Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Primefac (talk | contribs) at 00:53, 4 September 2020 (→User:The C of E and DYK: clarify per Special:PermaLink/976616070#The_C_of_E_AN_closure). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

Open tasks

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Close challenge

User:Kraose, a user with just over 1K edits, recently closed a highly-contentious RfC on The People's of Mujahedin of Iran talk page. Kraose also previously participated in another very contentious ANI report ("Iranian opposition articles") about POV pushing in this same article.

I have asked Kraose to consider undoing their close based on WP:BADNAC, but they appear to be currently absent from Misplaced Pages. I would kindly request for an admin to review this and hopefully allow an experienced and uninvolved closer to close that RfC. Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn Once you have supported a user being blocked/banned on a specific page you should not, as a non-admin, close a discussion on that page opened by the user. In this case User:Kraose supported sanctions on user who opened the RFC so should not have closed it. Also, their close was deficient since they ignored the strong support votes to concentrate on the weak support votes, while ignoring the fact that the oppose votes were mostly devoid of value.AlmostFrancis (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Had I closed it myself, I would have closed it "no consensus". The closing statement was carefully articulated. I see no basis to question the closure. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse close - The outcome is well within reason. I don't see any compelling evidence that Kraose is WP:INVOLVED and don't believe that commenting about a conduct issue disqualifies someone from assessing consensus. Kraose has more than enough experience, and absent evidence of poor judgement, their close should stand. - MrX 🖋 17:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse close. A comment of I don't see enough concerns to warrant a topic ban from entire area over a year ago in a conduct RFC on ANI isn't enough to make someone WP:INVOLVED for the entire topic area of Iranian opposition. Contrary to the argument that that ANI was entirely about POV pushing on that article, it was just one part of it, and unless I misread the history of that discussion, the People's Mujahedin of Iran article wasn't even mentioned in the report until after Kraose had weighed in. Beyond that, their assessment here is reasonable - arguments like would make better sense or the content is related are not strong arguments, while the opposition has detailed explanations for why the sections are different. --Aquillion (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, you've misread that ANI case. As AlmostFrancis says, Kraose supported the RFC's OP to be blocked from the same page this RFC is about. That may or may not show a potential sign of impartiality, but thought it could be a valid concern in a highly-contentious RfC. Also pinging @L235: who also left a message on Kraose's talk page about this. Alex-h (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

zscaler proxies

No such user raised a legitimate concern on my talk page. I have blocked Special:Contributions/165.225.192.0/18 because this is the zscaler proxy. NSU notes this has caused a moderate amount of collateral damage including to them. NSU states, "That range belongs to Zscaler which provides security and cloud services to several major companies, including, apparently, mine. This is a closed proxy that requires authentication and should not have been blocked." I placed this block because Misplaced Pages generally hard-blocks proxies, and zscaler is definitely a proxy. I've been following the lead of other administrators who have applied range blocks to other zscaler ip blocks. I've seen substantial anonymous vandalism from zscaler, too, though this can be dealt with via a soft block. I additionally have the concern that if we allow editing from zscaler, we may be implicitly endorsing their security and privacy stance (though this may be out of scope for any discussion)? So, my question: Based on current Misplaced Pages policies and best-practices, should we hard-block zscaler proxies? Should we soft-block zscaler proxies? --Yamla (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm a regular strong opponent of blocking Zscaler proxies for being proxies, and especially hardblocking them. They are used by really lots and lots of large corporations for security filtering, including plenty of 'Forbes 500' (or whatever) companies - large banks, drug companies, manufacturers. One only has to look at the contribs. I think even the FCC uses Zscaler. And the worst thing is that these are often highly educated, knowledgeable, good faith users. Zscaler is a reputable company, and this is a type of proxy I wouldn't call open. -- zzuuzz 21:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, I'd agree that ZScaler probably aren't open proxies. There are only about 6 of these blocks if we want to undo them.

AmandaNP doesn't have great access to the internet right now, and has asked me to relay the following:

• I am definitely for an anon only block hence the coloweb block from the range i blocked. I think anything that obfuscates regardless of services should at least not allow account creation for the potential abuse of socks. Thats the whole reason i made the colo template SQL 01:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• I tend to think the idea of "anything that obfuscates" is a bit of a red herring, especially in modern times. When someone hops onto their mobile IP address, is that really indicating some sort of 'true' origin? We don't block all mobile addresses. When it comes to Zscaler, it basically acts like just another ISP proxy, most of which regularly 'obfuscate'. I've no objections if some admin thinks a range needs an anonblock - like any range there will always be some vandalism - but I do object to blocking Zscaler because it's a closed proxy. We shouldn't be using the {blocked proxy} template either, since it's not really something you can turn off. And like I said above, and the block of NSU demonstrates, I think hardblocking Zscaler is usually really detrimental to Misplaced Pages. -- zzuuzz 09:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

SQL 21:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

SQL, did you find that by searching the block log for zscaler? I have occasionally run in to proxy blocks that don't mention zscaler, but which clearly are when I do an IP lookup. But, I'll keep my eyes open for those as I patrol the unblock requests, once we come to a consensus. --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yamla, Yep. SQL 22:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought I should expand some. I suppose, my main rationale for not calling it an open proxy would be that it is generally unavoidable. It's more of an antivirus and content filtering service, and isn't intended to be used to mask one's actual ip or identity. SQL 22:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Although this is not the primary intention, it does serve to mask one's actual IP and is used by vandals to avoid blocks. What are your thoughts on soft-blocking (preventing people from editing unless they sign in with an account)? I believe you are opposed to hard-blocking, correct? --Yamla (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yamla, Yes, I think soft blocking is more appropriate in these instances. Unless there's abuse / etc that would warrant a hardblock. SQL 15:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What makes zscaler a reputable company? 331dot (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Without wanting to turn into their PR person, I'd say it's the scale, depth, and quality of their services. I'd suggest browsing their website to read about some of their partnerships. -- zzuuzz 22:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Based only on the block log for 185.46.212.0/23 (because I don't have any other notes) I suppose I blocked that range because of one or a small number of users creating throwaway promotional SPAs in a short period of time, which would be why I would instruct ACC to disallow requests from the range, although I changed my mind four minutes later and converted to a softblock, so maybe the abuse was from unrelated anons. Was that someone running a spam operation from a legit Zscaler instance, or was one of their servers hacked and running an open proxy? I don't know, I guess it doesn't really matter. FWIW I usually do hardblock open proxies, but I only ever come across them when investigating reports of abuse, and only decide on block settings after checking for collateral and any good-faith accounts that need IPBE. On an abusive proxy I usually don't find any. If the proposal is to immediately lift all Zscaler blocks, I disagree (at least this one is not blocked just because it's a Zscaler range), but if we want to suggest that Zscaler ranges should only be softblocked and covert any current hardblocks, I'd go along with that. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 12:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Just popping in to note that I did not place the original block on the range above – I changed it to a soft block after (I think) someone emailed Arbcom. I don't think these ranges should be hard blocked, but that particular range has a lot of anon vandalism and nonsense, and at least some Zscaler ranges are definitely being used for disruption. The soft blocks need to stay. Katie 13:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• As the "original poster" I don't have much to add. Do we have a consensus to soft-block only those ranges? If so, someone please enact it. I'm able to post today only because I had to restart my computer and got assigned an unblocked Zscaler address - I have no control whatsoever over the matter, and presumably most other users.
  By the way, how come that https://www.whatismyip.com/ shows my "true" IP address and geolocation, while e.g. https://tools.keycdn.com/geo as well as, apparently, Misplaced Pages, display the Zscaler one? No such user (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this is an X-Forwarded-For situation? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Sanity check at Shooting of Jacob Blake

Shooting of Jacob Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone familiar with the topic weigh in on my insistence that the warrants not (yet) be included? To me, it's a clear WP:BLPPRIVACY issue as no RS have stated that the warrants are the reason for the arrest. RS say explicitly that they don't know (). Before I continue and potentially use tools, I thought I should check in with fellow admins and calibrate my current position wrt others' thoughts. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert in the topic, and the content of the article is understandable changes rapidly, but the current version mentions the word "warrant" only once, in the context of Blake being under an arrest warrant for drunk driving. This statement is sourced, the info is in the sources, and they look reliable to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin but I weighed in on the talk page since you asked. As I said there, I don't think "reason for the arrest" is the only reason why it's likely to be relevant, it seems to me it's almost definitely going to be discussed eventually, now that we know the police we informed there was an alert. But as I also said, this seems to me to be a case where it doesn't matter if we wait a few days while things clear up, the main reason I've refrained from commenting until now. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, Buffaboy just did a good deed by reverting this edit and this one. User:Jd1schroeder was warned months ago about AP and BLP sanctions, but that doesn't seem to have had much of an effect. They also went on to post this, which I reverted--it's a forum post, but in the worst way. I warned them, and I hope that's enough--I'm holding back from the block button, but I am tempted. Maybe some of you can judge whether a topic ban is already warranted. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on the editor's history, both in conduct and in receiving warnings, I think a rather broad topic ban is in order, covering both American politics and current events in the United States of political significance generally. If there is no objection, I will inform them forthwith. BD2412 T 18:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic ban based on WP:ARBAP2 then? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The editor has been advised of the limitations governing edits in this area before. BD2412 T 18:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have informed them of the topic ban, of indefinite duration. I suppose we can revisit the question in six months, if they edit productively in other areas during that time. BD2412 T 19:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have the feeling that a WP:NOTHERE block may be in their future as well. They seem to be here to push a narrative. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Ha, RickinBaltimore, you'll have to block all of "them", if there really is a "we". BTW right after I posted here I read this, so there certainly is a kind of "we". Yeah, I certainly appreciate the topic ban, but NOTHERE is more than applicable. That's the block I typically apply to "Misplaced Pages is a bunch of leftwing/rightwing/centerwing fascists/globalists/communists" editors. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, after a week-long hiatus, Jd1schroeder has resumed pushing a POV on Talk:Shooting of Jacob Blake. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Extended confirmed protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 22:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @El C: please imposing 1RR for Shooting of Jacob Blake article and a editnotice regarding American politics sanctions because it was prone to distruptive editing by any users. 180.254.169.90 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Declined, for now. I think the article is too active right now for 1RR to be immediately useful. El_C 23:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
      • But 1RR needs to be important because there are indications that other users reverting any edits more than 1RR which can be constituted as vandalism for me. At least, please impose Use American English template in that article in order to prevent any users that changing spelling from American to British/Commonwealth spelling that be incorrect for US subject because I will prepared to add notice American English spelling in talk page. 180.254.169.90 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm having a difficult time following your train of thought about reverts and vandalism. Yes, American English should be the order the day — I think that's already assumed, so no need to preempt (unless I'm missing something). El_C 23:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
          • @El C: Ok, thank you so much. I hope you can add American English notice in the article because I already added it on talk page. Best regards. 180.254.169.90 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Sure, why not?  Done. El_C 23:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been nearly 24 hours and it does seem Blake's warrants will need to be mentioned. I am of the opinion there existence should be mentioned (eventually) but not necessarily their content. I'll back down on the rigidity of my stance as RS are now talking about them more. Now we have issues with Rittenhouse's victims' pasts as well. And Rittenhouse's hobbies and stuff are being brought up. BLP should be firmly enforced here, imo. Please keep an eye on this if you can spare the time. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW I should clarify when I said it doesn't matter since it's going to be resolved eventually, what I meant was I would encourage those arguing so hard for inclusion to just wait if it's necessary. While BLP issues apply in all directions so the exclusion of vital information even if it is negative to JB does actually have BLP implications (since it affects the police officers all of who are still alive), the inclusion of negative information does have more significant BLP implications. Therefore IMO it's fine to defer to concerns that the sourcing isn't yet sufficient if they are widely held and exclude the information until the sourcing is clearer cut. Nil Einne (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Jd1schroeder has been editing the talk page there in violation of the topic ban imposed by BD2412. I've closed their topics and reverted in some places, but I doubt that will mean anything.--Jorm (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've given the user a 48 hour block for the obvious disregard of the topic ban. I was bordering on WP:NOTHERE, however I'm giving them one final length of rope here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Kiev page move

Hi. I'm not sure what happened, or indeed why it has happened, but an old requested move that was closed in July has been re-opened. Thought I'd bring it here to flag it up to a wider audience, incase anyone has missed it. Thanks. Lugnuts 07:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it was closed because someone promised to file an ArbCom case, and this has not happened, so disruption must move on.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Did anyone promise that? See my here. ——Serial 18:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I only know this. I unwatched the page a long time ago because of regular drama going on there and I was not following the developments closely.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Abuse of Admin Privileges by User:El C

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

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

User:El C massively abused his admin privileges. Look at my history. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Massively? Your edit made no sense — you called it an improvement, but how so? I warned you to stop, but you continued to revert, so you were restricted from making that edit again. El_C 10:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"Makes no sense" is reason enough for a one-week ban? Thank you for making my point.

Please tell El C to stop abusing his admin powers. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be wildly disproportinate for a 1 week full block. You were blocked from a single article. Nosebagbear (talk)

• Firstly, I'm glad that El C found this, as you seem to have ignored the size 50 coloured text requiring you to notify them on their Talk Page. Personally I'd have noted in the first rollback/warning specifically that you don't need spaces in a subheader, just to make sure the 84.132 was aware that that was the reason they were being reverted. I also note the IP editor seems to dramatically assume bad faith and bolt to the top possible level without considering talking to the admin in question first. The current situation (with the partial block ending in a few days) seems fine, I don't see abuse by El C. I also don't see any need to boomerang the IP, as I imagine someone might suggest, but their ABF/non-communication viewpoint will need to change if they continue. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't understand why the IP was blocked (you were both 3RRing over bloody spaces in a heading???); I don't understand why the block is for 1 week; and I don't understand how the IP can post here while blocked?! GiantSnowman 10:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's just a partial block, so that the IP can go on editing elsewhere instead of making that nonsensical edit. I warned the IP on their talk page that they need to cease from reverting that edit back. El_C 10:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That matter little. The fact remains that you made a block for a content dispute, and you had to dishonest to even give a reason. That's clear abuse. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish. You add whitespace to two section headers, but leave the remaining ones unspaced, for no reason that I can decipher. Again, not a content dispute. I have no view or preference regarding whitespace in section headers. El_C 10:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand, so you block. Nothing more really needs to be said. Again, thank you for making my point. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that you ignored my warnings, did not followup on the discussion on your talk page, and kept on reverting. El_C 10:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then you don't understand, you give a warning, you still don't understand, then you block. Better?

Now you are just making shit up. What discussion on my talk page? Are you talking about you template, the one I follow-uped on? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making that comment, I was also unaware that article-level blocks are even possible, and assumed that this page is a specific exception from general blocks. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a block for content dispute over white space, with a false explanation. That's not an assumption of bad faith, that's clear evidence. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute, it's disruptive editing on your part. To what end, I still have no idea. El_C 10:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Please quote which part of WP:DISRUPT you are talking about. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Good-faith editors do not raise a storm over an issue like this. Use the article talk page or a MOS page if really convinced that your preference for heading spaces is essential. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Good-faith editors ignore abuse of admin privileges? Yeah, that would work well for you I guess....

I would have gladly used the talk page, it's not me that used a block to end the discussion. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, why were you keen on making this edit to the article? -- Euryalus (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The first one? It's vastly more common to see white spaces used this way, and I think it improves legibility. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You were warned to stop because the edit was disruptive, but you kept on reverting anyway. My last comment on your talk page was left unanswered, El_C 10:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

So we had a content dispute over white space, and you ended it by blocking me. Thanks once more for making my point. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• This block seems a textbook case of WP:INVOLVED. The edit in question may have been unhelpful, but it was not disruptive to the point of constituting an exception to our policy on involvement. Salvio 10:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  It was the response to the edit that was disruptive as much as the edit was. I don't think I was involved, because I have no content preference whatsoever. El_C 10:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  That comment of mine turned out to be sadly prophetic.

  Now you change your story, and give a salty comment on my talk page as a reason for an article ban. So you admit that the reason given in the ban was a lie.

  Also you should look up the term "involved". It might not mean what you think it means. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Any admin should feel free to lift the partial block — I really could care less about the whitespace. It just seemed like a redundant edit whose reinsertion was disruptive. This the IP was warned about — but they kept on reverting, anyway, even after the warnings. El_C 10:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That response was not disruptive, it was cranky, but that's to be expected when you get accused of editing disruptively. That said, you were engaged in a content dispute and blocked the guy you were reverting. It doesn't matter whether you have a content preference at all, it matters that you blocked the editor you were in a dispute with. And, as far as I'm concerned, the usual exceptions here do not apply, because the edit was not blatantly disruptive. Salvio 10:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I did not accuse the editor of being disruptive. I placed a uw-test2 warning on their talk page, and that was their response. Them reverting after the warnings was disruptive, in my mind. But again, feel free to lift the partial block. El_C 10:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Salvio, I do not see at all how this is evidence of involvement, let alone a textbook case. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I am pretty sure we are dealing with LTA and just wasting our time. At least I am not going to follow up.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What is LTA? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't bother, found it. Do you have any evidence of any abuse (now or long term), or is this just you way of dealing with any criticism of an admin? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• My opinion: There's a lot of stuff going on here, but here goes: In general, the IP's 22 edits on Misplaced Pages have been of poor quality -- many of them have been making needless invisible adjustments to spacing which (such as the edits in question). I've gone through his substantive edits and reverted a couple which were disruptive. That said, the default spacing on Misplaced Pages when an article is created or new threads are auto-created is to have spaces before and after the ==. Why that is, I have no idea, since almost all experienced editors, when writing articles or adding headers, do not use spaces and prefer them without the spaces. That said, the IP was merely conforming the spaces in the headers on the article, and El C reverted the IP needlessly, used Rollback improperly, warned the IP improperly, and edit-warred over an edit that was entirely correct, and then blocked an editor from the page he was edit-warring with them on, which was indeed an WP:INVOLVED block. None of this looks good on El C's part, and he should avoid such in the future. Nobody comes out looking good here, and people should probably keep an eye on the IP's edits going forward. But his edits on Spitzer (bullet) were entirely correct, if useless, and there was no cause to block him. Softlavender (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• The problem was that only two headers were added with whitespace, leaving all the rest unspaced for some reason. Which seemed bizarre and disruptive. I warned, yet reverting continued. But, okay, I take that analysis to heart and will strive to do better. El_C 11:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I see; I failed to notice the number of headers in the entire article and whether they had spaces or not (the diff window only showed three headers). I think we are indeed dealing with an LTA (or WP:NOTHERE) here, who is making deliberately disruptive edits along with an occasional constructive edit. I think this IP needs to be under careful scrutiny and possibly blocked as WP:NOTHERE. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit extremely vague accusation to punish me for throwing shade at your fellow editor. No reasons give, just a "feeling". --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Anyway, happy to go with the flow. But the whole thing is quite bizarre to me. El_C 11:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• The IP obviously knew what Rollback is, and was for some reason tracking whether his useless, disruptive, and incomplete edit was retained (why?), and then edit-warred over it by reverting you twice. These are clearly disruptive behaviors, and IMO the IP should be site-blocked for WP:DE for at least a period of time, especially for this absurd wikilawyering in and via this thread. I'm personally not sure these new page-blocks are an improvement over full blocks. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm a very experienced editor and never claimed otherwise. Pulling a block out of thin air is an obvious attempt to stifle criticism of your buddy admins. Shame on you!

Your attempt to dehumanize me disgusts me. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

While I obviously agree with your opinion regarding this case, I'm puzzled as to why you call my changes of "poor quality". Yes most of my edit are small, but that's hardly the same thing.

I could find one edit (not a couple) you reverted, and your version is as bad as mine, because the entire sentence is malfomed. (I missed that earlier.) That one change is a reason to keep an eye out for me? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Found a second one, more a question of style than anything else. I think your version is more ambigious, and thus less preferable in an encyclopedia. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm glad El C dealt with this. The whitespace edits make no difference to the render, the only thing they do is clutter page histories. It's hardly a content dispute to revert something so absolutely pointless. To add some context: if this was a new logged-in editor making the whitespace additions, many editors would rightly think they were whitespace-gaming to AC status. There's a lot of mud-dragging going on here for what is really a storm in a teacup.Zindor (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The storm started with the block. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Abuse of Rollback and Abuse of the admin tools - El C. This is shit, on your behalf. You used rollback even after the IP told you that they were not making a test edit. You made zero effort to inquire about the edit and instead continued to use rollback on non-vandalistic edits. That would be grounds for removal of rollback. Then on top of that, while edit-warring with an IP, you used your admin tools to gain the upper hand. That's not right. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Upper hand to achieve what? I deemed it disruptive editing, hence the rollbacks. My warnings were ignored and reverting continued, hence the partial block. El_C 11:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Dude, seriously. Disruptive editing is not vandalism <- that's from DE. What is rollback for? To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. It is not clear why you'd undo the edit in the first place since whitespace around headings and subheadings is what I've always seen and used. I would not expect it to be clear to the IP what's wrong with their edit, either. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude, Rollback is not restricted to vandalism; it can be used to revert "problematic edits" and "edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear". The IP's edit (and reverts) was disruptive and completely unnecessary: it added spaces to only 2 of the article's 14 headers (thus de-conforming the headers). The fact that the IP edit-warred over this useless and clearly disruptive edit is more proof their intention was to disrupt rather than to improve. I myself would likely have used rollback in this case -- a case of a driveby making 2 tiny invisible piecemeal changes which dis-conform the entire article. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Massive ABF, but I'm used to that. Rules do not apply when trying to take down IP editors. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm obviously not the only one looking at the IP's edit history and thinking 'This is not a new editor'. The unnecessarily combative talk page posts like this or particularly this are rather odd, as is the fact that they knew to come to WP:AN. I don't think it's WP:BKFIP, but it looks like it might be someone with a similar behaviour. Number 57 11:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not a new editor, and never claimed I was. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There's an idle question going begging here, so I'll be the bunny who asks it - have your previous edits been via IP or are there user accounts in there as well? If so what were they, just so we know who we're all talking to? -- Euryalus (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Well, could just be that the IP read the manual. But yes, most likely they've edited before, could be just another IP. Looking at their range and considering the pattern, I'm guessing those July edits are also them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• How about we require the IP to fully explain each of their edits in a full edit summary, going forward? And refrain from altering spacing? Softlavender (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

So my edits are tiny accd. to your own description, but they require full summaries, all the while you are silent to the fact that El C admitted to making a false statement in his block summary. Next time I'm the victim of admin abuse someone remembers, finds a inconsequential edit without a summary and I can be punished for my insolence this serious break of the community rules. Yeah, that sounds fair and balanced to me, no reason at all to assume bad faith on your part.

Your attempts to dehumanize me are still disgusting. El C was overbearing, you are taking it to a whole new level. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a new editor, and never claimed I was - Okay, enough with this game playing here. What's your prior account IP 84.132.144.123? Have you been previously blocked by the administrator who implemented action against the IP you are using now? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I last used my account more than a decade ago, and I don't think I've ever had any contact with any editor involved in this before today. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you let us know the account name? It helps if we can all know who we're talking to, even if you haven't used it in some time. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. I went dark for a reason. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What was that reason? Did you declare a clean start? Are you using multiple accounts and IPs now? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Your turn, see my questions below. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

And let me guess IP 84.132.144.123, you are certainly, surely and undoubtedly NOT conscious of this recent thread here, correct? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Not before I clicked your link, no. --84.132.144.123 (talk)

What a coincidence, huh? Don't you think IP 84.132.144.123? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, GizzyCatBella, it's a coincidence that the IP brought a complaint about the admin who blocked them in a content dispute. Instead of against some other admin who didn't. Are you also going to imply that the IP made El C use their tools? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe in such coincidences, but I'm accepting their answer. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You can't make sense of your own libel, but can't admit it. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? You say this was a trap? I picked an article El C never touched before to make him abuse his tools, just to report him here? Dude, take a step back and listen to yourself! -84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll repeat my previous question to 84.132.144.123 that hasn't been answered - Have you (your prior account as you acknowledge you had) been previously blocked or was a subjet of any other action by the administrator who implemented action against the IP you are using now? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I already responded to that, so now it's my turn: Do you or don't you claim that I made a rule-conforming change to manipulate El C into abusing his tools? If so, how? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No you did NOT, you answered, "Not before I clicked your link, no" How about clearing the concerns I have first? -GizzyCatBella🍁 12:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Read again, I'm sure you'll find it. Now back to your libel: Do you claim that I set a trap for El C by making a rule-conforming change to an article he never touched before today? If so, how? If not, what exactly do you claim? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I can't locate it, and I find it troubling that you are choosing NOT to address my concerns thoroughly and clearly. How much effort does it take to type "yes" or "not", huh? Even if you had to repeat yourself. I have no further questions. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I find it much more troubling that you consistently libel another editor without even an attempt to justify your fantastic accusations. --84.132.144.123 (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

He also wrote: "I'm a very experienced editor". . -- Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

So? --84.132.144.123 (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

So I'll tell you what I find is problematic here without even going into the merit of the complaint itself yet. You admit being a very experienced editor, BUT you are acknowledging using the prior account(s), and you decline to disclose it. You don't see anything wrong with editing using multiple accounts and IPs. You decided on reporting an administrator who just recently had been experiencing disagreements on this very board. Okay?GizzyCatBella🍁 13:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• In case anybody is gauging consensus, I would not object to, and by now would be happy for, the IP to be indeffed for WP:DE, based on the edit-war over its disruptive edit, its lack of WP:HERE editing, and the already 35+ repetitive aggressive and disruptive posts and personal attacks on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems like this issue has now had a thorough canvassing. Thought I'd add some longer views and suggest a way to move forward:

• The OP is blocked from editing one single article, where they made a series of very small edits that don't actually change the appearance of that page for readers. These were certainly unnecessary edits, they might (or might not) also have been disruptive editing. The question for the OP now is if they're actually asking for an unblock from that article to make some substantive edits to it. If so then that seems like a reasonable course.
• There's discussion on whether the block was involved and/or overreach. I don't personally think it was "involved," but there's other views. However what shouldn't be lost sight of is that this was a temporary partial block from one article following a series of (at best) unexplained and unnecessary edits to it. The admin concerned has said they've taken constructive criticism in this thread to heart and will in their words, "strive to do better." That also seems fine - doing more than that (ibans? blocks? Arbcom?) all seem like overkill. El_C has acknowledged the issue and criticism, and that's a proportionate response.
• There's discussion about the OP's other account(s), which is going nowhere as they won't reveal them.

I guess all of the above is a longwinded way of saying that a complaint has been made, it's been acknowledged, and criticisms here taken to heart. After that there's not a great deal more that needs doing. I'm happy to unblock the OP from this one article, provided they indicate they have substantive edits to make to it. After that, let's all call this a day and move on to more other things. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this thread should be closed. If the OP wants to be unblocked from Spitzer, we can give him WP:ROPE and close the thread. I think his repetitive attacks on this thread are evidence of a troll and returning troublemaker, and that he should be blocked. But if no admin wants to make that call right now, or within 24 hours (giving admins in all timezones a chance to review), then someone should close this thread, which is going nowhere except more abuse and PAs from the OP. Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to award El C a mophandling barnstar. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• This criticism, that El C "massively abused" his position, shouldn't be given any more credence; it is disappointing that El C has been put through the wringer here including by some fellow admins. A half a dozen admins allow for this ridiculous trolling, which follows a measly little partial block, from an editor who should have been blocked two dozen edits ago. But it has been allowed to continue for so long that y'all implicitly permitted them to do it--that's enabling. Sorry El C. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Update: for continued claims of "dehumanizing behavior", the editor is blocked. Those statements are not acceptable. Someone was asking them who they might have been in a previous life, and I can't answer that, but they are as disruptive as this one. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• I wonder whether people have misunderstood what the IP was doing. The unnecessary spaces were added in 2015 by an editor using AWB, which used to add spaces under headings. On 29 August, 84.132.144.123 removed one of the spaces. Perhaps thinking he was adding one, El C reverted. The IP shouldn't have been blocked for reverting, and shouldn't have been blocked by Drmies for saying he felt dehumanized by this discussion. SarahSV 15:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  +1, what's going on here? Arkon (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well, that's kind of rich, Sarah--here is the diff which obviously does NOT have the IP saying "they felt dehumanized by the discussion" or some nonsense like that. Weren't you supposed to, eh, discuss this with others, and maybe with me? You unblocked a troll, who got exactly what he wanted. Bravo. Let's spend another couple of hours discussing this. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• In the diff by 84.132 a line space was removed and four spaces were added within the '===' and '====' of subsection headings. We're talking about two different kinds of whitespace. One type was added, one was removed. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  That doesn't actually look like the same whitespace, but +1 regardless. If we blocked people for making minor edits that don't appreciably improve the page (or labeled doing so disruptive and subject to use of rollback), WP:4000 would look very different. This thread started with the IP under the false impression that there was some broader sanction than the minor one El C imposed (which, though I don't think it was necessary, also isn't a very big deal). The rest seemed a result of realizing, as so many do, that IPs are indeed treated worse than registered accounts at ANI. Framing that as "dehumanizing" is a little dramatic, but also sort of understandable. There are good reasons why we tend to be suspect of IPs (especially those who seem quite familiar with wiki processes), but I certainly can't fault anyone for being frustrated by that. How about reclosing this way: "The IP made an unnecessary edit, was reverted, and edit warred over it. As a result, they were given a very narrow, short block. Opinions of that block are divided but there's no consensus to overturn it. We're here because the IP misinterpreted that block as something more severe and things escalated unnecessarily. The broader block is lifted but the original very narrow block remains in place with a reminder not to edit war even if you think you're right." — Rhododendrites \\ 16:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'll unblock the IP with a suggestion that they not continue to post about this. The first block is hardly worth undoing, but I think it was perhaps the result of a misunderstanding. SarahSV 16:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I intended to undo Drmies' block but leave the partial block in place, but in unblocking I see I've undone both. I'll leave a note for the IP that he should not edit that article for the next week. SarahSV 16:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  SlimVirgin, pretty bold given there doesn't seem to be any consensus to unblock but it's done now. Personally think the IP's response to a partial block was verging on trolling (especially factoring they've admitted to being a longstanding editor). *shrug* Glen (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Normally I'd be right there with you, but I gotta say I'm not seeing consensus for the original partial block, much less the Drmies block. So I guess that's to say it's a double whammy of a premature closure of discussion above, and then a bad block all by one user. Arkon (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Arkon, thanks for popping in every now and then and explaining to us how it's done. I undid my close for you, bowing to your wisdom, and I look forward to seeing you properly adjust our blocking policy--I assume you are going to write that blocks need community consensus, but unblocks do not. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  My long history of altering policy aside, appreciate the kind words. Arkon (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Arkon, it was a partial block from literally one article for a short period of time. In the broad scheme of 6 million+ other articles their reaction was suspiciously OTT. And Floquenbeam whilst I almost always agree with you on this occasion under the below scenario the only "winner" is BKFIP (or a similarly disruptive editor) who is right now rubbing their hands with glee at the disruption caused. Anyway, as I say all seems overblown now and nothing good can come of delving further. Glen (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I guess I just disagree that being upset over any sort of block is some suspicious thing. Being continually referred to in the same vein as an apparently infamous LTA without...well anything backing it up that I can see, certainly wouldn't help. Who in that situation is making it overblown? Arkon (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Arkon, let's be fair here the LTA assertions came much much later after the thread blew up here so the blocks or initial allegations of wrongdoing weren't connected at all. Connecting their posts on this board with the LTA similarities that others noted much later just isn't fair. Glen (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Simply a response to your comment, which referred to such. Arkon (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  The IP's behavior is reminiscent of the Best Known For IP, who specializes in shrill denunciations of this type over small changes. Geolocation is of limited use, they travel extensively. I can't say for sure, but the style is similar. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Drmies, I mentioned it here over an hour before I unblocked. The partial block was an involved block, in my view. The IP was upset about that and brought it here. He shouldn't have been blocked again for doing that, and I can't see consensus for either block. Bear in mind that this is a discussion about white space in one article. If the IP had been adding or removing it all over the place, then a block might be okay, but changing it in one article should never had led to this. SarahSV 17:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • SarahSV, your "The IP has been unblocked", in the obviously involved close, is as deceptive as your earlier "he felt dehumanized by this discussion". You know "he" didn't feel dehumanized by this discussion; he accused a fellow admin of dehumanizing him. And "the IP has been unblocked" means you unblocked him--because the poor IP said he felt dehumanized by the discussion. Except that he didn't say that: he trolled us for hours, insulted a bunch of admins and editors, and made a personal attack that, apparently is OK. Next time you clamor about declining standards, or personal attacks. And no, you didn't post about my block, which is a breach of decorum, collegiality, and more importantly rules of engagement for administrators. And then you go and close this: it's very disappointing. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I unblocked and closed the discussion as an uninvolved admin. I did address your block, one hour before I undid it: "The IP shouldn't have been blocked for reverting, and shouldn't have been blocked by Drmies for saying he felt dehumanized by this discussion. SarahSV (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)"This was a minor spat about nothing, based on misunderstandings. It shouldn't have led to two blocks, so I undid them. And the person behind the IP did say—twice—that they felt dehumanized by one editor's responses. In unblocking and closing, I was trying to de-escalate, be fair to the person behind the IP, and be fair to El C by stressing the misunderstandings. Please let it be. SarahSV 02:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Haven’t really looked at much of the back and forth about this, but I agree with those above that this IP screams BKFIP. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not going to say this is BKFIP, but their behavior is functionally equivalent. Two problems usually arise regarding BKFIP's behavior (Not counting being community banned, which only applies if they actually are BKFIP), and they're on display here:
  1. They're often right, but get reverted for no real reason because they're an IP. I don't think the original edit was really an error, but it was certainly not disruptive. Both El C and the IP created disruption by edit warring over a bunch of spaces.
  2. Any time they are reverted/disagreed with/edit warred with, they immediately dial the outrage up to about 11. This creates additional disruption.

Add to this the possibility that this actualy is BKFIP. Add to this the questionable block by El C over what is either unimportant, or a content dispute. Add to this the fact that the community has historically been split over how to handle BKFIP and BKFIP's functional equivalents. Add to this a spate of partial blocks and full blocks and unblocks, all without consensus and all kind of questionable. I suggest reclosing this with a summary "Almost everyone involved in this handled it poorly (including those who think they handled it well), and almost every molehill here is not, in fact, a mountain." --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• • That's a fair summary. Arkon (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Well summarized. This is a perennial event, we need to handle it better, starting with not being baited into precipitate actions followed up by infighting - exactly what has happened in the past. Acroterion (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I disagree with that summary. The issue is simple. The IP removed an unnecessary space. El C misunderstood, restored it, and for some reason saw himself there as an admin rather than an editor, so there was a confusion of roles. This led to the use of rollback and a partial block. The IP objected to being blocked by someone he saw as an editor, not an admin. El C, in future, if you arrive at an article as an admin, unless it's obvious please say so in an edit summary or on talk. That will help to avoid this kind of situation. Both El C and the IP shouldn't have reverted. But white space in one article is too minor an issue to lead to multiple blocks. Unblocking was the right thing to do. If anyone believes this is a long-term problem editor, please develop some evidence of that. Otherwise it's unfair to proceed as if that has been established. SarahSV 18:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I won't comment on blocks and unblocks, but why, Slim Virgin, won't you acknowledge that 84.132 also added unnecessary white space in the same edit. You only keep mentioning their removal of unnecessary white space. As explained above, addition and removal of unnecessary whitespace was done in the same edit. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Sluzzelin, I see only removal. I don't think it matters re: the block, so I'll reply in more detail on your talk page. SarahSV 19:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

How many more reviews of El_C's admin actions do we need to have before they start reflecting on community views about the way they administrate? This is number 3 or 4 at a noticeboard in the last few weeks, notwithstanding several more on user talk pages. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: A high number of such reviews can just as easily indicate that they are one of the few to actually use the tools. El_C acted within the discretion afforded him by Misplaced Pages policy, and I invite you to self-submit your RfA. In any event, you are off topic and wrong venue; please don't do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I know that editors frequently complain about admin actions they feel are unfair, but when we have such a history where consensus has determined that the admin actions were not correct, and that there are at least 3 or 4 recent determinations, then there is more afoot. If I'd been reported that many times and my actions determined incorrect, I'd be sanctioned. We now have a history of problematic and reversed admin actions so I would expect some form of additional oversight. This is not off topic nor in the wrong venue - indeed is specifically where such discussions can occur. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I know this is closed, but I just woke up and logged in. I have to say I'm really disappointed by SV's unilateral swooping in, wheel-warring (or at least undoing two admins' blocks), and closing this thread, clearly without even understanding or discussing what was going on (and there's no "confusion" about what the IP was doing; he was adding spaces to 2 of the headers on an article that has 14 headers). If there's any admin who is abusing privileges, and not assessing either the situation or the consensus or the editor in question, it's her. This is really bad form, especially for a long-term admin. Softlavender (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No wheel-warring occurred. If you think admin abuse or wheel-warring happened ARBCOM is that way. Just let it die. PackMecEng (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • It wasn't wheel-warring but it was unilateral, un-discussed reversal of two respected admins' blocks, against consensus. Softlavender (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

      Will someone please put a stop to this ridiculous timesink of a thread that refuses to stay closed? Very few people are going to come out of this looking good; let's not make it worse. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Almost no one comes out of AN or ANI looking good (except Drmies, of course). Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:The C of E and DYK

• A ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics.
• A ban from editing hooks he has proposed or for articles he has nominated, created, or expanded when they are in a Prep area.
• Any independent reviewer may veto hooks nominated by The C of E. If a hook has been vetoed, The C of E must offer a substantially different alternative in place of an appeal.

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

The C of E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The C of E is a prolific contributor to DYK. Mixed in with their often unobjectionable contributions are a number of hooks (for the non-regulars: DYK hooks are the sentences that appear on the main page section WP:DYK) that are inflammatory in one way or another. These include;

• Inflammatory references to the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute: 1 (discussed here), 2 (discussed here and here),
• Potentially inflammatory references to The Troubles: 3 (discussed here); 4 (see original hook proposed); 5 (discussed here; included a contentious request that it be held for a specific date); 6 (also discussed here; also included a contentious request that it be held for (the same) specific date).
• Describing Muhammad as "that Arab Thief": 7 (discussed here)
• Attempts to convey articles of faith in Misplaced Pages's voice: 8 (discussed here; see also references to a 2014 hook with the same issue); 9
• An attempt to put the N-word on the main page: 10 (discussed here);
• Attempts to put other slurs on the main page: 11 (discussed here), 12 (discussed here)
• Other nominations of contentious political material: 13, 14.

For the record, I have no issues with someone writing about contentious topics and getting on the main page. The question is whether potentially offensive content is being used to educate the reader, or for shock value or to push a POV, per WP:GRATUITOUS. In my opinion, The C of E's proposals have often fallen short in this respect. Furthermore, when these hooks have been challenged, The C of E has been obdurate to a degree, refusing to modify their hooks in any way, and often attempting to unilaterlly reverse reviewer decisions (see the various nomination templates linked above). They have been cautioned for this repeatedly, but continue to ignore consensus in this respect; the latest such incident occurred this week . Their tendency to nominate inflammatory hooks has not gone away either, despite a considerable number of editors, including many admins, expressing concerns about it (again, see discussions above). This is currently also being discussed at AE, but the scope of that article is limited to the Troubles. The links above show this is a wider problem that has consumed far too much community time. Opinion has historically been divided on how to approach this, so I'm offering multiple proposals. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Amended to a single proposal, per below. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Reviewers' veto

Any independent reviewer may veto hooks nominated by The C of E, without further opportunity for appeal. If a hook is vetoed, The C of E must offer a substantially different alternative, or have the nomination may be rejected.

• Support, as proposer. I think this is the minimum necessary to prevent the constant cycle of disruption at DYK as documented above. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per Vanamonde. Agreed that this is a bare minimum, given the extensive history of disruption at DYK (some of which I've been dragged into first hand). More than enough rope has been given – I'm afraid we've reached the end of it. Open to escalating restrictions when necessary. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Given the previous history of unrejecting rejected hooks despite reviewer consensus, this proposal makes sense. Narutolovehinata5 00:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, given the problems on The C of E's nomination pages, but more is needed. There should also be a restriction preventing The C of E from any editing of his own hooks in the Prep areas, given regular problems in that regard as well. I will be adding a second proposal to that effect below. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose that gives anyone who doesn't like me the chance to block any hook they don't like on a personal basis as opposed to if that hook actually follows DYK rules. No one else I know of on DYK has their freedom to nominate hooks taken away in such a fashion, this would be completely unfair on me because all it will take is one person to disregard the free and open concept we have on DYK, and it has the potential to be misused as censorship for any articles that don't meet someones personal taste. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"No one else I know of on DYK has their freedom to nominate hooks taken away in such a fashion – that's incorrect. There is precedent for even more severe sanctions than what is being proposed here. That's the yardstick we should use when this behaviour inevitably continues. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That was a complete ban, not a ban on individual topics and freedom of choice on what I can nominate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

My point stands – still more severe restrictions than what is being proposed here. It seems you're making a mountain out of a molehill. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

So does mine, I feel this proposal would do nothing more than allow for censorship based on personal feelings rather than any issues with hooks that are made in full accordance with DYK rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't. You claimed (incorrectly) that "o one else I know of on DYK has their freedom to nominate hooks taken away in such a fashion". I just provided an example of an editor who did have their freedom to nominate hooks taken away in an even more severe fashion. I don't see how your point can still stand when its entire premise is wrong. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"in this fashion". Doesn't mean I meant as a whole. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You're just splitting hairs here – nice diversionary tactic. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - The C of E is a prolific contributor with almost 500 DYKs to his credit, the vast majority being unproblematic. His hooks are often chosen to startle and garner as many views as possible, and he is an enthusiastic contributor to April Fools day hook sets. I think this proposal is unnecessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, in several instances the goal of "startling" has rubbed off several editors in a negative way, who have expressed concerns that his preferred "startling" hooks are doing more harm than good. While a full topic ban from DYK is extreme and probably unwarranted at this time given that The C of E has indeed proposed numerous uncontroversial hooks, given prior problematic behavior, it's clear that something needs to be done. Is it really worth it to get as many views as possible when the end result is much drama and offended feelings? Narutolovehinata5 07:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  You're assuming I'm doing it for a laugh, it's actually done mostly because of either the desire to get more eyes on the article to improve it or to feature a subject that likely would get overlooked because too many people go hand-wringing about it saying "ooh, we can't edit that, it's too controversial". Yet it feels like every time I explain what I am doing, people ignore whatever I say because of some pre-conceived notion about me, which is often exacerbated by inflammitory/loaded language used. I am grateful there are a handful of people who are willing to listen to me though. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  "eople ignore whatever I say because of some pre-conceived notion about me" – your user page does openly state that you're a "Unionist" (i.e. biased towards one side of the Northern Ireland conflict). It also states you "believe in the re-establishment of the British Empire", believe that the "rightful" "owners" of Hong Kong are the British, and that you oppose marriage equality. If you don't want people to have a pre-conceived notion about you, then perhaps don't brazenly show off these views on your user page. If you insist, then accept the consequences that come with it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Bordering on WP:NPA there I think. What's on my userpage is of no relevance to what I edit on. I have already shown time and again I have edited about subjects which conflict with those of my own views but often I find, people just don't want to hear about it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not at all. I'm merely quoting off your user page, which is of utmost relevance as to how you edit articles and nominate DYK hooks (i.e. in violation of WP:NPOV). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Can you please explain then why you requested a July 11th date request for Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of the Orange Order, when the date is a known sectarian date where, to quote our article on Eleventh Night, Symbols of Irish nationalism/republicanism (such as the Irish tricolour), and symbols of Catholicism, are often burnt on the bonfires? Or why you were insistent on running a hook about Muhammad being called a "thief" in the Sun of Unclouded Righteousness nomination in spite of multiple editor objections, and only "begrudgingly" accepted a compromise hook when it was clear that there was no chance that the Muhammad hook was going to be allowed? Narutolovehinata5 09:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  At the time, I saw it as no different as running a national flag or anthem on a national day as the Orange Order are most closely identified with the 12th. If you check the nomination, I did also give the option not to and I did propose the 1st to coincide with the Julian Calendar date which I figured would be less controversial. I did mention so the reviewer knew it was related to Orange Order commemorations but they thought it appropriate and they chose to promote it for that date. As for Sun of Unclouded Righteousness, the reason was because the hook was factual according the the article and sources. That's what I always base my hooks on, the DYK rules and not subjective opinions. Plus it is also to uphold the key principle of WP:NOTCENSORED which is often trampled on. The reason why objected for so long was a combination of the two, that the opinions were being made on personal views rather than factuality and that this mostly unknown hymn was being censored despite being a product of its time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  The issue that has been mentioned here and elsewhere (including the AE discussion and at WT:DYK) isn't necessarily WP:NOTCENSORED but rather WP:GRATUITOUS. That is, if the "sensational" or "offensive" material serves an encyclopedic purpose, and consensus in the Sun of Unclouded Righteousness nomination was that the Muhammad hook did not. As mentioned at WP:GRATUITOUS, Misplaced Pages is not censored, but WP:NOTCENSORED is not an excuse to post offensive or sensationalist material just for the sake of it. Narutolovehinata5 09:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cwmhiraeth, with respect, every bit of that is a non-sequitur. If most of his hooks are uncontroversial, they will be unaffected by this proposal. If hooks are made hooky through the inclusion of gratuitously offensive material, then they are going about garnering views in entirely the wrong way. And you've seen the absurd lengths to which he will go before agreeing to change a hook; how is that in any way productive? Or are you seriously arguing the hooks I've highlighted above were all fine? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: It's a slippery slope. Once you start making restrictions on somebody's activities, it's downhill all the way. My view is that most of the links you give are pretty innocuous. In several cases the hooks concerned were reviewed and promoted before falling victim to what I call the "shock, horror brigade". These people express their views in a forthright way, everyone else retreats behind the parapet and the hook is pulled. I see the C of E is now topic barred from Irish issues, and I think your proposal here will make him realise that he must toe the line in future. (There's an awful lot of mixed metaphors in this post!) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cwmhiraeth, We've worked together successfully for a long time, so I will risk being blunt. There's a world of difference between controversial content presented to educate the reader, and controversial content presented purely for shock value. If that difference isn't obvious to you, I think you need to explore the history of these topics more carefully. I am no stranger to controversial content; I write about politics, and probably half my DYK hooks have been about potentially contentious material. I have never had an uninvolved admin tell me my hooks were inappropriate. Why? Because it's entirely possibly write about these topics in a way that prioritizes reader understanding over shock value; The C of E simply chooses not to. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Note that WKWWK's argument is a duplicate to his other, below, which itself has been comprehensively destroyed by Joe Roe and Alanscottwalker. ——Serial 15:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support This could be a decent way forward to minimize disruption --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I remember Template:Did you know nominations/Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream. Anything that avoids similar problems is welcome. SarahSV 02:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per OP. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per OP and given the developments below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support as C of E's repeatedly arguing over hooks has become disruptive.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Will curb some of the main abuses noted in this thread and previously elsewhere. --Jayron32 16:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It might be worth clarifying the restriction wording to explicitly state whether third-party appeals of a veto of a hook are permitted. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 22:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  The intent is that they are not. A veto is a veto. The purpose of the restriction is to short-circuit the endless bickering that ensues when The C of E proposes a contentious hook and then absolutely refuses to amend it. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  👍 Thanks, that was my guess but figured it was worth bringing up preemptively to head off potential disputes at the pass. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 05:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This is really overkill. --evrik  02:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• More like really overdue. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support, as this addresses the main issue raised in this whole thread and will avoid overly provocative hooks on sensitive topics.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support This would solve the DYK problem with a minimum of bureaucracy. Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Second Proposal: The C of E may not edit his own hooks in Prep

The C of E may not edit hooks he has proposed or for articles he has nominated, created, or expanded when they are in a Prep area. If a change is desired, The C of E can request it at WT:DYK.

• Support as proposer. Too many times, The C of E has made controversial edits to his own hooks in Prep, and caused major problems. Even when warned that a line had been crossed, it continued. If a change is important, it can be requested at the DYK talk page, and if it is reasonable and not controversial, another editor can make the change. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per BlueMoonset. This should be common sense for anyone, but The C of E is the only user I'm aware of who has done so after a warning on a potentially contentious hook. He always has the option of asking for a change at ERRORS or WT:DYK, or asking for a hook to be pulled until any disagreement is resolved. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per above. This behaviour has gone on for far too long. It's about time we put a stop to this. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There is already a discussion about making this a full DYK rule at WT:DYK. This discussion is redundant when the discussion should be going on there, rather than just singling out me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill: This is an absolute non-argument. The existence of reliable source does make something a good idea. Recognising that we shouldn't throw the n-word around on our front page is not a question of "taste". – Joe (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wekeepwhatwekill's arguments make little to no sense. At DYK, you are submitting words to other people for their review, revision, and rejection, complaining about censorship is absurd. As for the 'it's sourced' argument, that simplistic argument is rejected even on articles -- so more so, the Main Page. Most the sourced stuff in the world never gets to the main page, the main page is designed to weed out most the sourced stuff in the world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per OP and given the developments below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support seems reasonable. Really this should be strongly discouraged for most users. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's common sense not to do this but C of E has repeatedly done so and so there needs to be a formal restriction.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per OP --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This should be a rule for everyone. --evrik  02:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose --evrik  02:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support This eliminates another way disruption could occur and minimizes wasted time. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban from DYK

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

The C of E (talk · contribs) is prohibited from any form of participation in the Misplaced Pages:Did you know process.

• Support as proposer. See my comment in #General comments above: CofE's disruptive behaviour is too sustained and deliberately motivated for "bespoke" sanctions that still let him participate there. It is unfair to expect other volunteers to spend their time making sure he behaves. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is far too extreme. You are pointing out 15 cherry picked hooks out of 480+ DYKs (most of which have been explained both by me and @Wekeepwhatwekill:) as grounds to ban me completely. That is completely unfair and so off base to go for the nuclear option when I have already been punished enough I think. And with regards to the above, I do also get involved in the editathons that put DYK as a secondary factor when they are on. Please check my contributions on Awaken the Dragon, Women in Red and the British Isles destubathons. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC){{}}
• Strong support – per Joe Roe. Seems this is the only effective way of putting a stop to this disruptive behaviour, which has no sign of abating given The C of E's utter unwillingness to change. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm prepared to make an agreement to change if you really think it is that bad. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  The problem is, C of E, that people have been advising you as to changing your approach for some time; the fact that you are now willing to consider it when under duress suggests that you haven't been listening to what those others have been telling you. ——Serial 15:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  • • • Is it not that what you were seeking for me to change my behaviour from now on, well I am saying I am willing to listen to what is being proposed and I am willing to change. Please, let me have the chance to prove it. I have already been punished, this is overkill. All I want is to be able to help improve the project but it just seems no matter what I say, no-one will listen. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment -- I am inclined to this because the argument made here again that C of E does so much, actually seems a serious root of the problem, as I discussed more fully above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC) That should read, "below." (in the comments section). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the various comments by Joe Roe and Alanscottwalker above. The truth that Misplaced Pages is not censored is not an argument against good editorial judgment, which is sorely lacking in the cases described above. The main page should not be a venue to be deliberately and repeatedly provocative, and DYK should not be run using a clickbait mentality. Cullen Let's discuss it 15:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, but if and only if there is not consensus for the above any of the other proposals (reviewer veto, restriction from editing hooks in prep, and partial TBAN). The disruption is severe enough that something needs to be done about it. I think the combination of a reviewer veto, the inability to mess with hooks in prep, and a Troubles TBAN should take care of it, and so I would prefer trying those to a more severe sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support as second choice to partial topic ban proposed below. If these hooks (which are allegedly provocative in order to make people think and learn) covered various viewpoints, then I'd be opposing here. But they are all emphasising pro-Unionist, pro-Christian, homophobic, etc, positions. That we have an AE result of "indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed" shows how obvious it is that C of E needs to be kept away from abusing DYK to emphasise their own political and religious positions - the AE result presumably fixes the NI issue, but not the rest. Whether, as some argue, the statements in the hooks are factual and sourced is not the issue, nor is censorship. The issue is POV-pushing and good editorial judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Modified, see underscore. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 15 out of 480+ and I am to be hung, drawn and quartered when it comes to DYK? How about my sports hooks? Or those about heraldry? Am I POV pushing in those too? I have already said: I do not write articles with the intent to push any POV, I write them to try to improve Misplaced Pages and get topics read about. I have already said above, I am prepared to change if given the opportunity. Please, let me try. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You could just be astonishingly clueless over proposing one-sided DYKs that support your political and religious POV (as clearly espoused on your user page). But, AGF notwithstanding, having read all of this and the AE report (where I saw a couple of shocking examples that really made me pause for breath), I do not believe that is the case. You *have* been abusing the Misplaced Pages front page (you know, the most high profile page we have) to push provocative hooks in support of your political and religious POV. The question now is not what's fairest to you, but what's best for the front page - and I think it will be better, on balance, without you. I could support an appeal against the topic ban in due course, but only if replaced by a more refined topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      • What am I able to do to change your mind? You want me to have a change of tack on articles I nominate, fine I'll be prepared to go for that. The ones highlighted are a tiny tiny fraction of the successful 480+ I have written. So I can't be a complete rotten apple (no matter what people may think of me). All I ever wanted to do on here is improve the project. I love DYK and I don't know what to do without it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
        • You don't need to change my mind, it will be consensus that decides it, not me. If enough people are convinced by your responses here, the proposal will not pass. Saying that, I did suggest a more refined topic ban, so I'll see if I can propose one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Really? This is complete overkill. The C of E has presented many uncontentious DYK entries. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. No DYKs regarding religion and/or politics and we're good. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overkill. A complete topic ban isn't necessary for a majority unproblematic contributor to DYK entries. Other than a few incidents, all involving issues where C of E may have a bias towards certain views and cannot remain neutral, such as in religion and/or politics (especially of the UK, elsewhere usually unproblematic). Following the AE consensus, and this, I will only support this option if C of E cannot remain neutral in future DYK entries. Ed talk! 20:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I skimmed through CoE's talk page where you can find many/most of the DYK credits that CoE has accumulated. Many of COE's DYKs are non-controversial (lots of sports, trivia) and some of the more 'tabloid-esqu' ones (like cocklake) are meh. Given the topic ban at AE, and the majority of acceptable DYK contributions, I can't find justification for a blanket DYK ban. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - A full topic ban sounds too much at this time given that The C of E has proposed hooks outside the problematic areas that were uncontroversial. Narutolovehinata5 22:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose exactly how far do we intend to go with this pile-on? One sanction has just been imposed. Give it some time to work. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• oppose too far without trying something lesser first — Rhododendrites \\ 04:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Disproportionate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose --evrik  02:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, too broad.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: partial topic ban from DYK

I propose an alternative to a full topic ban from DYK, and to recognize the large number of DYK hooks by User:The C of E that have not been problematic. User:The C of E is topic banned from all DYK activity relating to political and religious viewpoints expressed at their user page (as of this revision). So, essentially, no DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, LGBTQ. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding: Allow appeal for a softening of the ban in six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • So you propose I get punished even further than the WP:AE decision? Despite the fact that the majority of my hooks aside of sport or heraldry are on Christian hymns and British politics as that's an area that interests me (of which the majority had no objections). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not about punishment, and it's not about providing you with a platform to do whatever you're interested in - it's about protecting the Misplaced Pages front page from abuse. I've seen the damage that political and religious intolerance and bigotry can do, and reducing that is my priority here. I really don't care if you think it's harsh. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      • And are you trying to accuse me of doing those things? Because I can assure you, I most certainly do not. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Any pushing of political or religious viewpoints, especially narrower ones, can contribute to it. Even stating a Christian belief as factual in Misplaced Pages's voice, for example, makes us look less tolerant and more bigoted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Far better idea than the complete ban from DYK, which is excessive. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - these are areas where it'll be hard for C of E to remain neutral. In other areas, C of E has been an unproblematic and constructive DYK writer. Ed talk! 20:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Boing's proposal seems like a decent way forward --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Given the topic ban from Ireland-related topics, that should help, but his behavior in certain other subjects (in particular politics and religion) has been very worrying. A partial topic ban from nominating such articles sounds like a decent compromise as opposed to a full ban, which sounds excessive at the moment. Narutolovehinata5 22:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support . I don't pay attention to DYK hooks but I am shocked to see from this discussion that the editor added content that referred to Oscar Wilde as a queer and a fag and to Mohammed as "that Arab thief." Something is very very wrong here. Such outrageous content should never have been added to the main page. It is enough for the editor to be indeffed or the entire DYK category to be abolished imo.Smeat75 (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support as a reasonable alternative if there is no consensus for a full topic ban from DYK. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Some of the examples given here, (i.e. "that Arab Thief", the N-word) I can see why people consider offensive. Others ("1946 Londonderry Borough Council election") I can't see what the issue is, but I'm not attune to irish politics, so maybe I'm just not hearing the dog whistle. My own experience was with The Lincoln Project, where I discovered that my use of "RINO" (as a direct quote) in a hook was offensive. Well, OK, I'm not sure I agree with that, but that's what reviews are for, so no problem changing it. Which brings me to, this seems more like a problem with the reviewers than the submitter. If the reviewers are letting through stuff that shouldn't be allowed, there needs to be remedial training for the reviewers. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Apparently what happened is that the Londonderry election nomination (and another similar nomination a few years earlier) were requested to appear on 12th July or Twelfth Night, which admittedly I'm not very familiar with but is apparently a controversial date in Northern Ireland that is associated with Unionism. In addition, there was the use of the term "Londonderry" itself, which according to our article on the Derry/Londonderry name dispute is quite controversial and considered sectarian. Add to the fact that The C of E mentions being a Unionist on his user page, the behavior has led many editors at WT:DYK, whether fairly or unfairly, to believe that he is intentionally pushing a pro-Unionist viewpoint on at least some of his Ireland hooks. Given that he has now been topic-banned from Irish-related topics, this point may be moot anyway, but this comment is just to provide some context. Narutolovehinata5 00:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the politics of Northern Ireland, and there is no doubt in my mind that CofE has been deliberately abusing the Misplaced Pages front page to promote his own sectarian position for quite some time. His user page makes it clear beyond doubt that he's a hardline Unionist (and it's not just the Unionist userbox itself), so there's no possibility that two separate pro-Unionist DYK nominations both requested for Orange Day were by coincidence. As for religion and LGBTQ, his user page (before he just removed most of the userboxes) made the strength of his beliefs on those subjects very clear (including that he's a Creationist and opposes same-sex marriage). And he's produced DYK's pushing Christianity as fact, insulting Islam, and containing homophobic slurs, so I think that's enough. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Derry issue is a lot more audible than a dog whistle. I can't help but think that part of the reason that C of E's hooks get through is because editors from outside Britain and Ireland are not picking up on how inflammatory what he does is. Sectarian provocation on The Twelfth has killed people. Even just his user page and signature: in many countries plastering your page with flags and ending every comment with the equivalent of "God Save the Queen!" might be seen as benign patriotism – in Britain it has more sinister undertones. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to imply there but I don't like it. I am trying to brush off all the kicks I'm getting over the last few days but that one I object to. I give you the assurance there are no "Sinister undertones" as you put it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the implication was obvious: when your user page (until yesterday) is a garish collection of nationalist symbols, expresses your support for far-right political parties and the "re-establishment of the British Empire", and you spend your time trying to get racist and homophobic slurs and sectarian dog whistles onto the main page – you look like a bigot. If that's not the message you're trying to send, then you need to seriously reconsider your image and approach here. – Joe (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support. I like the spirit of this restriction, but I'm concerned it will be tricky to enforce because the scope is sometimes tricky to define, and will lead to more bickering of the sort we have already seen in the discussions linked above and on this page. As such I think BlueMoonset's and my proposals are still necessary, even if this passes. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The combination of the politics and religion with his desire to startle readers isn't ideal. SarahSV 04:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• weak oppose - acknowledging an issue, but uneasy with the idea of basing it on someone's user page expression, as much as I disagree with much of it. Also don't think the case has been made for all of these topics. — Rhododendrites \\ 04:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not proposing this ban just because of the opinions expressed in those user boxes alone (though the totality of them screams intolerant right-wing nationalist to me), but because he's been abusing Misplaced Pages to promote them. That includes DYKs stating Christian beliefs as fact, insulting Islam, and containing homophobic slurs. I think that makes the case for those two topics, but obviously others can disagree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support I had been aware for some time of The C of E's tendency to push 'politically incorrect' hooks onto the front page via DYK, but had given them the balance of the doubt as maybe trying to give DYK (and Misplaced Pages as a whole) a 'balance of flavours' (I'm sure I read somewhere that the WP editorship as a whole has a tendency to veer to the left, politically). However, the repeated attempts at inserting the Orange Day hooks make it clear that this is all about pushing their own beliefs, and it is logical to deduce that all their 'controversial' hooks are a pushing of their own views onto WP's main page (in a manner wholly unconcerned with WP's professed neutrality). Therefore something beyond the recent AE ruling is necessary. I will add that if this proposal passes and yet The C of E continues via other routes to push their views via DYK or other areas, I would support a WP:NOTHERE block, as per Boing's comment below. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Boing. However, I think six months before an appeal is a mere slap on the wrist, given the extensive history of the disruptive behaviour that goes back half a decade. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems disproportionate based on the behaviour detailed above, most of which I would call provocative rather than disruptive and some of which is neither. Fly with a sledgehammer territory. Would possibly support if the topic ban were more narrowly construed, but those categories are too broad. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as contrary to our policy, WP:CENSOR, which states clearly that "Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." As C of E's submissions have been getting through the reviews and promotion process at DYK, this demonstrates that they are not completely beyond the pale.

The DYK process, by its nature, encourages new content to be presented in a provocative way and so there is a natural tension as editors strive to make the content interesting while it is not yet perfect. Editors are encouraged to be bold and so this requires some give and take as the overall consensus is established. Sanctioning is not helpful in this as it will tend to have a chilling effect and discourage participation.

For example, I recently objected to another DYK written by another editor and so caused it to be pulled from the mainpage. The matter is now being discussed on the article's talk page and so it goes. This is our normal editorial process. Right now, there's another DYK on the main page about an Irish politician. This was nominated by C of E and the hook has to do with Gaelic football. This doesn't seem especially exciting or controversial but then I'm not a follower of such games. It's all grist to our mill and we should keep it broad and open rather than narrow and intolerant.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Joe and Boing. My goodness, I know DYK had some problems (the rapid manner in which problematic hooks can end up on the main page being one of them) but I never would have guessed it was one specific editor deliberately attempting to push through divisive or offensive hooks. This needs to stop, because there's clearly no evidence that he'll do so on his own.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• (ec) Support This is long overdue, as C of E has been made aware of his behavior many times and shown no willingness to change, repeatedly crying "WP:NOTCENSORED" (just like Andrew above me) when NOTCENSORED applies to content within articles, not to promoting content on the Main Page. A much more relevant guideline is WP:GRATUITOUS. Yes C of E is a prolific DYK contributor but there are many other editors with hundreds of DYKs to their name who have not had any of these repeated problems. I urge people who are unfamiliar with DYK to read Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_142#Using_the_"N"_word_multiple_times_in_a_hook and in particular Jayron32's comment This is a breeching experiment and no more, and as such, deserves no reason to be on the main page. Censorship doesn't come into play here, the intent is to get away with as much as one can, without regard for one's target audience. For that reason, it shouldn't be done. This is self-evidently "let's see how much we can get away with" which I think sums things up succinctly. C of E has a long history of doing this kind of thing, see the ANI thread where Iridescent remarked This editor has been playing this particular "let's see how many inflammatory terms I can slip onto the main page" game for the better part of a decade and the long list of examples here. My only concern this that C of E could try and game this restriction by arguing over whether a DYK really is political or religious, but with the total DYK ban looking unlikely to pass this is a reasonable compromise. (I also agree completely with Boing! in the comments section that C of E appears to be writing an article purely to see what DYK hook they can get out of it, which is entirely the wrong way around.)-- P-K3 (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Hopefully this will curb the problematic DYKs without a full topic ban. 97198 (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. As much as I have assumed good faith on this in the past, even including a hook regarding UUP politicians and Galeic football, which I passed for DYK and ran today but was later queried as possibly incendiary, the evidence does seem to have mounted that CofE is using WP:DYK as a WP:SOAPBOX for pushing particular points-of-view when it comes to religion and politics worldwide generally, not just concerning the UK and Northern Ireland. Boing's nomination above makes a lot of sense - we can keep CofE's contributions at DYK which do not reference politics or religion, but also restrict them from continuing the types of hooks which have invariably proven controversial. I also think this is separate and broader than the AE restriction, so this should still be closed with a definite decision.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support This editor has long established a pattern of abusing the boundaries of WP:NOTCENSORED for the sole sake of being provocative and incendiary. It's time to stop. If this particular topic ban doesn't curb the problems, we can revisit something more restrictive in the future. --Jayron32 15:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose --evrik  02:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• I yield to your brilliant and eloquent argumentation.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Brevity is the soul of wit. --evrik  20:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, not needed. He's already TBANed from troubles and the hook veto proposal is passing. This is just piling on sanctions from an alternate route.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• It actually is much needed. The TBan only covers the Troubles, and not religion and LGBTQ topics. The editor has a history of disruptive editing at DYK re the latter two topics. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• 15 cherry picked hooks out of of 480+ is hardly what one could consider "disruptive". Besides, the majority of hymn and Christian articles I write are uncontroversial so I would suggest that if I am forced to get extra sanctions, that it not apply to Christian hymns at the least @Astral Leap:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• And you're the best judge as to whether you've been disruptive. Thankfully (and rightfully), the vast majority of the community here beg to differ. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• I am already on trial at WP:AE, so it seems a little unfair that I have to fight to defend myself here as well as there. I feel these particular examples are just a handful of 14 cherry picked hooks from my almost 500 DYKs which the majority had no objection to. I do feel I am being victimised here for editing in controversial topic areas which others dare to touch and because I try to keep the proposed hooks in accordance with the DYK rules rather than any personal opinion on it. The hooks are sometimes controversial because it says in WP:DYKHOOK to make the hook catchy and likely to draw in attention. But I give you my assurance, I have no intent to create any POV hooks. The hooks I make, I try to make according to what the sources say. I do feel that people do not want to listen to me whenever I respond to their allegations. For example, if they want to paint me as someone pushing a Northern Irish unionist POV, I raise the fact I have put Gerry Mullan (politician), an Irish nationalist politician, on DYK which ran with a hook that was far more political than any of the above and yet there was absolutely no comment on that, nor has there been since when I have brought it up. Please don't take away DYK from me, it is the one thing I live for in article creation and improvement on Misplaced Pages which makes what can be a dreary task fun and worthwhile. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Although I think you're now banned from the subject area, since you feel people aren't listening to you I'll make a quick comment. First, thank you for your work in expanding articles, including those of Northern Irish nationalist politicians where it was unproblematic.

  While I know very little about the subject area (for example I had no idea of what 12 July was until I read our article), to my mind there is no way "that Gerry Mullan was deselected by the Social Democratic and Labour Party for the Northern Ireland Assembly in favour of the man he replaced, who had retired seven months earlier?" is anywhere near as problematic or controversial as some or possibly all of the other Irish related hooks linked in the opening statement. Noting that you specifically said 'far more political than any of the above', I won't comment on the specific claim of whether it was 'far more political' since it could be said that some of the issues aren't really politics or go beyond politics or whatever.

  But what you said makes me think you don't understand why some of your DYK proposals were so problematic, while your DYK headline for Gerry Mullan wasn't, and it has nothing to do with a bias in favour of Irish nationalism or against Irish unionism. And the fact you don't understand why the some or all of the examples highlighted above were highly questionable, but your Gerry Mulan DYK wasn't is part of why your editing is a problem. Again I know very little about the subject area, so I could be missing something about what makes the Gerry Mullan DYK so bad, but I strongly suspect the reason it didn't get pushback is because I'm not.

  Indeed reading the article and the DYK, while Gerry Mullan may be an Irish nationalist politician, I wouldn't say the DYK or article is something that is putting a positive spin on Irish nationalism. (To be clear, I'm not saying you did it to push a Irish unionist POV, simply that it's a very weird example.)

  Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think it's fair to the C of E to have this and the WP:AE discussion on at the same time. I will also say that I don't want the C of E banned from DYK either, I just want him to avoid certain contentious issues, which was the point of the AE filing in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  AE doesn't have the jurisdiction to deal with most of this, and cannot make him stop nominating contentious hooks. At no point has The C of E has expressed any willingness to adjust his approach either, so I find this necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  IF you take the trouble to read my comments on AE, you will notice I agreed to a proposal from BlackKite333. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For what it's worth, I agree. I'd prefer the AE to play out and, if there's a restriction then placed on The C of E, then it's an opportunity (and maybe a kick up the backside—he knows what I mean!) to clean up their act elsewhere at DYK. But a ban from DYK as a whole seems to over-egg the issue. ——Serial 21:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - @Vanamonde93: For the record, I have no personal memory of negative issues with The C of E. I didn't realize the full extent of how others feel. But when I suggested the disagreements be taken here to ANI, I guess I thought it would be more of something like a temporary restriction on nominations. The magnitude of what you are proposing - banning the editor entirely from DYK - this is something that needs WP:ARB. If you are going to ban somebody from a project, you need ARB to weigh in. I'm sorry you went to the trouble of spelling this out here. My apologies for directing you here. But ARB is where they ban users from projects, and other stiff actions. — Maile (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I feel sometimes it is my duty to be the whipping boy of DYK, heavy is the burden of being me it seems with the way people have gone after me by citing 14 out of 480+ of my DYKs. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Maile66, Serial Number 54129, and Black Kite: I guess I may have given the impression that all the proposals above were necessary; I don't believe that, and was only sketching out different options that have been mentioned. Since that's evidently a little convoluted, I will strike the other options for the moment. Maile66, for what it's worth, AN certainly has the jurisdiction to ban a user from DYK. I don't think it's necessary, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maile, I don't know where you got the idea that this board or the community at large acting here could not ban editors from project areas. We've had people blocked from GAN here, and DYK would work the same way: if there's a community consensus here that someone should not be allowed to participate in an area like GAN or DYK or FAC or a particular project, then that person has to stop participating there. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: Wherever and whatever you do about this, I would appreciate it if you could ask for diffs, not complaints something like this, which could be read as a quasi-personal attack on both The C of E and the reviewing of DYK editors. That one reads like someone who had been around DYK a bit, but does not really identify themselves or provide any diffs - in other words, no proof. It would seem you are suggesting serious problems, so please require diffs when the accusations are made. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Maile66: I am baffled as to what you mean by that; why are you holding me responsible for a drive-by comment made by an IP? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: I am NOT holding you responsible for that. I am just using it as an example, urging you to request diffs when people state their case. That's all. In that particular case, the IP made accusations with nothing to back it up. And since that was an IP, nobody else can connect whatever prior incident they are referring to. For instance ... if I brought up something that I dealt with, even without a diff, people could go through my editing history and figure it out. But if there is no user name, and no diff, it's not helpful. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Maile66: I think I've made the case clearly enough above. I'm not going to ask for diffs because I don't need any more, and any drive-by comments in this discussion will not be given any weight by the closing admin. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• I find Vanamonde's proposal to be measured and tailored to stop the disruption. I am torn over if this should be in addition to the actions at AE or if we should watch and wait --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Given that the discussion on AE is already ongoing and that some form of restriction on Ireland-related topics appears likely to pass, it may be a good idea to wait until that concludes to see if any additional measures are necessary. The Ireland topics appear to be the most persistent area of concern thus far, so the what happens next could depend on the outcome of that. Narutolovehinata5 23:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have closed the AE having found a consensus of administrators in favor of a TBAN and with knowledge that Johnuniq had also reached such a conclusion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Accordingly then, shouldn't this be closed too? Otherwise I seem to be subject to double jeopardy. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The AE closure addressed the topic of Northern Ireland which represents just 2 of the original complaint's 7 bullet points. Calling "double jeopardy" is a red herring. Cabayi (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• CofE's antics at DYK are the tip of the iceberg. Let's take this 2017 hook as an example. That a description of Oscar Wilde, probably the most famous British gay man to be persecuted for his sexuality, as a "queer" and "fag", made it on the front page is a dire enough indictment of DYK's lack of editorial oversight, and a typical example of CofE deliberately crafting the most provocative, 'politically incorrect' hook he can. But what is more concerning is what I and other editors found when we looked more closely at the article itself. The hook was cited in the first instance to two unreliable sources, an online tabloid and a blog. CofE bolstered this with citations to better sources, including some supposedly supporting the extraordinary claim that "fag" and "queer" are not in fact slurs and that the long-dead Wilde would have been "amused" by them. On closer inspection, all of these references evaporated. Several were citations to hard-to-access scholarly volumes or pages that were conveniently missing from Google Books previews. When asked, CofE wasn't able to provide quotations from these sources he apparently consulted. Comparing CofE's version as of the DYK to the rewritten version based on actual sources makes it abundantly clear that CofE cherry-picked dubious sources to place undue weight on the statue's offensive local nicknames, ignoring many reliable sources that discuss it as a work of art.

This kind of pernicious POV-pushing is deeply damaging, because it's so hard to detect: we rarely scrutinise articles closely enough to find it, especially when they come from a prolific and superficially "trusted" user like CofE. We could put it down to good-faith carelessness, except that CofE's entire Misplaced Pages persona is an in-your-face proclamation of right-wing, 'politically incorrect' British nationalism. It's simply not credible that his repeated abuse of DYK to put offensive material on the front page on dates carefully chosen for their inflammatory potential is just "tone deafness" or a benign attempt to startle and amuse; that almost every article he creates has some connection to English nationalism, Unionism, or contemporary right-wing talking points is a coincidence and nothing to do with the spattering of English nationalist, Unionist and right-wing userboxes on his user page; that his slapdash approach to sourcing just happens to skew our articles towards lurid tabloid conservatism. He's doing this on purpose, and that the project has enabled it for so long makes us look like fools.

The proposals so far don't go nearly far enough. A complete ban from DYK and removal of autoreviewer should be considered at a minimum, but I would indef as WP:NOTHERE and be done with it. – Joe (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Joe Roe: You have the ability to implement a NOTHERE block yourself; and a TBAN isn't going to be implemented unless it's proposed. Why not do so? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Vanamonde93: I'm not comfortable imposing a block individually while a consensus is forming here, but I have just proposed a topic ban from DYK below. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  (The DYK topic ban section is now above, not below, as I've rearranged the sections. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC))

• I'm very disturbed by what User:Joe Roe has uncovered regarding the Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture article, and that original version with homophobic slurs in the lead without proper sourcing is quite shocking. (Oh, and the fact that it made it to the front page highlights the incompetence of the DYK review process - I think there's a good case for consigning DYK itself to the trash.) I can see a case for a WP:NOTHERE block myself, but I think it would be controversial and would need a consensus (with more examples of POV-pushing). Anyway, I've revoked Autopatrolled as a minimum step. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• "in the lead without proper sourcing" But leads in Misplaced Pages contain little to no sources, as they are supposed to offer a summary of the article's body. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section states: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• The problem appears to be the overweening involvement at DYK From the above statements it appears DYK is like a honeytrap for CoE, with an unusual pattern of needing to be on the main-page constantly. As in many things on Wiki and off, if there is moderation things go fine, but if DYK is encouraging and indulging obsessiveness, such problems are bound to arise -- and for those who can't self-control, others are bound to step in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• I have revoked User:The C of E's Autopatrolled right. Anyone advertising CoE's political and religious opinions, while writing articles covering those very same topics and using DYK to promote them, needs to have their articles reviewed. Also, I have moved this General comments section down from in between two of the proposals, for ease of navigation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, Thanks for doing that; it was a thought that hadn't occurred to me. Greater scrutiny of his articles is entirely a good thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think it should be made perfectly clear that what is happening to The C of E is not specifically because of his personal political and religious beliefs. Indeed, conservative editors have long edited Misplaced Pages and many have done so without issues. Rather, what has gotten him into trouble is how he has given the impression to editors (whether justifiably or not) that he has used DYK to push these beliefs with the intent to offend or provoke groups that he does not agree with, or to garner more pageviews at the expense of certain groups or people. For the record, I believe that if a Democrat or Republican-supporting editor did something similar, they likely would have received a comparable on-Wiki response. For example, if an editor tried to push pointedly pro-or-anti-Biden or pro-or-anti-Trump hooks on DYK, these would (and should) also receive scrutiny. Narutolovehinata5 07:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Good point, but Joe Roe's comment and Boing! said Zebedee's revocation of the autopatrolled right specifically cited these political views. Misplaced Pages has hundreds of political user templates and it would be quite absurd to consider anyone displaying one of them suspicious in the topic area. While ideological POV-pushing is a problem, and the oldest problem at that, Misplaced Pages is a volunteer project and as such, editors only edit topics they are interested in. It's not surprising nor inherently problematic that an unionist would edit unionist topics or an anarchist would edit anarchist topics. In my opinion, the core problem here is that DYK doesn't have enough volunteers to provide oversight before articles appear on the frontpage. And that is quite a serious problem itself. --Pudeo (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that it's not surprising nor inherently problematic that an unionist would edit unionist topics or an anarchist would edit anarchist topics, etc. But editors who write on controversial topics in which they express strong personal opinions (and, perhaps, even editors who write on controversial topics without expressing personal opinions) should have their articles open to review by others. That's especially true in cases where an editor has written openly biased provocative and poorly sourced content - I think that makes peer review of new articles essential. Oh, and yes, I agree we have a serious problem with front page oversight - some of these DYK approvals were woefully incompetent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  As you have explicitly stated above that you have banned CoE from DYK because of their political views, just who is allowed to edit in that region - the use of your admin powers to prohibit people editing because they are a self-admitted Unionist is a gross misuse of admin powers.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, The C of E has not yet been banned from DYK, whether fully or partially. Yes a topic ban has been proposed, but unless consensus approves the proposal (which appears likely in the case of the partial topic ban), he is still permitted to participate in the DYK process provided they do not involve Ireland-related topics (as he has now been topic banned by ArbCom from it). The only actions taken against him so far are a topic ban from Ireland-related topics (which was an enforcement of an ArbCom case) and the removal of his autopatrolled flag. Secondly, the proposals about him did not happen specifically because of his political and religious beliefs. These happened because, in the eyes of some editors, he was using DYK to push said beliefs in Misplaced Pages's voice with an apparent intent to offend those who espouse beliefs he does not agree with. For the record, if The C of E was instead a Labour-supporting Remainer who was promoting anti-Tory hooks, he would likely have received criticism as well. For the record, like what I already mentioned in the General Discussion section below, it isn't his beliefs that got him into trouble: it's his actions. For transparency, I will mention that in the past I thought that some of the articles he proposed for DYK which ended up not running should have been allowed, provided that a neutral and appropriate hook was proposed. Narutolovehinata5 16:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"Anyone advertising CoE's political and religious opinions..." a direct quote - this is a direct statement that someone's ability to contribute has been restricted because of their political and religious views. Of course if the community thinks it is acceptable to discriminate against other editors because of their religious beliefs then it should say so - otherwise people in positions of responsibility shouldn't make statements that could be construed as saying that it is acceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: CofE's ability to contribute hasn't changed. Boing pulled Misplaced Pages:Autopatrolled, a user right which confers "no additional technical abilities" and which less than 0.05% of active registered editors have. That is perfectly within their rights to do since granting or revoking the right is left solely to administrators' discretion. – Joe (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, The question isn't whether someone has strong views in an area, but whether, having expressed strong views, they can set those aside and edit in a manner compliant with policy and common sense, as judged by uninvolved editors. This is what The C of E has consistently failed to do, and is why he has been sanctioned. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"whether, having expressed strong views, they can set those aside and edit in a manner compliant with policy and common sense" While Wikipedians are supposed to set their personal views aside when editing, political, religious, and ethnic topics often attract partisan editors. Heated arguments in talk pages are not unusual, even when there is no edit war. I am not familiar enough with User:The C of E to be certain whether his private views tend to color the articles which he/she edits. This would require more editors to check his/her contributions beside DYK nominations. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice bit of selective quoting there, Nigel Ish. How about my full sentence: "Anyone advertising CoE's political and religious opinions, while writing articles covering those very same topics and using DYK to promote them, needs to have their articles reviewed"? I've highlighted the important conditional, as you seem to have completely missed it for some reason. Oh, and your claim that CoE's "ability to contribute has been restricted" by having the Autopatrolled right removed is utterly false. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I only just remembered your other accusation against me, Nigel Ish, that I "have explicitly stated above that have banned CoE from DYK". I have done nothing of the sort, and don't have the power to do so even if I wanted to. I strongly suggest you actually read what people say before attacking it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reading back over what's been written here, I'm struck again by CoE's comment: "Please don't take away DYK from me, it is the one thing I live for in article creation and improvement on Misplaced Pages which makes what can be a dreary task fun and worthwhile". I think that sums up the problem. If article creation starts with looking for something that will make a provocative hook, and then writing the article to fit that hook, then it creates a slant in the article designed for provoking front page sensationalism (which appears to be what happened with Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture). That is exactly the wrong way round. Articles should be written to provide educational material, presented in a factual and NPOV (and maybe boring) style - not to provide maximum fun for their writers. And if there's then something in an article that would make an interesting DYK hook, fine. But what we have instead is similar to tabloid journalism, where the aim of the writing is to generate and support the headline. Is that a fundamental problem with DYK in general? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: The problem I see with DYK at this point is that some hooks that are divisive/POV, misleading or inflammatory can end up on the main page because the criteria for which a hook can be approved and promoted are very picayune, and attempts to object on the aforementioned issues are subsequently shot down as "this is not a policy-based reason, just move on". I feel a more holistic approach needs to be taken to reviewing DYK hooks instead of making it just two or three checkboxes to tick off.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, I've always assumed that DYK was a deliberate attempt at gamification, to encourage people to write articles. If that's the case, then it shouldn't be surprising that sometimes you start with the hook and work backwards. That's not to say POV-pushing is acceptable, just that if you're going to run a game, it shouldn't be surprising if people play it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK can't release Misplaced Pages editors from their editorial obligations. In Misplaced Pages, gaming any of our processes is forbidden as disruptive. Also, that something can be gamed, does not mean gaming is its purpose or that you should game it. So, although 'highlight recent work' could be gamed, in Misplaced Pages it does not mean the purpose of it is a game. Many editors write new articles or improve articles, some decide whether to put them in DYK, but all editors are still expected to not game the system, and are still expected to exercise good editorial judgement. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Those are interesting thoughts, folks, and I think between you you've probably got it just about right. I particularly like Alanscottwalker's point about still being expected to exercise good editorial judgement. I think that's especially true for the front page, but it looks like it's been cast aside too often in the pursuit of a juicy DYK. I think I'd go as far as to suggest DYK is bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute on that issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• As a practising, rather hardline Muslim, I have to say, I'm not quite sure I see what's wrong from Misplaced Pages's perspective with the DYK on Muhammad (ﷺ). Yes, I personally consider the language blasphemous (there, I said the dirty word)—but considering that Misplaced Pages has in the past not respected those sentiments per WP:NOTCENSORED, I fail to understand how this particular hook is suddenly an egregious transgression. It's worth noting that the comments were clearly attributed to the author of the hymn, so it's not true that they were made "in Misplaced Pages's voice", as Boing! said Zebedee described them earlier. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  I did not describe the Muhammad one as being in Misplaced Pages's voice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  My bad, I misremembered. Please accept my sincere apologies. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  No problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment IMHO, this whole thing would be solved if DYK had a rule that said that once something has gone to prep, only select people can make changes, or the changes have to be posted to DYK:Talk. Everything else can be dealt with at DYK. --evrik  03:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Request to close

Given the recent AE decision, this seems redundant and/or WP:GRAVEDANCING. I suggest this be closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. When I suggested closing this, I thought that would be non-controversial. I can see that it was anything but. Carry on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. These proposals don't overlap with the AE decision – they are separate sanctions that concerning DYK specifically. I agree, this should be closed … in favour of the restrictions that have consensus to be implemented. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No - of the 14 matters listed at the top, only #s 1-4 would be covered by the AE decision. Leaving #s 5-14, not that I think all these are serious. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Agree wth Roy Smith. The timing was unhelpful, to say the least: AE has done its job, we should wait and see how it plays out. Specifically, how The Cof E responds and whether he adjusts his behavior: ten years block- and sanction-free, the TB may have been a shot across the bows. I'm no lover of their other political and social views, either, but—per WP:ROPE—both they and we deserve to see what they do with the rope remaining to them. ——Serial 13:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Then cast your !votes to oppose the sanctions proposed above, rather than trying to shut us down. This will be decided by consensus, whether you like it or not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If all you can do is cast aspersions, Boing, then you should probably go elsewhere: you're not not helping with that "trying to shut us down" bollocks. ——Serial 13:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me?? Casting aspersions? How? By suggesting you want to close the AN thread with no action? Which you are?--WaltCip-(talk) 13:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You're excused. "Trying to shut us down" is childish and accusatory. ——Serial 14:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

So what else does "Request to close" mean? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no aspersions here, just facts. You *are* trying to close down these discussions, by explicitly supporting the "Request to close" proposal. How else can your agreement with the person proposing the close be read? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is neither redundant nor gravedancing. The AE case said nothing about the DYK process specifically. This discussion is to examine DYK, covering more than those specific Northern Ireland topics. And the number of opinions building to what looks like fairly strong consensus makes it clear that a proposal to dismiss it is not approriate. We have active proposals with active participation, with a lot of support. You can't bypass the consensus process and shut us up just because you don't like it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The proposal to "partial topic ban from DYK" seems to have fairly broad support at the moment, and it wider than the AE decision, as it includes any potentially problematic hooks, including "religion" and suchlike. The evidence in this thread mentions a pejorative hook about Muhammed, which wouldn't likely be covered by the AE ban on "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland", even broadly construed? I think that proposal should be formally closed with a decision, not abandoned as moot. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) A ridiculous request. The discussion by the arbitrators in the AE case specifically kicked the issue regarding DYK back to the community: ... if there has not been any disruption following them reaching awareness then I don't think AE can levy sanctions. The community, of course, could. Closing this as redundant would be a definitive supervote.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Since you've quoted me, let me note two things. 1. I am not an arbitrator just an uninvolved administrator. 2. Just to be clear, later discussion did clarify that there was disruption post-awareness which is why I closed in favor of the sanction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  My bad. Struck that portion of my post. Apologies for the misattribution, Barkeep49.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW you did have the part right where I explicitly noted that the community can choose to go above and beyond the remit of AE. That is accurate (and something I continue to believe). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• There is consensus for the partial topic ban in addition to the AE sanction. Impose it and shut this megathread down. I know there are problems with The C of E's behavior, but this is quickly approaching 'pound of flesh' territory and it needs to be stopped. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• It's not redundant at all; I commented on the AE request, and opened this quite intentionally. As Boing and others have already noted, only a handful of the problematic behaviors would be addressed by the topic ban imposed at AE. Serial Number 54129, I appreciate the good faith you're willing to extend to The C of E, but the fact is he's had any number of shots across his bow, in the form of uninvolved admins at WT:DYK telling him he was way out of line. It's not made the slightest difference. Even when it was obvious that a TBAN would be enacted at AE, the only thing The C of E has been willing to commit to of his own accord is avoiding hooks involving Londonderry (which is now moot, since the TBAN) and even there there's not the slightest acknowledgement that he's done anything wrong. He's had years to mend his ways. A TBAN that doesn't address the entire locus of the problem isn't going to fix anything. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested speedy moves

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

Please move Template:Footer Olympic Champions - Artistic Gymnastics - Team Competition - Men/Year to Template:Footer Olympic Champions – Artistic Gymnastics – Team Competition – Men/Year, replacing the hyphens by dashes, as in related templates / articles. (Please ping me in case of questions.)--Hildeoc (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please move Template:Footer Olympic Champions - Artistic Gymnastics - Team Competition - Women/Year to Template:Footer Olympic Champions – Artistic Gymnastics – Team Competition – Women/Year, replacing the hyphens by dashes, as in related templates / articles. (Please ping me in case of questions.)--Hildeoc (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hildeoc: What's the problem with WP:RM/TR? ST47 (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

They probably got a double-namespace error which directed them to AN; that's what happened to me until I realized I just had to remove the "Template:" prefix. Page moves completed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Veillg1 continues to create machine translated articles without attribution

I came across Veillg1 (talk · contribs · logs) creating many pages that are machine translations of the same page from French Misplaced Pages. Over the years and most recently in Feb 2020, the user was advised that he should attribute machine translations using on talk pages using {{translated page}}. A quick review of his recently created pages has shown this has not happened. Furthermore, I find the machine translated pages very hard to understand. ---William Graham  04:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

William Graham, Could you give some specific examples? Moneytrees🏝️ 15:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: Here are some examples:

• Bec-Scie_River and fr:Rivière_Bec-Scie from August 12, 2020
• Maheu River and fr:Rivière Maheu from June 10, 2020
• Rivière de Chicago and fr:Rivière de Chicago from April 14, 2020

I note that none of them are tagged as machine translations. Also, I count approximately 500 such machine translation creations in article space in the last 6 months. William Graham 

William Graham, Partial blocked from Article and Draft space; I'll be opening a contributor copyright investigation on them shortly. Moneytrees🏝️ 19:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

William Graham Concerning the translation messages, I do agree to place the translation message in each related article. It is not necessary to invest time for discussion about this issue. I just wonder how you can assume it is a machine (software) or my own work. If there is any future translation, I engage myself add the translation message.Gaétan Veillette 01:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Veillg1 (talk • contribs)

Veillg1, yes, we must discuss this. Please answer this direct question. Are you using translation software, or are you translating manually based on your knowledge of both French and English? What is your technique? Cullen Let's discuss it 04:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 Regarding your question, in the past, I designed the paragraphs in either English or French (mostly). The result of translations usually comes from a mixture of my personal translation work and using translation tools. Sometimes I use virtual dictionaries: Wiktionary, Reverso, sometimes directly through a general online search. I also use translation software for article segments if needed, mainly Reverso and Google translator. In the past, I also used Collins and Larousse.

Note that the French> English (or English> French) translations require adaptations, in particular the infoboxes, the way of presenting the references, the words in quotation marks, etc. Generally, long sentences are more difficult to translate. In short, human contribution is always required in order to validate the result. The way to achieve this is unique to everyone. The most important thing for WP is primarily the result of the exercise and not the process.

Note that I still consider this blockage to be unfair, exaggerated and counter-performing for WP. After thousands of writing articles in English, the bottom line is that there are few adjustments to the content of my writing in English articles; one can reasonably conclude in general that the result is well accepted.--Veillg1talk 04:17, Sept. 1st, 2020 (UTC)

I just wonder how you can assume it is a machine (software) or my own work. Probably it's because of things like this, where running the text of fr:Rivière Maheu through Google Translate outputs the text of Maheu River, making it clear the text was machine translated. --Calton | Talk 20:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• CCI now filled out at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Veillg1. Moneytrees🏝️ 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible WP:SNOW closure?

Are any of these AFD's worth closing via WP:SNOW?

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mayfield Mall - clearly overwhelming consensus to keep
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tri City Mall - article was substantially expanded during AFD and is currently at DYK
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Los Arcos Mall - same as above

The first one has been open two weeks, and the other two are at DYK, which is my main reasoning behind this. All three have pretty obvious consensus to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • 01:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Especially the last two, I don't see this being a SNOW situation. The first one, maybe, but what's the rush? DKY won't grind to a halt if these stay open another few days and get closed normally. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The rush would seem to be that TPH is trying to make a point about a different thread: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TimothyBlue_mall_AFDs. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: I would have motioned to speedy keep regardless of the ANI. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to hold all mall AfDs closes until discussions at AFD RFC and ANI are finished

There are currently two discussions regarding notability guidelines and shopping malls. One at AfD talk and one at ANI. The intent is to clarify what type of coverage is acceptable to establish notability. The outcomes of these discussions will impact the close decision because the issue with all these mall AfDs hang on this issue.

I propose holding all closures of mall AfDs until these discussions have concluded so the closers can look at the completed discussions for guidance on the close.

It will not hurt anything to keep the discussions open. However, if guidelines are clarified and they turn out to contradict the close rationale, there will be a question of what to do with the closed AfDs. There is no harm in holding the discussions open until the ANI and AFD RFC are closed. There is WP:NOHURRY.

Thanks,   // Timothy :: talk  02:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - The AfDs can continue as-is. If they're deleted and these discussions show that to be incorrect, WP:DRV is the solution. If they're not deleted, and that's shown to be incorrect, they can be re-submitted to AfD at a later time. Nothing about this requires us to leave these AfDs in limbo. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arglebargle79

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

indefinite WP:1RR per 48 hours, which means that you can only revert once every two days; furthermore, whenever you make a revert, you must discuss the issue on the article's talk page, unless it's a blatant case of vandalism or a clear-cut WP:BLP violation.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Arglebargle79

The reason why the sanction was put on in the first place was that I reverted a blatant case of vandalism. I'm serious. Sometime in the late spring or early summer, someone decides to replace all the pictures of Joe Biden with a particularly ugly version which makes him look like a walking corpse with giant buck teeth.

So I replaced it with the longstanding original one, which was the official vice-presidential one that pretty much everyone uses outside Misplaced Pages. But then an administrator going by the moniker of @Tartan357 noticed what I was doing, replaced ALL the pictures of Biden throughout the 2020 election series with the objectionable one, and it kind of made me wretch. So I reverted the possible vandalism with an explanation of my personal reasons for doing what I did. Then Tartan57 decided that since he was an administrator he would go and get me banned for a good faith attempt to improve the article. I believe there's a record of it somewhere.

Since he's an administrator, others believed him over me, and I was forced to agree to leave the pictures alone without getting a consensus first. When He tried to get the disgusting picture on the infobox of the Democratic convention article I got consensus for a better picture for the convention page. Everything was hunky-dory, or so I thought.

Tartan57, who hadn't been there in a very long time, decided to replace the Biden picture that was already there in two charts, to the objectionable one. He knew that doing that would trigger me, and I guess that's why he did it. This is WP:vandalism as described in the rules and regs. I called him out on the talk page and reverted the pictures. He went whining to you guys... and here we are.

I know that I'm a bit of a pain. Anyone passionate about anything is a bit of a pain. I've gotten into fights and have been complained about. The Rocky de la Fuente thing in the Republican primaries, for example. He was on the ballot in more states than the two other Trump challengers and another person (also an administrator) wanted to censor out his results. It was very contentious.

But I'm passionate about Misplaced Pages and want it as good as it can be.

The sanctions are unwarranted and actually detrimental to Misplaced Pages's 2020 election series. How? Certain future events are scheduled and that schedule is written in stone. One of these is the upcoming Inauguration. Now in previous cycles, there was no real need for a major article at this stage. The committee had been formed and construction had begun. Not too interesting but notable enough that someone could find it. This time is different. The President has preemptively declared the election fraudulent, and this is notable as hell. Readers are interested in the controversy and what could happen. So what to do about it?

What I did, was to expand the inauguration article. All sorts of mischief could happen and it's our duty as Wikipedians to have an article that explains what might happen. This is what Misplaced Pages is for, after all.

People started improving the article. That's good. If people do that, I say, God love 'em! But then some jerk decided to remove pretty much everything we had done. I'd like to revert it back and keep on improving so that readers can have an overview of the controversy between now and November 4.

But I can't do that with the sanctions. So please remove them.

Also, when it comes to other subjects that I'm interested in, I rarely ever do any reversions. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Salvio

Background: Arglebargle had already been reported to WP:ANEW for edit warring over Biden's photograph and had agreed not to change the photograph (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive410#User:Arglebargle79 reported by User:Tartan357 (Result: User will refrain)). After that, he then changed the photograph once again on 25 June. On 18 August, he started edit warring again (1, 2, 3, and 4) and was reported to WP:ANEW.

At that point, I examined his edits and saw that, at the time, he had been engaged in more edit wars, including over trivial things. An example: 1, 2, 3 (or here 1, 2). Another edit war: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

The feeling I got was, basically, that Arglebargle was an editor who has a tendency to engage in edit wars and who tends to revert first and ask questions later, as evidenced, for instance, here, where he makes an edit, is reverted, reverts the other editor and, then, self-reverts.

I also noticed that he seems to have a tendency to "discuss" with other editors using edit summaries (1, 2 3, and 4). Of course, this, taken alone, is not enough to support any finding of disruption, but it's discouraged and contributes to the perception that this user has a tendency to engage in edit wars instead of resorting to WP:DR (which is the reason for the need to discuss reverts on the talk page).

In short, in the light of Arglebargle's editing style, I thought that the imposition of a 1RR was the best way to stop disruption, while, at the same time, allowing him to continue editing. Salvio 17:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Tartan357

This appeal is laden with false statements. I am not an administrator. Furthermore, I have not been the only editor to oppose Arglebargle79's edit-warring. There has been a pretty strong reaction against it from the community. Arglebargle79 has shown no interest in working out any disputes through discussion, instead regularly resorting to warring, personal attacks and lies to preserve their edits. This appeal shows they have no intention of changing that behavior, and is representative of their angry and hyperbolic writing. That said, I do think some of their contributions have been constructive. The problem arises when there's a dispute, which is why I think a revert-based sanction is appropriate. I haven't seen evidence of disruption in areas outside of American politics. Salvio giuliano didn't specify that the sanction only applies to post-1932 politics of the United States per WP:AC/DS, and I think that clarification should be made in the log of sanctions. In their statement above, Arglebargle79 has essentially admitted seeking a removal of the sanctions so they can continue their edit-warring, and has not acknowledged any of the problems with their editing. I believe lifting the sanctions entirely would cause undue disruption. — Tartan357   22:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Arglebargle79

• I strongly suggest Arglebargle79 re-read WP:Vandalism. Whatever the merits of the Biden photo, it's clear that there was no vandalism involved. Making that suggestion seriously damages their credibility and makes it hard to trust anything else in their statement. It also means they've made a personal attack in their appeal, which is never a good start. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• First off, Tartan357 is not an admin. Second, they seem to want the sanctions removed to edit-war to restore terrible edits on 2021 United States presidential inauguration, such as "Should a large enough victory to convince most Republicans, take place" (unsourced) regarding a Biden inauguration, and a heading "How it isn't supposed to go: Conspiracy theories and Worst-case scenarios". Their additions are original research, and possibly BLP violations by insinuating that various people won't accept the election results. I would maintain the sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Taking a look at the actual photo of Biden that Arglebargle79 called a "particularly ugly version which makes him look like a walking corpse with giant buck teeth" is enlightening. Arglebargle79 is incorrect and is displaying really poor judgment. Calling use of this photo blatant vandalism is false. This situation is both very wrong and very strange. I recommend keeping the editing restriction. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• I have not examined this and so I offer no judgment, but just noting there's a related discussion at ANI - Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and disruptive editing by Arglebargle79. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Arglebargle79

• As a procedural matter, I think Arglebargle has confused the appeal procedure on AN with the one on AE. This is quite understandable and not Arglebargle's fault, because the DS procedures have become so complicated. Someone might want to adjust the formatting in this section, although I wouldn't suggest we get overly hung up about it. On the substance of the appeal, I look forward to Salvio's statement. If the only edit-warring issue concerns a single disputed photograph, then an indefinite sitewide 1RR/48h restriction would strike me as an unusually severe sanction, but of course there may be more to the story. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict with Hut 8.5 below) I thank Salvio giuliano for his detailed explanation above and for thought he put into selecting the sanction. Nil Einne also makes a valid point that I hope Arglebargle79 will take seriously. However, the discretionary sanction as imposed is problematic because it extends to all of Misplaced Pages, even though it was imposed under the American Politics discretionary sanctions and thus is only supposed to extend to that topic-area. In addition, while Arglebargle79 had received prior DS notifications, it doesn't seem he had an opportunity to comment on several of the edits Salvio has identified as problematic before the sanction was imposed, or even in his original appeal. As I said earlier, the discretionary sanctions procedures have become too complicated, and I might be comfortable overlooking these procedural issues if it I thought the sanction was clearly fair. But my opinion is that it is significantly harsher than necessary at this time, so I would replace the indefinite 1RR restriction with a clear and emphatic warning. (Important note to Arglebargle79: This is just one person's opinion, and I'm often outvoted. You are still required to abide by the sanction unless there is a consensus to overturn it and you are formally notified to that effect.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Arglebargle79 could also profitably reread our content policies, and is at risk of being blocked or restricted if he doesn't follow them, but an anti-edit-warring sanction addresses a different issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• This does certainly look like disruptive editing to me. Arglebargle79 was reported to AN/EW for edit warring, avoided a block by promising not to do it again and then proceeded to do it again several times. Describing this as "a blatant case of vandalism" is silly hyperbole. Salvio's diffs suggest this is part of a pattern. There may be some scope for changing the sanction but I think Salvio was justified in imposing something. Incidentally the sanction would only apply to articles about post-1932 US politics because of the scope of the ArbCom case it was made under. Hut 8.5 20:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Experienced editor admitting to being a sock

hello, idk where the right place to post about this is, but a relatively experienced editor on this website (1.8k edits, hasnt edited in half a year though) is actually a prolific sockpuppeteer - first as User:Johnny Shiz and later on as User:Woshiyiweizhongguoren (these SPIs should be merged). If you want proof I have Discord DMs, just email me on here and I will send Yvzcvtp (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh i forgot to post the account. User:Anonymuss User Yvzcvtp (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Yvzcvtp, if you have off-wiki evidence of sock-puppetry, your should email the checkuser team through checkuser-en-wp (at) wikipedia.org (see Misplaced Pages:CheckUser#Contacting a CheckUser) Ed talk! 14:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Kinghowman's sock attack

As many of you notice, we are being attack by socks for three days in a row (the goal of the socks is either to open a SPI against ST47, or to report them at ANI). The socks get swiftly blocked, but before they make a coming out, they manage to make some damage. in particular, voting at AfD and even closing them. For example, just today a sock made this edit, which was not reverted and caaued (understandably) this reaction. Please be alert and may be spend a bit of time checking that the edits of the socks (typically one or two dozens per sock) have been reverted, and pages they created have been speedy deleted. Thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC).

Thanks for the heads up @Ymblanter. Is the IP behind the sock accounts blocked? Aasim 15:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not a CU, I can not do it. The answer I have received is that this is not possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Veteran's and Peoples Party - Misinformation

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Vif12vf

The above editor is preventing accurate information from being edited on the VAPP Wikipage, even when the correct sources are linked as evidence. The party is a centrist political party as stated on their website in the UK with George Reid registered as the leader with the UK Electoral Commission. Even with the references and links being updated the editor Vif12vf continues to revert the update; this person classes the party as Right-Wing with no evidence to support such accusation and they are also a former member of Sinn Fein which is a conflict of interest and I believe is a vendetta against a party made up of former armed forces personnel.

<http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP6719> this link is the latest registration of VAPP with UK EC.

<https://www.ukvpp.org/> this link is the official VAPP website and not the one currently seen on the wikipage <https://en.wikipedia.org/Veterans_and_People%27s_Party>

Every attempt to talk and provide the correct evidence is met with ignorance and an immediate reversion to false information.

I wish this editor to be warned about proliferation of misinformation and have some integrity as an editor; if this can't be resolved then I move for the page to be deleted to prevent people from being misinformed and an unwarranted prejudice from being exhibited.Dingapottamuss (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• What relation have you got to the IP 2A02:C7F:B2BB:DF00:9CA1:2668:6B63:CF57? They also seem to have an issue with Sinn Fein, their edit-sunmmaries are very similar, and they're making the same edits as you. That's a very big coincidence. Meanwhile, neither you, nor the IP, nor Vif12vf have presented a single reliable third-party source saying what the party's political position is. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who that IP address belongs to and if they are making similar comments then maybe that's someone else spotting what I have. You say that none of us have provided sufficient 3rd party evidence so how is it that Right-Wing is allowed to remain? Surely it should read "a minor political party"? What I wish to add is that the current political climate in the UK has been disappointing with the same parties being the only options available. I searched for other parties and VAPP came up but everything I read about them was being contradicted by the Wikipage. I wanted to ensure that the correct information is available to others who may be looking for other UK parties as alternative to Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem. This is why I created a Wiki account as I wanted to be able to make changes but not hide behind them; but also, I hoped to be given advice and assistance to make me a better user. But everytime I make an update and provide the 3rd party reference as proof it gets undone by the same user Vif12vf. I know there are better people here as the original creator was receptive to a discussion we had reference islamaphobia; an agreement was reached and it was removed from the page. However, if I too saw any evidence to prove otherwise I would edit it back in myself. I just want the truth to be available to people as Main Stream Media has degraded to delivering misinformation to the public. Dingapottamuss (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Your last sentence immediately shows that you may not be capable of editing neutrally here. Mainstream media sources (apart from those mentioned at WP:RSP such as the Daily Mail) are the ones that Misplaced Pages uses. Regardless, since there appear to be no WP:RS sources saying that VPP is either Centrist or Right-wing, the article should say neither. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree and have edited it so that it states a more neutral statement "a minor political party". I have the ability to edit objectively as I will only ever state something that can be backed up. In my profession I'm ISO 9001 auditor and so I know full well about establishing objective evidence before making statements otherwise it questions our professional integrity. Thank you for your input and guidance though it is much appreciated as I'm new to the whole Misplaced Pages editing world; I'm a stickler for alacrity, truth and factsDingapottamuss (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional response to the WP:RSP for the Daily Mail; clicking the link and reading the section on the Daily Mail indicates it as an unreliable source as are many of the MSM in that list so my last sentence means I'm more than suited to be an objective and neutral editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingapottamuss (talk • contribs) 13:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• That's OK, I was being careful there as one sign of an editor who may have an agenda is that they "distrust the mainstream media". Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Multi-day abuse, edit warring, homophobia

Hi - can someone please extended confirmed-protect the article Edward I of England? There is multi-day edit warring, including abusive statements against editors, and multiple homophobic statements - I would like to request an IP block as well for homophobic statements against two editors here. ɱ (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see the IP has been blocked, please watch for more IP edits, this may require article protection. ɱ (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The block covers the range used, so we should be good. I revdeleted the two offending edit summaries.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 19:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. ɱ (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, Malleus Scrotum's worth a chuckle. EEng 19:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move (protected article)

Iran Civil Aviation Organization → Civil Aviation Organization (Iran)

See Talk:Iran Civil Aviation Organization#Requested move 10 August 2020 which has been open for more than 3 weeks. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add a "Masursky Lecture" subpage

Hello, I am working on the Harold Masursky page.

I would like to add a reference to the Masursky Lecture entry which directs readers to specific information about the Masursky Lecture.

The link:

https://www.planetary.org/articles/04041306-masursky-david-scott#:~:text=Every%20year%20at%20LPSC%2C%20there%20is%20a%20%22Masursky,astronauts%20to%20do%20field%20geology%20on%20the%20Moon.

Gives a good example of one of lectures.

As I work on the page, I will add more information, the goal, as regards the Masursky Lecture subpage will be to collect basic information on all of the lectures given.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmasursky (talk • contribs) 01:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Found another ref to the lectures, added it, and this one as well, to the basic HM article. Also added lecture series, with source, to Lunar and Planetary Science Conference.Tribe of Tiger 06:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Also found and added even more info, with sources, to the article.Tribe of Tiger 08:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

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

Misplaced Pages rollback Flyer22 Frozen is quick to revert edits he doesn't like and assume that all newcomers are trolls without underlying proof of this nasty assumption. He should have his rights revoked and receive a 1-week block for his conclusion-jumping and terrible attitude towards new users. ClarenceOfTheCreek (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Pay ClarenceOfTheCreek no mind unless you intend to block him as the sock that he is. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: See this is exactly what I mean. You have such a terrible attitude towards new users and you're really low to assume that all of them are in bad faith. Your assumptive retorts only further give me a reason to report you here. ClarenceOfTheCreek (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Even if that were true, how is it that you know so much about me? Hmmm? How is it that you are such an experienced editor for a "newbie"? I'm done reverting your latest account for now. Others will revert them after this latest account of yours is blocked. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

And you know damn well that I'm not a he. Your harassing emails, etc. have been very clear about how you feel about me and other women. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment inclined to block OP based on edits and familiarity with Flyer and other indicators. Need another admin to review and confirm. Deepfriedokra 08:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Core2012

• Core2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just increased the block of Core2012 to indefinite. The user has a long history of tendentious editing, and the latest response on their Talk page repudiates this, claiming that "There is no reason to capitalize black, and illegal immigrant is the correct legal term" (spoiler: it's not) - their edits include numerous examples of changing "undocumented" to "illegal". News organisations such as Associated Press, NBC and ABC ban the term "illegal immigrant" preferring "undocumented" due to the racist overtones (we do not, after all, talk about speeding motorists as "illegal drivers"). Regardless of the merits, the user's primary focus is on racially charged minor changes and this, to me, is clearly a problem, especially when viewed in the context of edits like removed mention of race. his race is completely irrelevant as this has yet to even be investigated as racial. on Killing of Ahmaud Arbery. Overall, I believe this user is here for purposes other than collaborating to build a great encyclopaedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I support this block on the grounds of WP:NOTHERE and WP:TE. In the month of may they slowly edit warred on Killing of Ahmaud Arbery over the inclusion of "African-American" in the lead because his race is completely irrelevant as this has yet to even be investigated as racial. They have a history of changing "undocumented immigrants" to "illegal immigrants" and their most recent article edits are to do these changes on multiple articles. Their most recent article space edits use the edit summary Fixed typo for these edits and they also marked them as minor. These are not minor edits and this is not fixing a typographical error (or in other words fixing a spelling mistake). Their last edit makes me support a indef block instead of a block with a expiry, as they say I strongly disagree with your characterization of my edits. There is no reason to capitalize black, and illegal immigrant is the correct legal term. This shows they don't understand why they are blocked and will continue to make these edits after their block expires. A indef block is not necessarily forever, and a unblock request which addresses the reasons for the block / affirms they won't continue with these edits should do well in their favour. I would note that their recent edits are mostly the edits which have been disruptive, but there have been good edits. Dreamy Jazz 10:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I am supportive of an indefinite block. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Protection at AfD

Is there any precedent for applying semi protection to AfD discussion? I hesitate to exclude good faith new users from contributing to such a discussion, but as the history of this discussion shows, it's been the subject of some rather tiresome disruption. Pinging Ymblanter, ST47, Nkon21 and power~enwiki who have been involved in clearing it up. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-protected a number of other AfDs in the last couple of days (this is related to the Kinghowman topic I started above), but they just move to other AfDs. I would keep this one unprotected, in this way we can block new socks before they create more disruption and finally show up at ANI asking for investigation of the users they do not like.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, thanks - sorry, I'd missed that thread. OK, I'll leave it as is, thanks for filling me in. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Twinkle follows redirects when issuing block notices

Hello,

I think admins should be aware that - in Twinkle's default configuration - it will follow redirects when it issues notices to a user's talk page, including block notices. I reported this last May, and again this March, and there is another active discussion today. This is because at least one LTA is aware of this bug, and is harassing specific admins by creating sockpuppet accounts, and redirecting talk pages to their harassment target. When the sockpuppet receives a template message from a Twinkle user, that message is sent to the harassment target instead. According to the Twinkle devs, should probably peek at the talk page before blocking. So, please make sure that you do so, or encourage the Twinkle devs to fix this bug. Regards, ST47 (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Argh! I just notified ST47 of speedy deletions of attack pages because User talk:ST47 (9-2) was redirecting to ST47. --Eostrix  ( _hoot🦉) 12:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have created Special:AbuseFilter/1082. If you have access to private filters, please check and see if you can think of any ways that it might be bypassed. ST47 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Eostrix, yep, I did that once this morning - apologies again ST47 - I'll try to bear that in mind and avoid repeating the mistake. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note and efforts - a new post to your fourth link indicates a fix is (now) forthcoming. For anyone targeted in this manner: you can request for abusively registered impersonation/harassing account names to be "hidden" in the context of a global lock. –xeno 13:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Addition of plot summaries

I was conditionally unblocked with the agreement, "No addition of any plot summaries anywhere in Misplaced Pages". Can this be amended to restricting me from adding plot summaries from existing sources, and not those that I write on my own? Galobtter, I was told September would be a good time to appeal. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792,You promise to never copy from sources, yes? Moneytrees🏝️ 14:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Kailash29792:, I'm inclined to support this. But I have some concerns about Kailash's ability on handling near-paraphrasing, which is why I want to ask: are you talking about "you reading/watching the original book/film, and constructing a plot purely yourself" or "reading sources/reviews and then writing without drawing any of it from the soures"? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Moneytrees, yes I promise. Now the very thought of copying from the web (very often even books) makes me uneasy. Nosebagbear, I developed the plot of Guru Sishyan after watching it, and re-watched scenes to ensure I made no factual error. That is the approach I seek to follow. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  That sounds reasonable. I could only do a comparatively sparse sense check due to the sheer number of recent edits, but I couldn't spot anything problematic. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, I'm happy to partially undo the requested part of the restriction. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Is there perhaps someone familiar with the types of works that Kailash seems to want to add plot summaries to act as a short term mentor/checker to make sure the summary seems correct and not close paraphrase? Unfortunately these appear to be foreign films so not something like myself can check. --Masem (t) 18:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  I feel that proper (short-term) mentoring here would be particularly onerous - since Kailash would be sourcing purely from the subject matter, rather than review sources, the reviewer would have to actually have watched the films to check it was being done properly - without that it's somewhat trying to prove a negative, which a mentor can't do any better than a standard copyright check. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support t-ban appeal As someone who is familiar with the situation and the primary copyright problem. Kailash is a competent editor who has been careful since their unblock and assisted in removing some commented out violations; I'm pretty sure they can be trusted. I don't think a mentor type deal is necessary (although I'd be able and am willing to fill that role), there's no significant deception going on here so Kailash can be taken by their word. Moneytrees🏝️ 20:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Need an experienced closer for Yet Another Daily Mail Discussion

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

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Clarification: Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday? got archived without a clear answer. I unarchived it. Could an experienced closer please write up a closing summary and close it? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. It didn't reach a really specific conclusion but I do get the utility of having an actual summary in these endless discussions. ~ mazca 19:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Manual of Style for WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries

Hi there, I'm unable to move the MOS I wrote for WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries due to it being named Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Catalan-speaking countries. Could an administrator move it from https://en.wikipedia.org/User:TheKaloo/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_countries/Style_advice to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_countries/Style_advice? Thanks! ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 19:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Not completely sure an admin was actually needed (you needed to select "Misplaced Pages:" as the namespace then just move it to "WikiProject_Catalan-speaking_countries/Style_advice" within that namespace, otherwise you'd have got a double Misplaced Pages: at the start, which may have been what was being blocked) but it's been moved either way! ~ mazca 19:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mazca: ohhhhh, thats what double namespace means! ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 19:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

We're probably going to get a lot of these requests at AN. This is the second one in 2 days. Apparently, if someone tries to move a page that has a namespace prefix ("Misplaced Pages:" or "Template:") and simply cuts/pastes the without removing the namespace prefix, the software will try to move it to "Template:Template:" or "Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages:". The error message "You appear to be trying to create a page with (or move a page to) a title with a double-namespace prefix. This is likely a title naming error. If this is the page you want to create, please make a request at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard." Is there someone with the access who can update this message so it is less confusing? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That's the actual error? ffs, just have it say "remove the second namespace and try again". AN shouldn't be the first port of call. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the error message is probably giving too much consideration to the 0.01% of times where the person was actually intending to make a Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages: page (which probably does need admin assistance) rather than the other 99.99% of the time where someone just did it slightly wrong and needs a friendly correction. ~ mazca 15:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about where to discuss a user

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

Hi all - I used to be an admin but that was years ago and I haven't bothered trying to get it reinstated. Anyway, I have a concern about a user who I think is a minor and I want to discuss it with admins/bureaucrats confidentially, avoiding altering that user or drawing attention. What's the best channel for this? --ZimZalaBim 00:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim, Special:Emailuser/Oversight Moneytrees🏝️ 01:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --ZimZalaBim 02:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Huge SPI backlog

With 10 current requests on WP:SPI as "Endorsed" by clerk for checkuser, and 19 requests where the status is "CU requested", I can say that this is the largest backlog on SPI that I have ever seen. Attention of more CUs and Clerks is needed on SPI. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like over the past few hours we've cut it down to 6 endorsed and 6 CU-requested. Mz7 (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I vote we have a sitenotice that says something like "Due to the backlog at SPI, we ask that you not engage in sockpuppetry for the month of September. Thank you for your cooperation." No way that could go wrong! GeneralNotability (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for clarification/Appeal

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

With regard to the ban imposed upon me above. I am prepared to follow it. However I do have my concerns about this veto over my hooks because I feel it has the potential to be abused by people who don't like me or disagree with my hooks on a personal basis rather than a policy based reason. Henceforth, I would like to propose it be altered so that if anyone does wish to object to any of my hooks, they must provide a valid policy based reason (with a link to said policy) if they wish to exercise such a thing. Otherwise, I can see people just objecting without giving a reason or using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as I mentioned to @Primefac: when he served me with the notice. I hope my proposal can be accepted in the interest of fairness. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – the ink hasn't even dried on a proposal that garnered overwhelming consensus, and you're already trying to get that restriction overturned? Your words "I am prepared to follow it" ring hollow. Shows you haven't learned your lesson one bit and have no respect for WP:CONSENSUS. Shameful. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Bloom6132: No, no, no: you misunderstand me. I'm not trying to get it overturned, I am trying to get clarification of it and assurance that it won't get abused. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• No, I understand what you are saying all too well. Another example of cognitive dissonance: "I'm not trying to get it overturned", while you title this "Appeal". Fact of the matter is DYK hooks can already be rejected on the basis of a valid policy based reason (e.g. WP:NPOV). The reason why these restrictions were approved in the first place is because you consistently disregarded what reviewers said even after they rejected your hooks citing WP:NPOV, and went on to unilaterally re-introduce your rejected hook in the prep area. By watering down this restriction, you are essentially telling the community that you want to be treated like any other DYK contributor (who doesn't have your track record of disruptive behaviour). In other words, you want to escape punishment that has been justly imposed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm very sorry to say this, but the reason the restriction was implemented in the first place (and with strong consensus to do so) was because the rope had run out. Too many times had much drama occurred in nominations because of your insistence on hooks despite consensus against them, or reluctance to propose or accept compromise alternatives (with the Sun of Unclouded Righteousness nomination being a notable example of this behavior). Plus, the proposed modification could render the restriction toothless. Ideally hook vetos should be done per a policy or guideline, but not accepting such a result is essentially just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you really wish for the restriction to be appealed or modified (which I suggest not do for at least six months per the minimum appeal time), I would highly suggest that it would be under the condition that you promise to no longer propose "controversial" hooks or give an acknowledgement of understanding as to how you got into this situation in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 11:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• I think it's fair to treat this as a clarification request. I can see how these remedies could be abused in the manner CofE describes, and it's not obviously clear that the community intended for that to be the case, or that it's unwilling to consider modifications to those sanctions to prevent such abuse (but still address the underlying concerns). This clarification request may be premature, as nothing untoward has happened yet, but it doesn't appear unreasonable. WP:AGF still exists, folks. My tangential view is that the AN section failed to resolve the underlying issue, which is poor DYK scrutiny. That problematic DYKs end up on the frontpage is more a DYK administrative issue than it is a conduct issue. Anyway, I suppose that ship has sailed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The C of E, if you feel it is being abused, then come back with facts and data when that happens. Asking for clarification based on an abstract possibility puts the focus on you, whereas you want it to be on others who are causing you a problem. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: AGF goes both ways, and this "appeal" presumes that abuse will happen. The time for such an appeal is not now, but only if there should be bad-faith actors posting on The C of E's DYK nominations. The reason for the remedy to begin with was because of The C of E's intransigence regarding his hooks, and preemptively requiring reviewers to have to jump through extra hoops strikes me as highly inappropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because this modification would open the door for The C of E to argue why a stated objection doesn't meet whatever cited policy, and the arguing with every editor that objected to their hooks seemed to be a big part of the problem at DYK. Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed – I see this appeal as nothing more than a ploy to WP:PLAYPOLICY and game the system. The reason why he demands that an objecting reviewer "must provide a valid policy based reason" is simply to play his favourite trump card (i.e. WP:NOTCENSORED) against our expected WP:GRATUITOUS. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - This would be a return to status quo.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bloom6132 - If people have objections you will need to work with them to find a solution, If that fails you may need to find something else to do here. I see no reason to alter it at this present time. –Davey2010 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Withdraw Blimey, I had no idea such a simple request would cause so much heat. Accordingly then I withdraw my request for clarification. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD for Nathan James

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

Dear Admins, I nominated this article for deletion last week and it remains ongoing after the 7 days and hasn't been relisted. At the moment, it looks like a non-consensus due to the way there are debates on whether or not the article has potential and/or enough reliable sources. Can this be looked into please? I'm happy to withdraw my nomination as I believe there is scope for this and will continue to look for sources. Personally, having re-rad the article there is enough to meet WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Block appeal

The user bradv🍁 blocked me from editing this article about Donald Trump’s election. I had been editing that article for almost a month without any complaint, until another editor reverted a bunch of my edits, including some that were there for weeks. I let the deletion occur for some, but for the ones that were there for weeks I reverted and asked to discuss on the talk page. I started discussing and it seemed to be going well, until the other editor continually started reverting my edits. I pointed to the fact that the edits, up until this point (and for the past few weeks) had WP:EDITCONSENSUS and that they should be discussed before deletion and asked the other editor to stop reverting to the prevent an edit war. That’s when this admin gives me a warning about edit warring. At this point, the other editor and I were using the talk page and neither of us were editing the article. That’s when this user blocks me from editing the article entirely. After that, the other editor stopped discussing, because they didn’t have to, and reverted my edits again. Once again, after the warning, I did not revert any edits. The edits are currently reverted. I won’t get into much detail about the content, but the article said that a group of people were anti Trump and this user didn’t think it was opposition. I was more than happy to discuss but now I can’t even edit the article and my edits are still reverted. Meanwhile, the other editor reverted my edit 4 times I believe and is not blocked. I agreed to come to consensus before adding this back, but the other user won’t use the talk page right now since I’m blocked (I guess). I have made a mass amount of contributions to this article most of which are still up there today. I even had a dispute with this user a while ago and tracked them down to apologize for a previous dispute where I was clearly wrong. I have been very friendly with this editor as well as to the other editors on the opposition page. Please look into this. Thank you.Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Background information for this appeal can be found at:

• Talk:List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign#Article is false
• User talk:Lima Bean Farmer#September 2020
• User talk:bradv#Edit war warning

The long and short of it is that Lima Bean Farmer seems to think their BLP violations can stay in the article simply because no one noticed for over a month. I'm happy to hear more opinions on how to handle this editor. – bradv🍁 17:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Considering you've been blocked 4 times in the 5 months you've been here, twice indefinitely, you should probably consider yourself lucky it wasn't an indef. Praxidicae (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

bradv🍁, this wasn’t a BLP violation since the article itself said that they were anti-Trump. I agreed to further discuss it on the talk page whether or not it should be included and to come to a consensus before it is or is not added back. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, if I may, I'd like to offer some unsolicited and not-particularly-informed advice: I think you mean well, and I think you make a compelling appeal in all but one way--time. Keep editing in good faith and let some water flow under the bridge. There are many other articles that could use your efforts. Let this one be, at least for the moment. But as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, where does this source say that Fred Upton opposes Trump's 2020 campaign? You added this claim a number of times, even after being told on the talk page that you were misrepresenting the source. And this is just one example – there are more listed on the talk page. – bradv🍁 18:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

bradv🍁, it says that he has not thought about endorsing him. Maybe it isn’t opposition but there has not been a clear definition yet on opposition. If I agree not to add that one back without a new and reliable source that’s more clear, will you unblock me? Also Dumuzid, I appreciate your comments. Thank you for that. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: You're partially blocked - You're lucky it wasn't an indef given your recent history. There are so many other articles on this project that you could constructively contribute to. You should do this, and then come back and appeal this partial block once you've got a few months of constructive, trouble-free editing under your belt. -- a 23:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Not understanding Twitter endorsements

Jason S. Goldstein has repeatedly been warned by me and other editors to not add Twitter endorsements. I have shown them multiple policies where It says they shouldn’t be included. The user has continually added them back and argued that they should be left. Every time I’ve explained that they are not and showed the proper policy, they say they understand but then continue to add back Twitter endorsements anyway. They have been warned several times. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Problematic user

Reporting this persistently problematic user who has a history of being disruptive: Xerxes931 (talk • contribs). Do take a look at their talk page. I recently noticed their POV pushing at Muhammad Iqbal. Placing a block on the user would save other editors's invaluable time but any correctional measure the administrators take is appreciated. Idell (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards