOTHERE applies.Tvx1 00:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably wise, but remember that the raised topic wasn't about a specific user. There has been one block already. I agree there needs to be something done to stop the atmosphere around these types of articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, one other specific user WAS discussed following the block and I think an action considering them should be taken now. Especially considering their contributions here.Tvx1 10:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We should move to discussion about what (if any) action should be taken against ItsKesha given the conduct highlighted above. I think the options are (1) final warning (2) topic ban from darts, widely construed or (3) indef block. GiantSnowman 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. My preference lies with option (3) indef block or failing that (2) topic ban. We're well past the warning stage now.Tvx1 12:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Same, I am fine with either a topic ban or indef block, leaning more towards the latter. GiantSnowman 19:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Any other views on ItsKesha here? GiantSnowman 12:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

ItsKesha has a long history of uncivil behaviour and while I’m definitely no saint their behaviour has gone on too frequently and too long in my opinion. I’ve personally never once seen them cordial with another editor. RossButsy (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

My general opinion is that jumping straight to an indef with no prior sanctions is nuts unless the behavior in question is really overwhelmingly egregious, which this definitely isn't. Loki (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So you'd prefer a topic ban? GiantSnowman 12:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer a warning, frankly. Loki (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer a firm warning and short leash. JoelleJay (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We’re way past that stage. Warnings have proven useless in the point. We need to impose a strict sanction by now.Tvx1 15:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

There have been previous sanctions against this user. Blocks and even a topic ban in an other area. Yet, they have declared an intent not to change at all. There is a point where we have to put a strict halt to it. Tvx1 15:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I could only find a single block, not blocks, of 31 hours. Nigej (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A darts topic ban seems reasonable to me. I'd be against an indef, which seems excessive to me. Having felt the wave of negativity that comes from many of the established darts editors, I've got a little sympathy for him (despite my initial comment on him, somewhere above). However it does seem to me that he didn't come to this topic with any genuine attempt to have discussions that might come to some consensus. Nigej (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with a topic ban. GiantSnowman 14:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

My problem with a topic ban is that this has been applied before to them and they just moved to another topic to continue their problematic behavior here. Given their posts here, I’m very concerned that pattern might be repeated again. That’s why I believe we’ve reached the point of a block being warranted.Tvx1 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Where/when was a topic ban previously applied? GiantSnowman 19:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

See their talk page. They have a topic ban from articles on wrestling apparently.Tvx1 20:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems from Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling that itskesha was topic banned from "professional wrestling for 1 month because of persistent hostility and personal attacks" on 18 July 2022. As far as I can see he has had only that one topic ban, together with a single block of 31 hours. Anyway, its not correct to say "They have a topic ban" since it expired well over a year ago. @GiantSnowman: @Tvx1: Nigej (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

My points is that they received a topic ban and it had no positive effect on their behavior whatsoever. That is a very serious problem. I don’t know why you want to keep minimalizing that. Tvx1 15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Well we need a topic ban or indef and for an uninvolved admin to close... GiantSnowman 18:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you've been exaggerating his "record". You mention "Blocks" when there's only been 1. You say "They have a topic ban" when they haven't. I'm not sure what you'd make of a current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an editor whose been blocked 30 times and is still not indefed. Anyway I said above that "A darts topic ban seems reasonable to me." and that's still my position. Nigej (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There's the wave of negativity, and then there's the stark misunderstanding of PAGs that appears to be commonly held on these pages, given this comment by Penepi (which quotes arguments used by another darts editor) in an AfD:

Thanks for making me laugh. Really. I don't know if you're just trolling, but, dear lady, please stick to your molecular biology and don't comment on things you have literally no clue about. Let me tell you a huge secret - darts is not a science; "passing mention in routine tournament recap". And what would you expect? A website dedicated to his one match analyzing it in a scientific manner? Also mentioning PDC source as non-independent. Extremely bizarre. This is sports and this is how sports news work. In this context I dare to borrow the rational argumentation of my fellow colleague: this is not a scientific article where unbiased, third party sources are extremely important especially when it comes to things that could be deemed as "opinion". These are sporting events, where all that is important to the page is statistical data, and accurate data. There are no POV elements to tournament articles or issues with Bias etc etc, all that is needed are qualification methods, and results, and for those sort of data points, first party is totally acceptable, in fact, it could be argued preferable. Hugo won his WC debut 3–2 against GVV. That is fact, and it does not matter if the source is the PDC, Sky Sports, Darts News, or The New York Times, that fact is not going to change. There are countless instances of sporting results page where the main source is the sport organisers, because they are the body that provides the official (and accurate) results. What elements of this article do you think would be improved by a third party source? There is nothing opinion based that needs it. With this brilliant and absolutely not rigid approach, you would have to delete not only 95% of articles about darts players but about athletes in general.

Which gives me a bit more sympathy towards ItsKesha's desire to align darts articles with PAGs/MOS. JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

All well and good, but completely fails to deal with the edit warring, the disruption, the incivility and personal attacks, all of which has been ongoing long before their recent run-in with Penepi. GiantSnowman 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Why, Penepi actually raises some fair points. Primary sources are not forbidden, sources aren't primary just because they are first party and Sports articles do frequentie user primary sources to just list official results and schedules. There is no problem with doing the letter as long as we directly reflect these sources and don't analyze them. Tvx1 16:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Primary and non-independent sources are explicitly forbidden from contributing to notability, which is what the above discussion was about. JoelleJay (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Try convincing the average AfD regular of that. With that said, being right isn't enough. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Tell me about it... JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

met with quite hostile resistance from what seems like a LOCALCON walled-garden – In a sport topic? Surely you jest! I'm shocked, I tell you. Just shocked.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

In my level-headed opionion, abolish the police sports projects. I assure you, nothing could go wrong. Drastic measures always go as planned. SWinxy (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The solution is clearly to just defund them. No more piles of wiki-lucre for the sporties!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure

So it seems the discussion has ended. How do we proceed with closing this. Does this require a request for closure?Tvx1 16:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Some patience may be required. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: General Sanctions

Proposal moved. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After reviewing this thread, the linked diffs and talkpages, and the requested closure above, I'm supremely unimpressed with the conduct of a number of people in this topic area. It certainly isn't just one person, incivility is rampant throughout the area. In order to break the back of this problem, I'd propose General Sanctions be authorized for the Darts topic area, text below copied from WP:GS/PW. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard. Support as proposer. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Per a recent RfC, these sorts of requests now have to go to WP:VPR. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Huh, I suppose that's what I get for not having VPR watchlisted. Fair enough, I'll move it over shortly. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that I have moved this proposal to WP:VPR#General Sanctions (Darts). Please review it and comment there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure request for ANI discussion

Hello. Discussion seems to have wound down in this ANI discussion. If an administrator could get a read on the consensus and close it, I'd be grateful. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Re-upping this request. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That discussion is a great monster that is very difficult to kill or subdue. It also involves allegations of stalking and of off-wiki canvassing. The inability to find a closer after four days is an indication that this is a dispute that the community has not resolved. We should ask ArbCom to resolve this multi-pronged dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

For any wandering admins, @Ritchie333: has closed this. Leaving this open for any subsequent discussion. Star Mississippi 17:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Scammers

I have been contacted multiple times by editors who have received multiple emails from scammers claiming to be me and threatening to delete articles and offering put them in touch with paid help. How can I tackle this menace? File Éireann 22:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Brendanconway, you can find useful information at -Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. This is a chronic problem. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It might be worth a note on your user page saying that you understand that people are impersonating you and that you are not the person represented in those emails. Might keep Jimbo from insinuating you're a shill as well. Primefac (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Ah, I see you've already done this. Primefac (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

INVOLVED block by Wbm1058

Wbm1058 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 19:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC) blocked for 72 hours Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since it was for a WP:3RR breach, the block was arguably justifiable by someone, though Dicklyon was not templated or otherwise warned of 3RR. He's been blocked before for editwarring, and an argument is sometimes made (including by Wbm1058 in this case at Dicklyon's talk page) that such a person doesn't deserve any such warnings, but that's debatable. The cause, "deservingness", or unblock-request outcome of this block are not at issue here.

The issue is that Wbm1058 absolutely should not have taken this action, being directly and long-term WP:INVOLVED in the underlying content dispute, and with Dicklyon (not administratively but topically), since at least 2020.

• The underlying content dispute is about capitalization of the term "draft" in the player-drafting processes of various team sports, including NFL and AFL American football, and NHL ice hockey. It's not really clear why there is a dispute, since policy and guidelines are clear about article titles and what they should be, including in this kind of case. But there's a long-running dispute anyway (dating to at least 2016).
• There is an RfC open to resolve the question, at least with regard to NFL, after RM (and MRV) came to a no-consensus results (same thing happened earlier with NHL): WP:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles (Moved from WP:VPPOL due to length, much of it caused by people, mostly in favor of capitalization, trying to claim that the community somehow cannot examine this dispute at VPPOL or by RfC. I couldn't make this up.)
• Dicklyon added this RfC to WP:CENT, and someone removed it, and he re-added it, and so on until the 3RR line was crossed.
• Wbm1058 then blocked Dicklyon.
• However, Wbm1058 was deeply involved already as a partisan editor in the content-dispute to begin with [3]:
  • At the NHL wikiproject talk page, about moves to lower-case "Draft" in various article titles, Wbm1058, in agreeing to mass-move them all back to "Draft" at the behest of wikiproject participants, writes: Sorry guys, I have unfortunately assumed too much good faith from Dicklyon and given him too much rope. ... I've been silently stewing over this matter for some time, and realize it is now time to put my foot down.
  • This is clearly siding with the wikiproject particpants who prefer "Draft", instead of taking it to RM (as suggested by Dicklyon, GoodDay, and others)
  • It's also a declaration of cessation of good-faith assumption with regard to Dicklyon in particular (who was not even who moved all the articles to lowercase; User:Atsme did a bunch of them, and was who the thread opened about). This at least borders on a personal attack. If I told someone other than a blatant vandal that I had assumed too much good faith from them and given them too much rope, I would expect to get blocked for it.
  • It's noteworthy in passing that all this personalized wikiproject-organized venting against Atsme and Dicklyon was a combination of WP:CANVASS and WP:FACTION behavior to begin with, in which an admin should have been encouraging a neutral RM or RfC, not joining in to go after particular editors, and using the admin tools to help conduct a move-war.
• But there's more. Today, Wbm1058 put their heart right on their sleeve at Dicklyon's talk page [4]:
  • you continue to push to elevate the manual-of-style guidance on capitalization to the level of a de facto black-and-white policy
  • That's a total fabrication, and is partisan "anti-guideline" wikipolitical activism over capitalization trivia in a particular topic Wbm1058 in involved with. Dicklyon has simply correctly pointed out that WP:COMMONNAME policy and the WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS (in particular MOS:SPORTCAPS) guidelines do apply to this topic like all others and do not support this over-capitalization, and neither do non-primary, independent sources. That's what the RfC is going over in detail, with rather clear facts. Nowhere, anywhere, has Dicklyon or anyone else I'm aware of suggested that any such guidelines be made into policies or treated as if they were policies. Nor has Dicklyon or anyone else suggesting lower-casing everything, only following the guidelines (lower-case that which is not consistently treated as a proper name and capitalized in independent RS). Even if Dicklyon did believe in the idea of making naming-convention and style guidelines into policy, that would be a proposal for the community to discuss (and, obviously, reject); it's not an "I don't like what I mis-imagine your policy development intentions to be" rationalization in defending one's bad block decision.
  • The block "rationale" offered by Wbm1058 also makes no sense at all: Indeed the point of the block is not punitive, but rather to deter you from getting edit-warring blocked for a dozenth time, sometime in the future. That's like saying "I killed my dog because I don't want him to die some day."
  • And Wbm1058 also micharacterized Dicklyon's unblock request, which is a reasonable and typical one, as being requests to essentially downgrade the blocking policy to a guideline. The one not following that policy here is Wbm1058. WP:BLOCKNO: Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute. That this content dispute has been going on for this admin since at least 2020 is not an "old news" mitigation, but makes the matter worse, as it's evidence of long-term "guidelines don't apply to topics I don't want them to apply to" tendentiousness on the content matter, and grudge-holding against the blocked editor.
• There may be more; I did not go digging around, and only ran into the NHL thread involving Wbm1058 accidentally while looking for RM history relating to the underlying dispute.

This was clearly a bad block because of the involvement of the admin with the topic and with the now-blocked editor as a debate opponent within that topic (and someone the admin had previously used admin tools to undo the moves of unilaterally and in support of the desires of other partisans in the topic, not as a neutral RM/TR admin, instead of opening an RM discussion). PS: Given that Dicklyon has already stated he knows he erred and will not change the CENT page again, there is no reason to undo the bad block and reinstate anther one by an uninvolved admin, just on the basis that a 3RR is grounds for a block; it would no longer serve a preventative purpose but only a punitive one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I note that there was no 3RR violation here the block was presumably for general edit warring. Galobtter (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Link to related discussion: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion#Criteria for RFC inclusion. Mackensen (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of events:

• Dicklyon adds NFL RFC to T:CENT, is reverted by editor 1
• Dicklyon adds NFL RFC to T:CENT, is reverted by editor 1 again
• Dicklyon adds NFL RFC to T:CENT, is reverted by editor 2
• Dicklyon adds NFL RFC to T:CENT, is reverted by editor 3
• Dicklyon adds NFL RFC to T:CENT, is reverted by editor 4 (me) with an edit summary warning to stop edit warring
• To Dicklyon's credit, they did not edit T:CENT again after this edit summary warning
• Blocking admin probably notices the edits on T:CENT, then places a 72 hour edit warring full block (not partial block). Blocking admin does not post a block message or block template on user talk. This is Dicklyon's 10th or 11th block for edit warring.
• Blocking admin did respond to pings and discussed the block a bit with Dicklyon.
• Dicklyon posts an unblock request using the unblock template. The unblock request is still open.
• An argument is made that the blocking admin is INVOLVED and then this is posted at AN.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I was imprecise; I though that Dicklyon had gone past the 3RR limit; I was going by Galobtter's "I do think you know better than revert the RfC in 4 times rather than discussing on the CENT talk page. Not sure if this block is necessarily needed anymore though".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes the 4 reverts happened but over ~4 days. Galobtter (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Noted, belatedly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment As everyone should know by now, three revert over 24 hours is a brightline. However, one can edit war over a longer a period of time and get blocked for it. Certainly, Dicklyon should know it. However, if Dicklyon has stopped and won't restart, we should probably unblock. @Wbm1058: This certainly looks like an WP:INVOLVED WP:BADBLOCK. Must the Community haul you off to ARBCOM, or can you address this in a satisfying manner here? Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like that is no bueno, since the involved admin is offline for the moment; for now, I think they won't respond here. – 64andtim ^(talk) 11:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Request to an administrator

Would an uninvolved administrator, please respond to Dicklyon's unblock request, at his talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It would be best to wait and see if Wbm1058 will undo the block himself, or if consensus arises here that it was a bad block and should be undone by an uninvolved admin. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Cookiemonster1618 appeals block made for TBAN violation

Cookiemonster1618 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Link to ANI discussion a la topic ban.

Appeal--

Hey I violated a community imposed topic ban when I shouldn't have, and understood well what it meant and instead of fully understanding that my editing actions have consequences, I did not want to fully understand the terms and conditions of my topic ban when It said all 'Northeast African languages and Peoples'. I am committed to following those guidelines through the way until it expires next month and will not edit any pages that fit the criteria of 'Northeast African peoples and languages' this includes all the countries and locations in which they are located. I am ashamed and feel guilty for my editing actions which were inappropriate and they are not reflected upon an editor like me who has made many positive contributions to Wikipedia. I assure you that this will never happen again and I am committed to following all of Wikipedia's guidelines for a topic ban by understanding them clearly and adhering to them to ensure a positive editing experience and environment not only for me but for other editors. I will also follow the Community's editing guidelines to ensure that I can earn the trust of the Wikipedia community and also avoid more sanctions and consequences.
Thank you.

Sincerely Cookiemonster1618.Cookiemonster1618

carried over by -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)