Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ivanvector (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 25 September 2020 (→‎Unblock request from LoganBlade: close; user is checkuser-blocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)


    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Apr May Jun Jul Total
    CfD 0 0 4 34 38
    TfD 0 0 0 4 4
    MfD 0 0 0 2 2
    FfD 0 0 0 1 1
    RfD 0 0 4 30 34
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 8077 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header/core 2024-07-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3197 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Diffusing occupation by nationality and century category header 2024-07-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2957 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Klepon 2024-07-21 11:58 2024-08-21 11:58 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Draft:List of country subdivision flags in Africa 2024-07-21 02:45 indefinite move per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country subdivision flags in Africa (2nd nomination) Barkeep49
    Endemic COVID-19 2024-07-21 01:52 2024-08-21 01:52 edit Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Youngboi OG 2024-07-20 21:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Draft:Jim 2024-07-20 20:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
    2024 Israeli strikes on Yemen 2024-07-20 20:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/outercore 2024-07-20 19:26 indefinite edit,move per request Primefac
    Al-Mansi 2024-07-20 03:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Societal breakdown in the Gaza Strip during the Israel-Hamas war 2024-07-19 20:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Ali B 2024-07-19 16:57 2024-08-02 16:57 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Dandansoy 2024-07-19 14:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
    Joseph Muscat 2024-07-19 10:31 2024-07-26 10:31 edit Persistent disruptive editing: per WP:RFPP Johnuniq
    Category:Amresh Bhuyan 2024-07-19 09:26 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Talk:えのきだたもつ 2024-07-19 06:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Lectonar
    えのきだたもつ 2024-07-19 06:15 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: talk-page Lectonar
    Ishwarsinh Patel 2024-07-19 02:53 2025-07-19 02:53 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare
    Miyana (community) 2024-07-19 02:52 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
    Yadvinder Goma 2024-07-19 02:41 2025-07-19 02:41 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare
    Latabai Sonawane 2024-07-19 02:24 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
    Madhukar Pichad 2024-07-19 02:23 2025-07-19 02:23 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Abecedare
    Kiran Lahamate 2024-07-19 02:20 2025-07-19 02:20 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Abecedare
    Killing of Mohammad Bhar 2024-07-18 15:45 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Draft:Come Home to Me (album) 2024-07-18 15:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Good for the Soul (comic book) 2024-07-18 02:10 2024-10-18 02:10 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
    Ravidassia 2024-07-18 00:25 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry and disruptive editing despite previous semi-protection; WP:CT/IPA Abecedare
    Jakkaphong Jakrajutatip 2024-07-17 21:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/GG; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan

    Unban me

    I remember I was banned for creating useless redirects on 24 March 2020 (link) and was directed to use WP:AFC/R. Now, 6 months are passed since then and I realised how cheap and costly the redirects really are. Therefore, I will only create redirects when necessary. Therefore, please unban me. Thanks. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Your math is off. 6 months would be on the 24th of this month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Tavix and Deepfriedokra. Soumya-8974's participation at RfD, while occasionally helpful, has not been a net positive, and has generated a lot of busywork for others. I think that an expanded topic ban could be worded to allow for page moves and for the creation of articles at former redirects, although as Deepfriedokra suggested, an editor could easily spend the rest of their lives productively improving articles by adding content, copyediting, or fixing categorization without once touching a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, this nomination IMO is a clear sign that we need a wider ban. I'd propose a topic ban covering all redirect matters including RFD and AFC/R, but not including redirects created inadvertently as the result of a page move or the creation of new articles at existing redirects. It probably doesn't need to be said, but just to be clear any attempt to game those exceptions to create redirects by moving pages back and forth or creating a new article and then redirecting it should be considered a violation of the ban. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, you beat me to it. I came back to this discussion to link the Serbo-Croatia RfD as a clear failure of WP:CIR. While I'm here, I also wanted to point out a very immature comment at the RfD for European+Union. -- Tavix (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (comment from non-admin who no-one would ever consider admin-worthy) - I support this. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_19#Wikipedia:FAMOUS; an RFD nomination with no real rationale explaining why the proposed action was necessary. The European+Union comment linked by Tavix is another problematic one. However, I support an exception allowing them to move pages. I've seen no issues indicating that this user has page-moving problems, so I see no reason to keep them from that. Hog Farm Bacon 23:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there's a fairly clear consensus here around needing a broad ban for redirect matters so we should wrap up this discussion. Tavix, Deepfriedokra, any objections to the wording I suggested about allowing an exception for page moves and article creation? signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced an extension of the ban to all types of RfD activity is a good idea. Yes, they sometimes cast !votes without giving reasons, yes, they occasionally make nominations that get quickly snowballed, and yes they should absolutely stop taunting J947 (here I would support a one-way interaction ban). But there have been plenty of constructive nominations as well: 1, 2, 3, 4. I don't think it's a good idea to ban an editor from a venue unless they've been very disruptive or a substantial majority of their nominations have failed. I'm not seeing that here. – Uanfala (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Uanfala, I think a further complication here is that a fair amount of their constructive nominations have been for redirect changes that wouldn't need to be brought to RfD if it weren't for their originally ban on changing redirects directly. While these changes are nominally helpful, they're being made in a way that is more costly to the project. I wonder if it would be a more productive solution to keep the original ban, but have them file requests for target changes through edit requests rather than through RfDs (at least for uncontroversial suggestions). signed, Rosguill talk 15:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Rosguill, their original ban is for creating redirects [1]. This doesn't prevent them from editing existing redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Uanfala, hm, I had assumed it covered changing targets as well based on Soumya's behavior (and I feel like I remember seeing them claim the same when someone asked them why they were starting RfD discussions for trivial changes). signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I would agree with the addition of a 1-way IBAN against interacting with J947 due to their seeming inability to desist from taunting them. I came across yet another instance today. signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      And why the ban from AFC/R as well? I don't see anything remotely resembling disruption: Tavix brings up four examples: two of them (the "He" redirects) are indeed bad, but the other two are OK: "Shampooing" is a good redirect and it was accepted, "Honkong" was declined though in my opinion should have been accepted as well. – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the extended topic ban with the proposed by Rosguill with the 1-way IBAN regarding J947. I've seen far too many instances from them of failure to do a basic WP:BEFORE and !votes that indicate they don't understand redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Supervote at Move Review

    Over the past month or so, the move review for the page currently at Grace O'Malley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been looking for an admin to close it, and I'm happy that Vanjagenije attempted to clear that specific backlog. However, I don't think the close that he made accurately reflected the discussion. In particular, his comments about the move didn't seem to be about the discussion at all, but his own views on the move. With the way the discussion was going, I can't see any consensus to reverse the move, and his closing comment seems to be more of a comment he should've made in the discussion itself (as it was, of course, still open at that point). I'm also a little concerned that he doesn't seem to have that much experience in move discussions, and it's a rather controversial subject to dip your toes in!

    However, there isn't a "move review review", so any discussion about the process falls here by default. I've attempted to bring it up at his his talk page but I'm not really satisfied with the response. Hence, I'm bringing it here to get some more input. Sceptre (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree, this clearly looks like a supervote. The very first sentence of the close ("After reading the original discussion, I came to the conclusion that the closure was wrong and in violation of Wikipedia policies.") is a big red flag; the RM discussion is irrelevant; what matters is what editors have said in the MR discussion and the MR itself was a no consensus outcome, tending towards Endorse. Number 57 21:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sceptre wants to present this as if I didn't read the move review, or that I did not take the arguments presented in the move review into account. That is obviously false. If you read my closing comment, you'll see that I actually summarized what MR participants (those who supported overturning) already said in the MR discussion. Move review is a process of reviewing the move discussion, so no surprise I had to read carefully the move discussion itself. @Number 57:'s idea that RM discussion is irrelevant in the process of reviewing that discussion seams absurd. All the comments in the move review are based on the original discussion, so how can we judge their validity if we don't take the original discussion into account? In this particular case, a minority of MR participants correctly pointed out that the original move discussion was wrongly closed as "move" because those who opposed the move, although in minority, correctly cited Wikipedia policies, while those who supported the move had weak arguments not based in the policies. How could I decide whether that's true or not without analyzing the original discussion? Saying that the RM discussion is irrelevant is akin to saying that Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant, and that it's only relevant what participants in a discussion say about those policies. After reading the RM, I concluded that those who supported overrule are indeed correct in saying that there was no consensus for moving the article. This case is somewhat peculiar because in both the original discussion and the review discussion, those who correctly assessed the proposal were in minority. But, if you really take into account their arguments, it is not hard to see that the move was wrong. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Those who correct assessed the proposal were in minority" in your opinion. "It is not hard to see the move was wrong" in your opinion. Personally, despite the sockpuppetry at the original RM, I would have closed it the same way as Sceptre. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it's worth, there was clearly a bit of axe-grinding on both sides in the move discussion; like a lot of Irish article naming discussions, the discussions tend to be less about following what the evidence says and more using it as an proxy argument over the/an Irish Language Act. ("British imperialism!" vs. "terrorist sympathisers!", to wit.) Sceptre (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Number 57: said "the RM discussion is irrelevant" because Move Review (and Deletion Review) is about whether the process has been done correctly or not. As much as a closer of an RM has to weigh up consensus in the RM discussion, the closer of a MRV has to weight up consensus in the MRV discussion. In both circumstances, closing with their own opinion is inappropriate. Your comment would've been fine in the review itself; it's just as a closure I'm not too pleased with. Sceptre (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The process was incorrectly followed as the original close did not take into account of the relative weight of arguments based on actual policy-backed points. Vanjagenije could have just said 'close incorrect as original closer failed to assess consensus correctly' and left it at that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but the whole point of MRV/DRV is that it discusses and formulates a consensus whether the procedure was followed or not. You can assert whether it was in the discussion, but closing a move review unilaterally like this defeats the entire purpose of the review process. The closing instructions at MRV state that a consensus at MRV is needed to overturn a closure, which clearly does not exist in this case. Sceptre (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just like you, Sceptre, I'm rather heavily biased in this case, but in the other direction. And I disagree that the consensus at MRV, which is needed to overturn your closure, "clearly does not exist in this case". I think it clearly does exist, and the MRV closing admin made the same kind of decision you made in the RM – a difficult one. I disagreed with your RM closure, and I agree with Vanjagenije's MRV closure. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the move review was wrongly closed and should be reopened. The closer did not even attempt to assess consensus in the review discussion but merely expressed their own view about the merits of the original move proposal. The place to do that would have been in the original move discussion, not in the move review and much less in closing it. Vanjagenije should not close any more discussions until they are confident that they understand the procedures we use to establish consensus. Sandstein 07:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vanjagenije makes a valid point about the impossibility to judge the comments' validity without taking the original discussion into account. How else are they meant to assign due weight to the arguments? While their closing statement could be construed as a supervote, the same could be said about Sceptre's, which would make this a case of a supervote (presumably based on policy) overruling another supervote (presumably based on the closer's opinion about what name is appropriate). Going back to the drawing board (reopening the original move request) might not be a bad idea. M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if this is the right place to say this; however, since I did not participate in the RM I would like to point out that I've read a lot about Grace O'Malley and have even seen documentaries that included her. An actor who portrayed a warrior princess in a TV series was asked to host one of those documentaries about real-life, historical warrior princesses that included Grace O'Malley. She wasn't called "Gráinne Ní Mháille", nor "Ofgjdfjgdfjg", nor "Mr. Mxyzptlk", her name was spelled and pronounced "Grace O'Malley". That is her common name and the name to be searched the most by readers. End of story (or should be). The present title should stand... tall! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this was a supervote, but also agree with M.Bitton that the better resolution would be to go back to square one and have a new move request, in which proponents of both views can square off with their best arguments and evidence. I would wait for at least a few weeks from the end of this discussion before initiating such a thing, though. BD2412 T 20:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bah. I think the original close was brave. The strength of numbers went one way, the guidelines pretty strongly in the other. no consensus to move would have been the better close IMO. The question is, was the close of the original move discussion within discretion? I'd say no--the folks wanting the move just didn't make a strong policy-based set of arguments. You'd need a stronger numeric consensus to overcome the strength of arguments--even accounting for IPs etc. But then the move review didn't find consensus that the close should be overturned. I think we default back to the policy-compliant version and the previous status quo. So move back to Grace O'Malley and suggest folks debate the policy changes needed to do make Gráinne Ní Mháille the right name per polices. I think some good arguments were made in the original discussion that indicate our policy needs updating. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes this was a supervote and it should be overturned. Assessing WP:CONSENSUS is our policy which should never be disregarded. Lightburst (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet another irregular verb, "to close a discussion":
      First person: I assess discussions based on policy, not on a votecount.
      Second person: You see a consensus when there actually was none.
      Third person: They supervote.
    --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam:, Bernard Woolley would be proud of your Emotive conjugation. Nthep (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Floquenbeam, fair - but also standard for all Wikipedia discussions. Especially those that centre on stylistic preferences.
    My view on this kind of thing is that in cases of doubt, we should probably go back to (or maintain) the status quo ante, effectively sending it back for further discussion if people still feel so motivated. What's your feeling? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: I can give you my opinion, since you asked, but I really don't think it's 100% clear where it "should" be in the general situation we have here, so it's only an opinion. I think it was a very difficult, evenly-divided evenly-argued discussion. I think User:Sceptre was a little aggressive in closing it the way they did, rather than no consensus to move, but not unreasonably so. I think the move review discussion was a very difficult, evenly-divided discussion. I think User:Vanjagenije was a little aggressive in closing it the way they did, rather than no consensus to overturn, but not unreasonably so. But I think this "move review review" here does have a consensus that the move review was in error, albeit with too many people using the pointless "supervote" snark for Sceptre's decision and/or for Vanjagenije's decision. So it seems like maybe the best thing to do is respect the only clear consensus there is, and reopen the move review. I don't see a need to go thru the anger-causing step of moving the article yet again until the move review is concluded. Which has the benefit of also meeting your suggested "status quo" argument. However, that would mean if the reopened move review resulted in "no consensus to overturn Sceptre's close", it should be moved. Good luck, by the way, finding a masochist willing to close it now... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I did get a small chuckle out of your Appeal to Fowlds. :p Sceptre (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees album articles

    Carliertwo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Further to a recent report that went unanswered by admins at AN/I, and GiantSnowman's suggestion on this noticeboard's talk page, I'm raising my concerns here about user:Carliertwo's continued POV editing and ownership at Siouxsie and the Banshees album articles. GiantSnowman asked that I state the case here "in brief". I'm afraid I just don't know how to – the problems stretch across almost a dozen articles and have been going on for years.

    The same user's behaviour resulted in a 48-hour ban in January 2017. (And there was a second report a couple of months later.) I'm only referring to the past here because, generally speaking, the behaviour seems like a straight replay of what PaleCloudedWhite identified when filing that Jan 2017 report: "This user ensures that all such articles portray their subject in a positive and flattering light, contrary to WP:NPOV. A quick look at any article connected to Siouxsie and the Banshees shows that Wikipedia portrays them as a very highly regarded band that almost nobody has ever said anything negative about, and that all their musical releases have been 'hailed' and received 'critical acclaim' ..." In that same thread, it's pointed out (by JzG) that this reference to albums being "hailed" went against consensus at a recent RfC. Three-and-a-half years later, some of the album articles still use the term.

    My tagging with requests for sources and attempts at more neutral wording on 7 September were all reverted by Carliertwo, at 11 album articles. After I undid those reverts, citing policies such as WP:VERIFY, WP:PUFFERY, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:SAID – eg, at Juju (here) – they were again reverted, often with a rationale stating that Greg Fasolino had "corrected" the text and I was therefore "outnumbered". Carliertwo only stopped this process of returning the articles to the versions they liked once I'd filed the report at AN/I. But it still means that pretty grand POV statements and editorialisation such as at The Scream (here) remain as before. At Tinderbox (the article highlighted by PaleCloudedWhite), critics and musicians seemed to be "hailing" it more than ever; although my revert of Carliertwo's original revert currently stands, it's difficult to believe the situation's anything more than a pause while their approach is under scrutiny yet again. Same also with the tagged "The UK music press was unanimous in its praise" at A Kiss in the Dreamhouse. (FWIW, I notice Greg Fasolino expressed concerns about Carliertwo's POV editing on the talk page for The Scream.)

    I'd seen all this a year ago. The breathless reporting and editorialisation stuck/sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb (and the incredulity in some of my comments reflects this, I'm sure). Carliertwo started discussions at Talk:Peepshow (album)#August 2020 and Talk:Hyæna#August 2020. As I stated at the first of these, there is nothing to discuss, only to fix. And again to refer to past form per that 2017 report, it's the user's wikilawyering technique, if not just general, dragging their feet and time-wasting. (It was the same at Talk:Dear Prudence#Unsourced genres for Siouxsie & the Banshees cover last year.) Carliertwo will always outdo any other editor's interest in these album articles simply by wearing them down. I think they need a substantial topic ban, because previous warnings seemed to have achieved little, and it's as if once everyone's backs are turned, the text can creep back to the same POV-strewn wording.

    I'm sure Siouxsie and the Banshees are a fantastic band, incidentally; but it's the extent to which Wikipedia appears to be rejoicing in this that's such an issue. In my second post in the AN/I thread on 8 September, I gave a few examples of how general statements about critical reception for other bands' albums are handled elsewhere on the encyclopedia (in the third paragraph). JG66 (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for re-posting and sharing some diffs. From what I can see, Carliertwo has been repeatedly removing valid {{cn}} tags, and has been repeatedly adding POV to articles. As such, I would suggest a topic ban from all Siouxsie and the Banshees-related articles. GiantSnowman 10:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have opened a discussion at the talk page of many Satb albums articles like for this album [2].
    • First case for The_Scream_(album)#Critical_reception, the user tags these sentences "Upon its release, The Scream received critical acclaim. Critics in the British and American press generally agreed that the album was a landmark of its time and that the band's willingness to experiment made it a challenging listen." with {fact needed} whereas the reviewers wrote rave comments such as "landmark" in Record Mirror , "constantly innovative" in Melody Maker, "innovation" in the NME. The record got several contemporary reviews rated 5 out of 5. We've got a total of 8 laudatory reactions written by music journalists from the most famous papers at the time on both sides of the atlantic. Other quotes: Rolling Stone "striking debut album", Sounds (magazine) "the best debut album of the year", ZigZag "magnificent record", music journalist Adam Sweeting "magnificent masterpiece", Record Mirror: "The Scream "points to the future, real music for the new age". So why does this user tag those sentences with "wp:puffery" and "wp:impartial" in their commentary ? the {fact needed} were abusive tags. These two sentences have been present for more than 6 years, no user editing on that article (including professional journalist User:Greg Fasolino, who edited on all those satb albums articles) has said that these two sentences were cases of puffery and impartial.
    • Another case for Peepshow_(album)#Critical_reception, this user also tagged this sentence "Peepshow received critical acclaim" whereas the reviews were rated like this; Q (magazine) "5 out of 5 star review" and when there isn't any rate, the reviewers say: Record Mirror "Brimming with confidence [...], Peepshow is the Banshees' finest hour", Spin (magazine) "delightful, majestic", Stereo Review, "Best of the Month", NME " best Banshees record since A Kiss in the Dreamhouse". isn't it a critical acclaim ? Again this sentence was a presentation of all the reviews that follow in the section. The album got the best reviews possible from the most important papers We've got 8 reviews/papers praising the album. So the album received critical acclaim. would you write average reviews ? Again why does this user write "puffery" and "impartial" in their comment [3] ?
    • the Tinderbox diffs [4] is an instance/story telling with distortion of facts, as a rfc of February 2017 registred one month after the 48 hour ban of January 2017 said that one comment about a singer could be used only if the verb "to hail" was not included for a remark of that artist mentioning this album. The ANI of January 2017 never forbad to use the verb "to hail" in the "critical reception" section for reviews, contrary to what the user advanced above "it's as if once everyone's backs are turned, the text can creep back to the same POV-strewn wording" which is not true. The reviews and comments of musicians praised that Tinderbox record.
    • Last case, for Downside_Up#Reception the user tags "The four-CD box set compilation received critical acclaim upon its release" with {fact needed} whereas the critical eception section is filled with very positive reviews. Quotes: The Times "audacious and uncompromising musical adventurers", Stylus Magazine "a wonderfully eclectic mixture" in a review rated A, Record Collector "remarkable diversity", Uncut (magazine) "fascinating collection from an astonishing group", NME "spellbinding". Is it puffery and impartial to present those reviews, saying that this boxset received critical acclaim ? I'am a 13 year veteran and I wrote a GA. I had also suggested to ask a third opinion for all those satb albums articles [5]... Carliertwo (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TLDR. Why were you removing valid {{cn}} tags? Why have you been adding POV language? GiantSnowman 13:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those tags were abusive and it is explained with instances above. If "Too long didn't read" is your only reply, I'll tell you that the other user wrote a post as long as mine. So why would you not take the same time to read my reply ? Carliertwo (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why were those tags "abusive"? Yes the OP was long, but I was able to skim and ready diffs. GiantSnowman 14:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    not only you replied "too long i didn't read" plus you had previously voted for a topic ban without waiting for a reply from me, and now you said from what I undetstand, that you read posts in diagonals, is it serious ? I prefer to wait for other opinions from people who take time to read posts in full. Carliertwo (talk)
    I've seen enough to make a fair review of your editing. You have not presented anything to change my mind. GiantSnowman 15:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an administrator, but I have read the long posts. The problem is not with the positive reviews, but with your characterization of them as "hailing" from the reviewers. Your summaries come off as overly laudatory, raising some valid concerns. The praise seems to be written in Wikipedia's voice, and the apparent unanimity of the acclaim concerns only a hand-full of available sources. In the case of Peepshow (album), the article's Critical reception section summarizes 7 different reviews (a decent number, by the way), but the article speaks of "widespread acclaim" which is not based on any of these sources. That said, I only see two or three suspect sentences in that article, and the argument could be settled with a minor rewrite. Dimadick (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dimadick, thanks for your input.
    Xeno's remark written yesterday at this noticeboard's talk page saying "The incidents thread in question strikes me as something that would be better handled at WP:DRN", was strangely not mentioned by the user who has filled this section and pleaded for a ban. For them, apparently, there isn't any point of pinging an user if they said that this case would have more its place at WP:DRN. Carliertwo (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sentences reflect the content of each 'critical reception' section; had you read just the following section The_Scream_(album)#Critical_reception for the debut album, you would have realized that these two sentences exactly represent those favourable reviews, faithfully. Where is the 'flowery' in those two sentences when a debut album got such favourable reviews ? Carliertwo (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's flowery because it's stating an unnecessary, roseate picture when there's no requirement for a comment in Wikipedia's voice summarising what's to follow. It serves no purpose in encyclopedic terms and it's original research. If another writer states that an album received critical acclaim, then fine (WP:VERIFY). And as mentioned above, in some cases, what does follow the editorialisation is not supported, even implicitly, in the reviews that are cited.
    Darkknight2149: might I suggest that GiantSnowman could have been reacting to the user's failure to address the most pertinent points – why cite-needed tags have been removed without any citations being added (contrary to what's required), and why they feel the need to add or retain NPOV statements like "hailed" – rather than GS dismissing the response per se. I've highlighted the time-wasting and disruptive approach that Carliertwo employs; this is borne out in comments in the 2017 reports linked at the start here, as is their wikilawyering.
    JzG: pinging you again. You took part in one of the 2017 discussions and you've contributed to discussions on this noticeboard very recently. Perhaps you've no wish to participate in this one; no probs if so, but sending a second ping in case the first got lost with others coming your way. JG66 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I've asked reasonable questions, which remain unanswered. GiantSnowman 16:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is wikilawyering here ? I have asked DarkKnight a question after their first comment, JG66 interfered to put words in Darkknight's mouth, preventing them to give an untainted reply by JG66's thought. Carliertwo (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The user said: "In my second post in the AN/I thread on 8 September, I gave a few examples of how general statements about critical reception for other bands' albums are handled elsewhere on the encyclopedia" for several GAs (they meant). What about these two GAs then, just a few instances among many ? "Upon release, Dig Me Out received substantial acclaim from music critics. Randall Roberts, writing ..." @ Dig_Me_Out#Critical_reception and "Initial critical reception to Homogenic was overwhelmingly positive. David Browne of ...." @ Homogenic#Critical_reception. They are exactly the same type of presentation. Carliertwo (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, so you can spot examples of original research. No source supports the contentions at those album articles, so the same statements you highlighted should go. I have enough faith in editors on the Music project (and I've been guided by those editors over the years, also) to know that if policies are cited, they can't be argued with. Meaning, editors will go and find a source to support a statement about critical reception. Which is why I cited the well-maintained album articles.
    Interfered? I couldn't have been more cautious in my message: "might I suggest ... could have been reacting". I certainly didn't interfere with anyone's previous posts. You did, though: here and here. JG66 (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those claims/facts are supported by all the sources/reviews that follow at each 'critical reception' section. Otherwise the two reviewers would have not given the GA status to those two albums articles. Assume wp:good faith to those two reviewers too. Carliertwo (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JG66 you conceded that for those two other instances of GA albums on wiki Dig_Me_Out#Critical_reception and Homogenic#Critical_reception, "No source supports the contentions at those album articles" at the top of those sections. So why five days later, have you still not tagged yet those two other critical receptions with {cn} and dragged the two GA reviewers here and the main users who wrote those articles here, at AN , guilty of WP:NPOV wp:PUFFERY. ? Carliertwo (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As I was pinged at the start of this thread and as it was me who opened previous noticeboard discussions about Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees (SATB), I feel I should make a comment. Carliertwo is obviously a fan of the band and it seems to me that Carliertwo's loyalty is more toward the band than Wikipedia, and as such they find it hard to accept edits that don't support a favourable presentation of SATB - for evidence, look at the huge struggle it was for me to insert a sourced negative review in The Scream article (see the article history, my ANI thread, and the thread on Carliertwo's talkpage linked below). In addition, Carliertwo is suspicious and hostile toward editors who try to insert such material, or who make edits seeming to question the talent/significance etc. of SATB - several times Carliertwo said I had "an agenda", and I notice they've said the same thing to JG66. So when Dimadick says that the issue here could be solved with a minor rewrite, well in theory, probably yes, but in practice - we end up here, due to Carliertwo fighting to the last stand to maintain the articles as they are. However, having said that, I believe that Carliertwo means well - they are not any kind of vandal or troll - and they have added a lot of information to all articles connected to Siouxsie Sioux. If only they could be less protective about the band's image on Wikipedia. As Greg Fasolino said here on Carliertwo's talk page, "You don't seem to understand that it's bad form to try to make sure the article promotes how good the album is". It is unfortunate that Greg Fasolino no longer seems to be active on WP, as Carliertwo seemed to listen to him. (Actually that whole thread - it has since been removed/archived - is worth reading to give an idea of the issue here). I do not know if a topic ban is the best option. It seems a shame. Carliertwo does seem capable of adjusting their approach when dealing with an editor they view favourably - maybe that is where the change needs to be made, i.e. for Carliertwo to cease regarding editors as having "agendas" etc. But then this has been brought up twice before, and here we are again. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "when Dimadick says that the issue here could be solved with a minor rewrite, well in theory, probably yes, but in practice - we end up here" I specifically addressed that the claims of wide acclaim were not supported by the present sources. This could be dealt with either removing the unsourced claims or toning down the laudatory language. That the sources were cherry-picked specifically to give a favorable image to an album is a wholly different problem, and a more serious one. Is Carliertwo actually against using any negative reviews on the albums? Dimadick (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dimadick If you take a look at the ANI thread I started here, you will see Carliertwo was very resistant to including a negative review by Julie Burchill. Carliertwo initially removed the review, then countered it by including criticism of the review. There followed a discussion on Carliertwo's talkpage (linked to in my comment above), in which Carliertwo conceded - after intervention by another editor - that the review should be included without the criticism of it, but they still resisted including the reviewer's description of the album as being like "suet pudding". Eventually they seemed to even concede that that should be included, and I hoped that maybe that was the end of the matter. But then after this recent thread, I looked at the article again and saw that Carliertwo had changed not the review, but how it was introduced, from "Julie Burchill was unimpressed...." to "Julie Burchill expressed reservations..." (see here). If you look at how Burchill described the album, it's an awfully large stretch of the imagination to say that Burchill was expressing 'reservations', yet that is obviously what Carliertwo preferred to see, and it is disappointing to say the least that they quietly made that change many months after the initial disagreements. I have wanted to not push for severe restrictions on Carliertwo's editing, but am also concerned that they simply cannot edit neutrally in this area. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PaleCloudedWhite, you said "Carliertwo had changed not the review", and three lines of Julie Burchill's review are indeed still present. Then you're mentioning your initial reviewer's description "was unimpressed" which was also at the basis original research with no secondary source. Any reviewer's description and to go further in the present issue, any critical reception's description, is original research, according to the OP. "expressed reservations" is also an OR. The result of the previous March 2017 ANI that you filled, was that several lines of Burchill's review were to appear in the article [see here], no matter she was 19-years old when writing at the time, no matter that her own review was heavily criticized by peers Paul Morley and John Peel who both respectively wrote long columns in NME and Sounds. Is it correct ? Do we agree ? You have to accept that this was 3 years ago. You can't still battle on the same ground for a minor change of words in the description now, Carlier changed my OR "was unimpressed" to their OR "expressed reservations". This is cherry picking as Burchill's thoughts are still included with large quotes of her review. Now that you're back in this AN after a 4 day absence, you must have noticed that I have pinged you four days ago. If you haven't, I ask you once again to reply specifically to these points. Where do you see in the Tinderbox album article something that is not conformed to the rfc/ani of 2017 ? Can you show the diffs ? Can you have the honesty to say to JG66 that the result of the ANI of March 2017[see here] had never been to remove any critical reception's description. There wasn't any demand for what JG66 asked [see here] last week. And for proof, here is the diff between the version of 28 March 2017 and the version of 14 September 2020 [6] for the scream album. Since then, I have removed the critical reception's description at all the articles when it was based only on the claims on the reviews. JG66 said that when there isn't any specific source supporting a critical reception's description, the description has to be removed. It was a few days ago see here. Carliertwo (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    JG66 I was advised by a neutral administrator to contact you, to work on the wording of those sentences. So, when no citation is included, removing the presentations at the top of each critical reception section is the right thing to do. I had found out one source for The Scream but I don't think that it is necessary to mention "critical year alod19 acclaim" in that section. I found a quote for the first sentence at A Kiss in the Dreamhouse, it's added. And then as you already removed several sentences, at Through the Looking Glass and at other articles, I let this as it is. Will take a look at it later. There were recent articles published for the Juju album, mentioning a critical acclaim. Will try to locate the right source, if not no more presentation for the critical reception of that album either. Carliertwo (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    See, this is where I'm eternally confused with you and with how you're constantly able to get away with this behaviour. You have no choice but to work with other editors, all the time on Wikipedia. Every administrator is "neutral" unless they've been involved in disputes on the relevant articles, which means every administrator who's participated in this thread is neutral. No editor has an "agenda" if they're just insisting that policies be adhered to on the encyclopedia. I'm neutral – everyone here and in the cited AN/I reports is neutral – insofar as everyone just wants to see NPOV removed from the SATB articles.
    Once a spotlight shines on your activities, you're miraculously cooperative ... eventually. Yet as in previous AN or AN/I threads, you've consistently ignored policy-related rationales and an RfC (on the "hailed" matter), and that's why we've ended up here. But, as much as it is a relief, this isn't the time to start behaving liking a collegial and non-biased editor; that should have been the case all along, way before 2017. We're here because you've repeatedly failed to behave like a non-biased editor.
    I still see a lengthy topic ban as the only means to get a message across. As others have mentioned, no lessons appear to have been learned from 2017. In fact, once everyone's back was turned, even what had been established in 2017 appears to have been undone or ignored in the ensuing years. I wouldn't expect to get away with a fraction of what this user has got away with, and I've seen editors banned for comparatively trivial behaviour (disruptive editing, but not an ongoing campaign to circumvent key Wikipedia policies like WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV). Also, it takes a whole load of effort and frustration to even get this issue addressed, or try to, and before Carliertwo decides, "Oh, I'm going to be a responsible editor now." JG66 (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit mixed on a topic ban (despite their lack of neutrality, s/he does make valuable edits to the topic area), but I would not be opposed to some sort of leash, such as a 1RR. As you said, this is now a three-year issue and I suspect that there will be more on-again/off-again reports like this if no preventive measure is put in place. Darkknight2149 10:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "but I would not be opposed to some sort of leash, such as a 1RR" Not a particularly effective leash in this case. The primary issue is the insertion of overly laudatory language in music album articles over a number of years. Not a brief edit war in 2020. What would stop Carliertwo from reinserting unsourced claims once other editors loose interest in the articles? Dimadick (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "this isn't the time to start behaving liking a collegial and non-biased editor; that should have been the case all along" Carliertwo has already conceded on the POV matter, offered to rewrite the problematic sentences, and to search for additional sources. What more do you hope to accomplish here? Your insistence on a topic ban sounds vindictive. Dimadick (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still waiting for an answer as to why the {{cn}} tags were removed. GiantSnowman 15:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, hang on, Dimadick (in reply to both your last posts). As you say, "What would stop Carliertwo from reinserting unsourced claims once other editors loose interest in the articles?" Precisely – and as I've said on that idea: in repetition of what appears to have already ensued since 2017. So, I don't get your other statement: "Carliertwo has already conceded on the POV matter, offered to rewrite the problematic sentences, and to search for additional sources. What more do you hope to accomplish here? Your insistence on a topic ban sounds vindictive." What more? "vindictive"? ...
    • It's for the very same reasons you've pointed out, that they can just return to typical (it seems) behaviour, and that I've pointed out: that it concerns what sort of message is to be sent out on serial violation of core policies, and whether it's sufficient that an editor who gets reported here or elsewhere can suddenly agree to toe a line that is the only way to behave on Wikipedia, anyway. Apart from everything else I've cited policy-wise, WP:NOTGETTINGIT, specifically: If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed. I can't see how that doesn't tie in with your point [with my emphasis added]: "As you said, this is now a three-year issue and I suspect that there will be more on-again/off-again reports like this if no preventive measure is put in place." JG66 (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, Carliertwo has indeed received some education on Wikipedia-wide policies on NPOV language, and in response he/she offered changes in their favorite articles. Which I find a decent enough result for the discussion, an actual change in the editor's behavior. On the other hand, I find the idea of 1RR as a leash to be entirely ineffective. Articles with few watchers can often get controversial changes without an edit war. Because there is simply nobody interested enough to object to the changes. Dimadick (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Contrary to what user:JG66 advances, the first rfc about "hailing" was registred by PaleCloudedWhite in 2017 on this ground: an album article couldn't mention that Suede's singer Brett Anderson hailed the recordTinderbox on his official website because the artist only mentioned it in a page called "current fascinations". So, another rfc was filled by Carliertwo and this time I asked if it was possible to just include that Suede's singer Brett Anderson namechecked Tinderbox on the basis of the same source. The result of the rfc was yes; I could. Nowhere you'll find a verdict of a rfc or a ANI saying that Carliertwo can't used the verb "hailing" anymore. An ANI was filled by PaleCloudedWhite: the issue was about the notorious review (of the then 19 year old Julie Burchill) which has been included on wiki in 2017. I was told that it was not necessary to mention the criticism and harsh comments that the likes of legendary John Peel and music historian Paul Morley made about her "scathing review" as they said . PaleCloudedWhite, is it correct and if no, where do you see in the Tinderbox article something that is not conformed to the rfc/ani of 2017 ? Carliertwo (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Carliertwo, please keep in mind that the neutral point of view is a core content policy, and therefore it is mandatory for you to follow it scrupulously. Quite a few editors have expressed concern that your writing is often not neutral and that you frequently write like a fan and not like an encyclopedia editor. Please take these concerns on board and recommit yourself to neutrality. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, I haven't changed anything at any critical reception section since the March 2017 ANI filled by PaleCloudedwhite whom had already demanded twice a topic ban. In this thread, the only one user tagging carlier with the pejorative word fan, is the same person who didn't have their demand fulfilled three years ago after already dubbing me a spa. For your information, the present thread was discussed with one of your peers a few days ago at their personal talk's page and here is what they said. see here. Carliertwo (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dimadick, you said What would stop Carliertwo from reinserting unsourced claims once other editors loose interest in the articles?. Can you supply the diffs showing that there was (were) changes in the critical receptions sections of those articles since the 2017 March ANI ? Carliertwo (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Darkknight2149 you wrote This is now a 3 year issue. Can you supply the diffs showing that there was (were) changes in the critical receptions sections of those articles since the 2017 March ANI ? Carliertwo (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    GiantSnowman, I removed the {cn} tags for these several reasons. 1) When all these descriptions of the press reviews were written around 2013-2015 at each satb album article far before the two 2017 ANIs, the reference points for the wording were the FAs and GAs which were edited like this without secondary source. User:Greg Fasolino (a professionnal journalist in real life who worked for Trouser Press [7] and I and many reviewers of FAs and GAs thought that it was accepted. The Scream (satb album) 's [8] was based on GAs like Homogenic (Bjork album) 's [9] by reviewer Andrzejbanas [10]: both albums got similar rave reviews by famous papers. When the reaction was just positive like for Dig Me Out 'Sleater-Kinney album) 's [11], something similar was written for Kaleidoscope (satb album) [12]. 2) I noticed each time I edited at Beatles' article "Dear Prudence (song)", main user JG66 directly reacted targetting the satb albums articles in which I edited, tagging them with patronizing comments in their edit summaries such as this one [13]. So as many critical receptions of FAs and GAs started with the same type of editorialisation without any secondary source, only depending on the reviews present in the section, I took this tagging campaign as just free retaliate. 3) Had JG66 just started to tag only one article The Scream (album), and opened a discussion at the Scream talk page [as it is the most critically acclaimed satb album], instead of taking all the satb articles in a row to discredit the content/work by several users for new readers like they did, I would have perceived their demand otherwise. Carliertwo (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to the community and specifically to the two administrators who posted in this thread
    • The OP included several false facts. The OP affirms "it's pointed out (by JzG) that this reference to albums being "hailed" went against consensus at a recent RfC". False. JzG/Guy wrote "Stop Wikilawyering. Remove the statement now, please, that is the clear consensus of the RfC"[see January 2017 ANI link]. And btw the result of the first rfc mentioned by JzG was about another thing: "The consensus is against including "Tinderbox would be later hailed by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson on his website" in the article."[see rfc link]. Consequently, the January 2017 ANI was closed with this remark User:Carliertwo blocked 48 hours for edit warring and textbook battleground behaviour[see January 2017 ANI link] .
    • The OP carried on advancing "Three-and-a-half years later, some of the album articles still use the term" "hailing". False. As the consensus of the first rfc was against including this sentence "Tinderbox would be later hailed by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson on his website", there wasn't any verdict nowhere of an rfc and ANI making a demand to remove the terms "critical acclaim" and "this album was hailed" at each satb album article. See the conclusion of the second ANI was quite different, asking Carlier if they agreed to include large quotes of Burchill's review on The Scream (article) without mentioning any criticism of her peers. [14]
    • The OP kept on lying saying "previous warnings seemed to have achieved little, and it's as if once everyone's backs are turned, the text can creep back to the same POV-strewn wording". False. Which text crept back since the 31 March 2017 ANI, where are the diffs claiming this? Only three "critical reception" sections were discussed in this second ANI [see March 2017 ANI link]: The Scream (album) 's, Kaleidoscope (satb album) 's and Tinderbox (satb album). So here are the versions of April 2017 and September 2020 for each article; for The Scream (album) see [April 2017 version link] and Early September 2020's], for Kaleidoscope (album) [May 2017 version link] and [early September 2017's], and for Tinderbox (album) April 2017 version and [early September 2020"s]
    • The result of the March 2017 ANI (the second filled by PaleCloudedWhite) was given by administrator and mediator user:SilkTork, who wrote: "the edit warring in Kaleidoscope is two sided. Carliertwo did not completely revert the adjust - the phrasing "Paulo Hewitt gave the album qualified praise" was left intact. While I agree with you that it was inappropriate to call a second RFC so close after the first one [for Tinderbox] and while I disagree with the outcome of that RFC, [...] there were enough who supported not only the premise of the RFC, but also that it was called." Indeed the second rfc was accepted [see link second rfc March 2017 here]. User Greg Fasolino's comment was, "on the Scream article in question, I would say that simply quoting a sourced review is sufficient". to which Carliertwo replied "I shouldn't have withdrawn this review (quote + source) and only let her name appear and a simple mention of her review. I had done this because I've read many times she's a controversial writer, and as none of her articles is available on Rock's Backpages, I took it as a sign that maybe her work was not accepted by all of her peers. With the benefit of hindsight, I recognize, I was wrong as the only criteria that matters is the reliability of the source. (Her review was supervised by an editor in chief before publishing").Carliertwo (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Then what about this unlimitless list of Featured Articles albums articles from other singers containing the same type of editorialisation not supported by any secondary source, Isn't a more serious issue as these albums articles all received a FA status

    And according to JG66/the OP which was entirely supported by GiantSnowman, this last one Romances (Luis Miguel album) should be tagged too due to this editorialisation "Upon its release, Romances was met with mostly positive reviews by music critics.". Thanks to GiantSnowman for asking and thanking JG66 for reposting an ANI which was closed last week.

    Can anyone understand why haven't JG66 targetted any one of these FAs from other artists with the {cn} tags?

    Before the vote of a topic ban, may I also add that User:Greg Fasolino commented about this editor has in fact done much good work on the SATB articles[15]. GA reviewer J Milburn commented good work for Join Hands receiving a GA status and administrator SilkTork commented The best form of stewardship is seeking consensus when there are causes for concern. Here, JG66 didn't want to compromise, he did not attempt to discuss the matter on the article talkpage or Carliertwo's talkpage apart saying no discussion possible. or You're a time waster see here but isn't it JG66's refusal to compromise that leads us to the surreal demand of topic ban.

    So, I demand two things to the community 1) a serious warning and sanction has to be sent to JG66, for lying in their OP to obtain their topic ban demand (it almost worked as administrator GiantSnowman claimed "I would suggest a topic ban from all Siouxsie and the Banshees-related articles" from day 1 while saying later "WP:TLDR" and then "but I was able to skim and ready diffs" 2) I also demand a serious warning and sanction to User:PaleCloudedWhite for begging once again for a topic ban in this thread twice see here, three years after already filling two ANIs which also demanded a topic ban for Carliertwo. This is harassement. 3) As the aim of this thread was to discredit me even more for further future ANIs, because there wasn't any 3RR this time by anyone , I ask specifically to GiantSnowman to add to their first comment above has been repeatedly adding POV to articles. As such, I would suggest a topic ban from all Siouxsie and the Banshees-related articles. This is to protect me in anticipation of further ANs that PaleCloudedWhite and JG66 will surely fill, if no serious warning and sanction for lies, distorted facts and harassments are not taken against them this time. Carliertwo (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Carliertwo, your demands will not be met. Please read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Go edit neutrally and stop this. If you persist, you will be blocked for disruptive editing and topic banned from anything to do with your favorite band, broadly construed. This is a warning that you need to take seriously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Carliertwo, Demands? really? With out reading through this mish-mash (that's why we have Cullen328), probably the best advice around is offered by User:Cullen328. I suggest you heed it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been pinged in this discussion, so here I am. It appears I commented in a RfC in 2017, though I did not close it as implied above. However, I was fairly temperate and understanding in my remarks, which may explain why Carliertwo approached me for advice a few days ago: User_talk:SilkTork#AN or ANI. I recommended that Carliertwo discuss the issue with JG66, and pinged JG66 into the conversation. I couldn't see evidence that either of them have taken that advice, so I am not so sympathetic as I was in 2017, especially as I said back then that: "The best form of stewardship is seeking consensus when there are causes for concern". We resolve matters in a more long lasting way when we talk to each other rather than reverting.
    Having said that I not that sympathetic to Carliertwo's situation, I will repeat what I said on my talkpage - this is an editorial dispute not a policy or behaviour issue. Neither JG66 nor Carliertwo have handled this well. Escalating a minor editorial disagreement to AN or ANI is not the best way of handling this. And calling for a Siouxsie and the Banshees topic ban for Wikipedia's most productive writer of Siouxsie and the Banshees articles is like shooting off your head with a shotgun to get rid of a pimple. Carliertwo is responsible for at least 50% of the content of those articles, and has taken one to GA status. We should instead look at the issue and deal with it appropriately.
    JG66 mentions this edit as problematic because the statement "Juju received critical acclaim" needs citing. Well, let's cite it: "Juju...attracted reams of critical acclaim and cemented its creators’ reputation as one of the most exhilarating and distinctive rock acts of the early 80s" (I spent ten seconds finding that with a simple "Siouxsie and the Banshees Juju received critical acclaim" Google search. I didn't look any further, so there may well be more. That's just an example. It's often not that much harder to look for a cite than it is to tag that a cite is needed, or to revert the tag.) Next is this edit regarding this statement "Upon its release, The Scream received critical acclaim" which we can cite with "Released to rave reviews, the Banshees’ 1978 debut, The Scream, remains one of the stone tablets of post-punk" (another ten second search). So there are sources to support Carliertwo's editing. The removing of the tags was not best practice, but nor is edit warring to restore the tags: [16]. The two editors have made a minimal effort at talking through the issue on the article talkpages. On the other hand, neither editor has done anything manifestly wrong. There has been some reverts, but not to the level of an edit war, and both are involved in the reverting. I don't see any other behavioural or editorial issues, certainly none that require admin involvement. This is a very minor editing dispute that can be resolved fairly quickly and easily by a bit of collaborative editing.
    My offer here is to work with User:JG66 and User:Carliertwo to resolve JG66's concerns regarding puffery and unsourced statements in the Banshees albums, and to give both of them some guidance on the best way to handle such disputes in future. Carliertwo, in particular, needs to take on board that it is unusual for an editor to be brought to AN, and to be brought here several times leaves a stain which it can be difficult to remove. So, working on better ways to handle disagreements would be beneficial to themselves and to Wikipedia as a whole. If someone tags that a statement needs a cite, then provide that cite before removing the tag. SilkTork (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SilkTork: You pinged me from your talk page and I'm sorry for ignoring that. It was for the same reason I'll keep my reply here brief: as I've said above, I don't consider that violations, or reverts that seek to support examples of violation, of WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL, etc. are issues to be discussed; they're beyond that, they're just to be eradicated from the encyclopedia. And I find the continued indulgence afforded Carliertwo on these points quite surprising, as if they're being afforded cotton-wool treatment. Again: WP:NOTGETTINGIT – "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines", etc. JG66 (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are not that far apart in our views on this issue, JG66. I think where we differ is in how to deal with it. I have long felt that Wikipedia's main concern should not be with paid (or professional) writers, as they often do write OK articles. Our main concern should be with the amateur writers who write out of passion. Be it political, ethnic, or music articles. We know there is a bias in many of our articles on albums and bands, because most of the editing is done by fans who will be rather enthusiastic. We have a choice in how we deal with these editors. We can either constantly fight them. Bring them to AN/I and get them banned or blocked. Or we can guide them as to the most appropriate way of doing things. You're an experienced music article editor. You know how to do it. You could give good advice. The upside of giving advice rather than seeking a ban, is that we get a productive editor who will not only continue to help write good articles, but we get another person on board with the appropriate way of doing things who then be able to offer advice to others. The more we do this, the better the quality of the articles overall. Of course, there's another way, other than whack a mole, or give a helping hand, we could just pass on by and let someone else do it. Essentially there are three approaches. To be honest, mostly these days I just pass on by. I don't spend as much time on Wikipedia as I used to. But now and again I'm willing to help as as I think it would be worth it. I'm willing to help out here. You're a good editor. But I doubt you knew it all when you started, and you made mistakes. Perhaps the same mistake more than once. But your heart was in the right place, and you learned, and you moved forward. Perhaps someone helped you out in the early days. Perhaps a kind word. Perhaps pointed you toward the appropriate guideline or policy. I think that's what is needed here. Just a little bit of guidance. SilkTork (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nice sentiments from you, SilkTork (as always). Funnily enough, it was you who guided me, years ago, on writing article lead sections.
    So yes, we all live and learn, and hopefully improve along the way. I'm afraid I just see too much history here and an unwillingness to change unless the heat is on ... But then I'm not a decision-maker on these matters, which is why we're here. JG66 (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SilkTork, I have unpinged you sunday afternoon, [17] I'm sorry that the ping hasn't disappeared from your inbox.

    I followed your advice point by point after reading your post 7 days ago and on 15 September I did this. I've added sources on two articles and worked on the wording. [18], [19]. When I haven't found any secondary source, I removed the contentions of critical acclaim. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. And right after improving everything, I've informed JG66 of the changes [25] and told them I would seek for other sources still on the same day of your post. What more should have I done ?

    But the result was not what was expected: more "Consistently ignored policy-related rationales and an RfC (on the "hailed" matter)", "A lengthy topic ban as the only means to get a message across". "No lessons appear to have been learned from 2017". "Frustration" JG66 17:16, 15 September / "The primary issue is the insertion of overly laudatory language in music album articles over a number of years" "What would stop Carliertwo from reinserting unsourced claims once other editors loose interest in the articles?" Dimadick -15:11, 16 September, I ask them to provide diffs to support this? No reply. / "This is now a three-year issue and I suspect that there will be more on-again/off-again reports" Darkknight 10:13, 16 September / "I'm still waiting for an answer as to why the {cn} tags were removed". administrator GiantSnowman 15:07, 16 September / "They simply cannot edit neutrally in this area". PaleCloudedWhite 09:54, 19 September.

    I shouldn't have been astonished by JG66's refusal because on 14 September, I had told them that all those assessments had been written around 2015, after taking "well maintained" GAs articles such as Homogenic and Dig Me out as instances. I'm still wondering why after learning those two cases, JG66 has still not yet rushed to Homogenic and Dig Me Out albums articles to add {cn} with comments like this in the summaries "Oh Boy" for the Ga Reviewer of Homogenic, or other choice, this patronizing comment "it is a fan-fest".

    Now, how is wikipedia going to handle those "examples of violation" of POV editing with "insertion of overly laudatory language" at Featured articles such as [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] and on... a total of 21 FAs albums, I mentioned them two days ago but no one seems to care as they were not written by Carliertwo.

    When at the very end of a long discussion due to "a minor editorial dispute" as SilkTork said, you wonder why it has lasted so long, a new line arrives out of the blue. "WP:NOTGETTINGIT – "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines", and they had this reply from an administrator "I think we are not that far apart in our views on this issue, JG66"; you have an answer. And they had written earlier "No editor has an "agenda". Wikipedia asks us to assume good faith; it may be difficult to assume from certain people.

    Cullen had asked me to stop editing here on sunday. I did it immediately and followed their advice and I removed a request. Today I had to reply to SilkTork because he pinged me and took time to write his view. I thank him a lot. Carliertwo (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that Carliertwo's repeated misrepresentation of other editors - characterising them as 'having agendas' etc. - also needs addressing. In my first post in this thread - which I made because I was pinged - I said (in response to GiantSnowman's suggestion of a topic ban), "I do not know if a topic ban is the best option. It seems a shame", and then Carliertwo responds to this by going to your talkpage and saying, "user PaleCloudedWhite is back and they suggest a topic ban, it is not said as such but their call is obvious". This kind of misrepresentation - which I believe they do to drum up sympathy from other editors - is extremely aggravating. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PaleCloudedWhite, may I suggest you read this Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Carliertwo (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Had Carliertwo wanted "to get "sympathy" from previous fellow editors of 2017, Carliertwo would have directly pinged them from day one from this AN to take part at this present discussion. And so from day one, all the other users of this thread would have read this SilkTork comment: Taking a minor editorial dispute to AN or ANI is too strong. The tone in many posts from certain users would have been different. Carliertwo (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • PaleCloudedWhite, you make a good point, so I will also discuss with Carliertwo the harm that can arise from casting aspersions and assuming bad faith, and the benefits of remaining calm and neutral in any incident. I want to make clear, though, that I am not taking on a mentoring role. I will give Carliertwo some assistance in clearing up the Banshees' albums, and pass on some advice in how to avoid conflict in editing and in relationships with fellow editors, and then I will leave Carliertwo alone. If they inappropriately revert, insert obvious unsourced puffery, or attack other users in future, and are legitimately brought to AN/I I will support a sanction. SilkTork (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban review

    There is general consensus among various noticeboards regarding reliability of certain sources on Kamrupi language.

    1. Removal_of_reliable_sources
    2. Kamrupi_Prakrit_and_Kamrupi_dialect

    As a sole editor involved in creation and maintenance of Kamrupi and Kamrup articles, i used them. Surprisingly inclusion of above sources led to topic_ban on Kamrupi/Assamese language topics.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 06:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bhaskarbhagawati, please provide a link to the actual topic ban notification, take a moment to explain what has happened and clarify if, by "surprisingly", you mean that the topic ban has never been warranted in the first place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is when the ban was imposed by EdJohnston. Number 57 19:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Bhaskarbhagawati is referring to a topic ban I imposed under WP:AC/DS in January 2020 from the languages of Assam, under WP:ARBIPA. Full background can be seen at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 47#Appeal for roll-backing ban. (This was a thread from last January in which I declined to lift their ban). If Bhaskar wants to appeal their ban now, I recommend that they use the appeal steps per WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals. The instructions are given at the top of the WP:AE noticeboard. Back in January, my comment on Bhaskar's request was:
    This dispute has been running for a long time (said to be eight years) and it seems to be a one-against-many situation where your side lacks support from others. As was stated by User:Aeusoes1 in the 2019 ANI report, "Opposition to this has been near-universal (the only other editor to agree with him has been permanently banned).."
    The effort to take the issue to WP:DRN in June 2019 was not successful in ending the dispute. Bhaskar appeared to accept the result, but in fact he did not do so. The DRN got up to twenty-five cycles of comment by the moderator!. The AN3 report from this January includes links to many of the past discussions (see User:Chaipau's comment). Over the last 8 years, Bhaskarbagawati has been afforded plenty of chances to air his viewpoints (on article talk pages, at RSN, at DRN, and on admin boards), but it seems, will never rest until his POV has been inserted into Wikipedia's articles on the languages of Assam. Based on the confidence he expresses at the top of this thread that consensus supports him, it's unlikely that lifting the ban on User:Bhaskarbhagawati would have a good result. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bhaskarbhagawati continues to maintain his position; and he continues to maintain that his position has consensus as evidenced from the top of this thread, as well as the sign-off message at the end of the previous roll-back request [36]. He continues to not hear (WP:IDHT) what the community is saying. Chaipau (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In my defence, i have long enough experience as editor, i am never been banned or blocked for acting against consensus or for anything else. Although there is general academic_consensus on topic, i accepted the consensus reached here wholeheartedly showing good faith. But if i am not wrong, i have right to implement consensuses fully. In addition, all discussions on the topic are initiated by me to amicably settle the dispute which can acceptable to all. Proposal to insert said sources is accepted in all forums.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 17:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Article that looks like WP in a TV series episode

    In Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir, season 2, episode 4, Adrien Agreste holds a phone whose content resembles a Wikipedia article, with title "Tsurugi (athlete)" and a typical infobox at the right. The subject is fictional (Kagami Tsurugi is a character in the series, and I cannot find that title on the French or English wikipedias), but it was shown very fast and I could not check whether the text is copied verbatim from a random article. I thought you would want to know. Moreover, is Wikipedia's graphical appearance copyrighted (fonts, infobox, whatever)? --62.98.117.187 (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, from a copyright standpoint, everyone on Wikipedia itself is under a Creative Commons license, and it can be re-used. From a "wiki" standpoint, same goes for the software and "look"; the code for an infobox can be copied and/or recreated by others.
    In other words, my guess is "no" to the question of whether they've done anything illegal or improper from a copyright standpoing. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is under CC BY-SA, but my question was due to the lack of attribution (BY clause) and to the episode not being under the same license (SA clause) --62.98.117.187 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's de minimis use. Perfectly fine legally. DrKay (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks --62.98.117.187 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Citation bot again

    TLDR: Citation bot is still making unauthorized edits, removing |url= from citation templates and thereby de-linking the citation titles. Examples: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] (these are just some; Citation bot is doing this at a rate of ~25+ times per day it seems to me... look at Citation Bot's contribs and search for "Removed URL" in the edit summaries to find all the instances). These edits do not appear to be authorized by any of the bot's authorizations. To the extent there was any doubt as to whether such de-linking of citation titles has consensus, that doubt was removed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 172#Issues raised by Citation bot, where it is apparent that there is no consensus to de-link citation titles, and no consensus to have |url= removed from citation templates by a bot.

    A brief history of the dispute

    The bot was previously blocked for this behavior by RexxS. It was unblocked on Aug 16 [42] by Salvio giuliano, with the unblock request noting bot changed to only remove URL if a PMC link will take its place. However, this statement does not seem to be accurate: the bot still removes URLs even where a PMC link does not take its place. (And the bot should no longer be removing URLs even if a PMC link does take its place, per the VPR RFC, which took place after the bot was unblocked.)

    On github, the line of code $this->forget($url_type); in template.php was commented out (i.e. changed to // $this->forget($url_type);) in August just before the bot was unblocked. It seems this is the fix for stopping the bot from removing the URL. However, this was only done for the s2cid identifier, and not for any other identifiers. I believe it should be done for all identifiers (i.e., stop the bot from removing |url= by commenting out every instance of $this->forget($url_type); in template.php at github, thereby applying to all identifiers). I count 40 such instances total, though there aren't that many identifiers. However I don't have the access to do this myself and I'm not sure if it'll work, I'm just guessing here. (Plus I have no experience running WP bots or writing editing scripts, so I'm really not the best person to do this.)

    This has been raised many times over the past year. Some examples: User talk:Citation bot/Archive 19#Removes URL for IUCN Red List (Nov 2019), User talk:Citation bot/Archive 20#URL removal that duplicates DOI (March 2020), User talk:Citation bot/Archive 20#Citation bot removed a valid URL that was a preview (viewport) from WorldCat when an OCLC # was displayed (April 2020), and User talk:Citation bot/Archive 22#June 2020 (which has the most-recent block and unblock). This has been previously raised at BOTN (Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Citation bot), and at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1033#AManWithNoPlan and Citation bot in March, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039#Block review of AManWithNoPlan in June, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Citation bot in August).

    At the recent UTP discussion this month (User talk:Citation bot#Still removing "duplicate" URL), AManWithNoPlan's final comment was Those are all within the existing authorizations and RFPs and agreements. I have no idea what RFPs and agreements he's referring to, but these edits are not authorized, and should stop. Given that the one person who has the power to do it (AMWNP, as the bot's operator, Smith609, is apparently not currently active) refuses to do it, I don't see a way forward other than blocking the bot until it can be forked and fixed. Lev!vich 16:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    These edits indeed have approval. They remove URLs pointing to identifiers that don't link to free full versions (like OCLCs and PMIDs), that are redundant (PMCs, DOIs with |doi-access=free, which autolink), or DOIs per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Citation bot 2. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We've thoroughly covered this ground before. At the bottom of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Citation bot 2, it says The bot must not remove or alter an existing URL. and The bot replaces "url=http://dx.doi.org/#" with "doi=#" - I think this was the one URL manipulation deemed okay. That was referring to a 2008 AN thread about this exact issue: removing existing URLs from citation templates, discussed in the section Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DOI bot 2#Proposal from Wikipedia:AN. Task #2 seems to very clearly approve this only for The bot replaces "url=http://dx.doi.org/#" with "doi=#".
    We (you and I, Headbomb) have discussed this exact thing at length in previous reports. As a result of that very discussion, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 172#Issues raised by Citation bot was launched, wherein it's clear that there isn't even consensus anymore for The bot replaces "url=http://dx.doi.org/#" with "doi=#", nevermind any other removals of URL.
    To summarize: Since 2008, there was only consensus for The bot replaces "url=http://dx.doi.org/#" with "doi=#". Since September 2020, there is not even consensus for that anymore. All the other stuff, such as the examples at the top of this thread, were never authorized. (Also, in every example above, there is no autolinking: the citation title actually gets de-linked. There are dozens of examples just like those from just the past few days, as the bot seems to do this for all identifiers, not just DOI.) Lev!vich 18:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Super-TLDR version - I know this can make people's eyes glaze over, let me boil it down to: This edit by Citation bot (and many more like it) does not have authorization, and is against consensus, as it de-links the title of a citation ("Machines of youth"). This has been discussed previously a lot, here are links to the most recent UTP, RFC, ANI, and BOTN. Lev!vich 18:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bot must not remove or alter an existing URL. was in the context of the bot making edits like this. That's what the bot wasn't supposed to touch back in 2008. Things have evolved since, and URL conversations similar to the DOI ones were always kosher. See also Template:Cite journal#Identifiers, which clearly states that URLs should not duplicate identifier parameters, mainly because they take the place of free full version links to point to databases entries. For S2CID, it only removes the url when it cannot confirm the copyright-compliant status of the s2cid link. OCLC and PMIDs cannot ever contain free full versions links, because that's not what these databases are for. For the others, were those free full version links? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The edit I'm highlighting removes a Worldcat link which was never authorized by any of the bot tasks. The recent RFC demonstrates there is no consensus for any bot to remove |url= from a citation template. Period/full stop. All this stuff you're bringing up is irrelevant and clouds the issue, which is: a bot does not have consensus to remove |url= from a citation template under any circumstance, as demonstrated by the RFC. That's it, no more, end of story. Lev!vich 18:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: not sure what I'm missing - when looking at the reference line both before and after the bot edit you mention, the same URL is presented to the reader. The only difference is that the reader isn't getting 2 identical copies of the URL on the same reference line. I can't see how this would hamper a reader from following up on the reference? That being said other then some sort of "overlinking" styling argument the bot edit didn't really improve anything so seems mostly pointless to me. Am I missing something that would impact how a reader could use the reference line? — xaosflux Talk 19:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux:
    • Before:
      Cross, Gary S. (2018). Machines of youth : America's car obsession. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. p. 155. ISBN 978-0-226-34164-4. OCLC 1004264026.
    • After:
      Cross, Gary S. (2018). Machines of youth : America's car obsession. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. p. 155. ISBN 978-0-226-34164-4. OCLC 1004264026.
    Removing |url= (diff) removed the hyperlink from the title, "Machines of youth : America's car obsession". As a result, in the "after" citation, the reader must choose whether to click on four possible links: "ISBN" is linked, the ISBN number itself is linked, "OCLC" is linked, and the OCLC number itself is linked. A reader who does not know what those mean will not know which one to click on to get to the source (or the closest we can get them to it). In the "before" link, the title was linked (to the OCLC entry), so the reader would know if they clicked on the title, they'd get to the source (or the closest thing to it, in this case, the OCLC entry). The choice of linking the title to the OCLC entry was (presumably) made by a human, and should not be over-ridden by a bot. Whether titles should be linked, and whether bots should remove the link, is what the recent RFC was about. This edit (and all the others like it) should not have been made, per that RFC. Lev!vich 20:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so as a causal reader - I'm not seeing a problem - I can still easily follow a link. That the acronyms for "OCLC" and "ISBN" are linked I think is ridiculous, but others think it is a good idea and isn't really what this post is about anyway. I'm not in the mood to go read another RfC right now - was primarily looking to see if actual reader-facing information was being completely lost, looks like it isn't. (That doesn't mean I think this was a "good edit" - just that I'm not really going to be outraged by it enough to follow up on this). Thanks for the reply, — xaosflux Talk 23:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, X. If you happen upon a more-outraged 'crat, if you could point them this way, I'd appreciate it. Lev!vich 23:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: right now this doesn't need a crat (as any short term fix would likely be "block" not "de-bot") - but with my admin hat on I think the concern is legitimate, but not so much where I was ready to jump on the block button, looks like discussion below is still moving along. — xaosflux Talk 15:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The choice of linking the title to the OCLC entry was (presumably) made by a human ... Maybe. Maybe not. The edit was made by a human who was aided by a machine. It is my understanding that visual editor populates |url= with the worldcat url automatically (T232771?) – pointless, because worldcat does not hold a free-to-read copy of that source.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    worldcat URLs dont link to the reference, but generally say "its at a library near you". its worse than an isbn. pmid, bibcode, etc also dont link to the source either. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is there is no authorization or consensus to remove the link; your personal opinion on the value of linking is irrelevant. (And I think an OCLC link is better than an ISBN link, but that's not relevant, either.) It seems to me you are refusing to remove this functionality because you, personally, favor de-linking titles. Lev!vich 19:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is both authorization (BRFA) and consensus for it (template doc) for it. This is not a new function, and has been in the bot since 2011. A worldcat link is not a link to a free full version of the book, and should not be present to mislead the reader into thinking there is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if someone with more time and knowledge than I have could collect up those many BRFA's and add them to the Bot's page. I guess no on ever expected 10 years later to have a request for it. Suddenly, my mom's record keeping seems like a stroke of wisdom. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They're already there? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please link specifically to the part of the BRFA where it approves these edits, because I dont see it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Citation bot 8 specifically discussed the matter of identifiers in general, see after "Likewise for URLs such as" the examples for bibcode, jstor, arxiv parameters. The trial edits included several examples of removal of duplicate URLs during the discussion, for instance for JSTOR, bibcode and ASIN. As noted, the function actually existed since at least 2010 and was explicitly documented since 2011, so it was taken for granted and approved of in the previous BRFA as well, otherwise someone would have raised it. Nemo 07:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've unarchived the VPP discussion back to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) #Issues raised by Citation bot and requested it be closed with a summary of the consensuses that developed there. I believe User:Citation bot is operating outside of its approval, against the consensus at VPP, and in breach of its unblocking conditions. Either it ceases to unlink citation titles or I will block it again. --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd loosely been following this. I'm reading through it now to see if I am an appropriate closer; if I am I will close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That closure is wrong. Link removal has consensus in general, there might be exceptions (like keeping links which may have free full versions of records), but there is longstanding consensus to remove links that do not link to such full free versions of record, and this RFC did not change that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The closure is right and there is no "longstanding consensus" to remove links. Link to the discussion if you claim otherwise. The only agreement was in a BRFA for Citation Bot to remove urls duplicating dois, and that is a local consensus which has no standing in comparison with a centralised consensus at VPP (which has site-wide authority). You had your chance to make your case for removing links that you deemed redundant and the community rejected your stance. Please don't consider editing against that consensus because admins will inevitably take that as disruptive, and I would not like to see you sanctioned over this minor issue. --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The community did not reject this. The community objected to a subset of the removals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The community very clearly rejected the removal of citation title links by a bot. That's the only issue here and you need to gracefully accept the community's decision. --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It did no such thing. It objected to a subset of those removals. Links that could contain free full version of records of sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the opposite of While some wished to do so only in certain circumstances (e.g. if there was a free version), there is consensus for including a link, when an online source is available, from the title text. Lev!vich 00:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a link: The identifier. URLs should be reserved for free full versions of texts. Not catalog entries. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence is there is consensus for including a link, when an online source is available, from the title text. One more time, key words: from the title text. So while some, such as yourself, HB, wished to do so only in certain circumstances (e.g. if there was a free version), there is consensus for including a link, when an online source is available, from the title text. The community declined to reserve URLs for free full versions of texts, and I agree that you should accept the community's decision. Lev!vich 01:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation bot has no faults here: it's been doing the same thing for ten years now with wide consensus and full authorization. If there was an increase in frequency of such edits it's only because the VisualEditor adds probably thousands of redundant URLs per day into citations without the users having asked for it (see T232771 already linked above). The recent discussions at the village pump only reinforced the consensus for Wikipedia:Citing sources and related pages where they state that the title of a citation should preferably link an open access full text, whether by a convenience link in the URL parameter or by other means, while adding other kinds of links is subject to conditions. Citation bot's edits to URL and identifier parameters do their best to enforce and apply the guideline; the occasional mistake has happened, but the productive way out is to point out specific examples of URLs that should have remained (and why), so that the code can be improved to increase its average utility to users. Asking users to manually perform hundreds of thousands of edits just to counter a VisualEditor bug, on the other hand, is just folly. Nemo 07:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked AManWithNoPlan if he would be kind enough to review the close of the VPP discussion and make any necessary changes to Citation Bot to ensure it complies. He thinks he will be able to do so probably today, so hopefully that will bring to an end this long-running saga for now, and Citation Bot can get back to doing all of the other jobs it does so successfully. --RexxS (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Apart from an update to the bot, there's also the documentation of cite/citation templates that needs updating, taking account of the RfC's close. I don't think such prospective documentation updates need to be discussed here, so I've opened Help talk:Citation Style 1#Guidance on title-linking: update after RfC for that purpose. Is there a reason to wait for a close of this AN thread (i.e. in order to avoid discussing the same thing in two places concurrently), or is the documentation update a sufficiently separated topic to go ahead with the necessary steps to accomplish that? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 engaging in disruptive edits

    User:Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 has been engaging in disruptive edits on the page Ek Duje Ke Vaaste 2. They started by adding lengthy, redundant, and grammatically unsound character descriptions. I have received a third opinion on this topic here: User talk:Revirvlkodlaku#Inconclusive_edits?. This was followed by further unnecessary and unexplained excisions within the article, which were replaced by, again, ungrammatical structures. This user seems resistant to admonishments, as seen on their talk page. werewolf (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I responded to the 3O request on Revirvlkodlaku's talk, and I must say I agree with much of what he says above. I wanted to add that Abhishek Kasaudhan 123's use of "unethical" was improper and inflammatory.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that "unethical" could have been the result of the editor's linguistic shortcomings, and was not necessarily intended to be inflammatory. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Revirvlkodlaku

    User:Revirvlkodlaku has been going against WP:TVPLOT and WP:TVCAST in the article of an Indian TV show, Ek Duje Ke Vaaste 2. They started by removing the important character description (both Main and recurring) from the article. When I added again the character description, then they removed the character description of only main cast, giving the excuse that the description was already mentioned in the "Plot" section. They say that character description has to made in "Plot" section and not in "Cast" section. Doing so, they are not following the WP:TVCAST, thus making the article not up to Wikipedia's standards. After that they engaged in an edit war with me and kept reverting my edits. After that they claimed a 3O here - User talk:Revirvlkodlaku#Inconclusive_edits?. After that, they also started a discussion in Administrator's noticeboard. They kept abusing me claiming my English to be not up to the par. They even made the "Plot" section too lengthy by adding extra unnecessary description of the character. When I removed it they call my edits "disruptive." Abhishek(talk), 21:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • This mainly appears to be a content dispute to me. A talk page thread was started by Abhishek kasuadhan 123 on talk page but after this report was filed.[43] This should be taken back to talk page and parties should try resolving the issues on article's talk page before coming here.

    ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]

    This isn't merely a content dispute. If you look at the article's history, you will see that I edited the synopsis in order to make it legible, as it was written quite poorly. Abhishek kasuadhan 123, clearly not a native English speaker, whose grasp of English grammar is subpar, edited the synopsis with poorly structured sentences and now reverts my edits whenever I try to correct the article. I would definitely call this disruptive editing. werewolf (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Chaipau

    The user named Chaipau is constantly removing sourced information from the "Rebellion" section of the page Chutia Kingdom, calling it irrelevant.([44]). On another previous occasion, he had tried to remove the section, stating that one of the sources is not reliable; when there were two other reliable sources available. Instead of simply removing the non-reliable source, he had tried to remove the entire section, just to push his own POV.([45]).

    Besides this, he also randomly throws terms like WP:SYNTHESIS([46]) and WP:PRIMARY([47]) without giving any explanation. He seems to exhibits signs of WP:OWN.

    Request the admins to restore the sections and take necessary actions on the user.223.176.7.51 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a WP:BE. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sairg). Chaipau (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    He has again removed another sourced part of the rebellion section, stating that it is irrelevant and requires translation([48]). The quote clearly has been used as a follow-up reference to the statement above(" After the fall of the Chutia kingdom, many princes fled to the interior hills and lived with hill tribes like Mishmis and Miris. The Darrang Raj Vanshawali records this event.") If the user is so concerned about translation, he should do it himself, rather than making constant disruptive edits. He prevents any user from improving the page. Request the admins to take strict action against this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.230.90 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If the article describes the state which ceased to exist in 1523, then the list of rebellions which starts in 1527 is indeed irrelevant. Given that there is massive sockpuppetry going on in the article, I am inclined to agree that the TS is likely a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion about Category:American white supremacist politicians

    There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Category:American_white_supremacist_politicians about the appropriateness of the category. As this issue is likely to have strong opinions on it, I thought advertising it here to get wider input might be useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrative backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback

    Can an admin take care of it? Thanks.--YerelDahi (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This kind of "give me a permission, and give it to me now" makes me want to deny the application. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No kidding; quick glance makes it look like they don't meet the reqs anyway. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully-protected and salted pages

    Mainly out of curiosity (because someone will know and reply faster than I can find it) do we have a database/set of pages that are fully-protected and salted? A minor part of this is also thinking about acceptable drafts that are held up by existing salts, with the possibility of maybe dropping those pages down to ECP to allow draft approval sans admin. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would guess that a query can take care of finding all full-protected non-existing pages. --Izno (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:ProtectedTitles displays fully salted drafts. Lev!vich 18:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sad that Draft:Shit was deleted. Lot of potential in that one. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 22:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can that be a redirect to 2020? RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's hope we will be able to confine it to a single year and it doesn't ultimately redirect to 2020s.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What have we become when the Category:Motherfuckers‏‎ has been fully protected from creation. A sad, sad day for society! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be willing to create or contribute to a mini-taskforce that would essentially just go through the entire list of salted articles and find which ones should be opened up for redirects. From a cursory glance it seems that a lot of them are obvious non-articles. My only concern is that once we would have a tentative list, there would be no mechanism for reviewing them and generating community consensus on this might be difficult. Acebulf (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That's great, thanks. I think the two main things that should be checked are a) could it be a redirect (in which case... make it?) or b) is there a draft with the same name (in which case, drop to ECP). Primefac (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This may be an insane idea... but why not drop to ECP anything that has 'G11'/'A7' in the deletion log? All I checked fitting this description were salted for promo by barely autoconfirmed accounts, so ECP seems appropriate. That alone would drop the numbers quite a lot and make easier to review the G3 "vandalism" cases? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I have looked it over and Marikina Church should redirect to Our Lady of the Abandoned Parish Church (Marikina), and it seems that it did before the article was deleted in 2007? I'm not sure why this is. A lot of these articles don't make sense as to why they are protected. Acebulf (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the last time someone tried mass-unprotecting salted pages was in late 2011. That was more indiscriminate than what's proposed here, but it ended really badly, and most of the reasons why are still relevant today. —Cryptic 01:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      At a very quick skim, some of it seems indiscriminate and without very clear consensus. Also, ECP didn't exist then. I think with consensus it wouldn't be improper at all to unprotect these. Plus if it's targeted I think it'd be smoother, e.g. lowering G7/A7s using a bot as above seems safe; probably < 0.1% of the G7/A7 titles should be sysop create protected. That discussion includes unprotection of ones with deletion reason of "harassment" etc, which is of course not a good idea to do indiscriminately. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you opened up a lot of those salted articles as redirects you'd have to fully protect the redirects anyway, so given that most of them are semantic issues (Turd burglar vs Turd Burglars, which a search would find anyway, and the target article is utterly irrelevant to the meaning in British English as well) I'm not entirely sure what you'd be gaining. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • They'd need to be fully protected if created? That would be odd, given that articles like Fuck, Cock, Cunt, which are only semi-protected. Titles like Fucking (a dab page) and Sucking off (a redirect) have never been protected. If titles like Turd burglar were to be fully protected, then that would be a significant departure from current practice. Yes, it is true that without some of those redirects readers will be able to get to the targets using the search engine, but that's not the case for all of them, and it's beside the point. All of the redirects I've listed above are appropriate as redirects, if requested at AfC/R they'd be created, if nominated for deletion at RfD they'd be snow kept, if they were to get created now they wouldn't be protected, and if they got vandalised they'd be only temporarily semi-protected. You see no discrepancy there? – Uanfala (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm not seeing anything hugely necessary in the examples quoted so far... Turd burglar and T.B.J could possibly be redirects, but we don't usually provide such a thing from every possible punctuation and capitalisation/grammar variant. I'd have thought a mass exercise in unsalting would be more hassle than any benefit it would gain, and could well cause problematic edits to return in the future.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      a mass exercise in unsalting... Even for drafts? I came at this question from the perspective of allowing AFC reviewers to accept salted drafts, which not only saves time on the reviewers side, it also avoids the possibility that the G6'd page will be overwritten in between deletion by the admin and acceptance by the reviewer. Primefac (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been looking into narrowing the list of articles in the mainspace that are salted for reviewal purposes. I am down to 32k from 41k, and am hopeful that I will be able to reduce it to 25k without even looking at any of them. I've tried posting a list on my userspace, but have triggered the BLP filter so many times, I think I might get blocked if I keep going. The spam filter too, but that one is at least helpful enough to tell you which items to remove, lol. Acebulf (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      To the points above. As I've been looking at the list getting progressively smaller and smaller, I don't think there would be a problem with moving older stuff to extended confirmed protection. A lot of the permanently salted articles are queries like "How to make an article", that could perhaps be better served by protected cross-namespace redirects. The biggest problem, however, is that it really looks like the tool was used quite strongly in the early days. Some of the banned articles were salted because of edit wars, or banned accounts recreating deleted stuff. For example Admiral of the Fleet of the Russian Federation‏‎ should be a redirect to Admiral of the Fleet (Russia). What happened for that one is that the article was AFDed, and a user kept recreating it. Ergo, it has sat salted since 2008. A lot of high schools were salted on (seemingly) notability grounds before the current policy of allowing schools was born. The vast majority of the articles are nonsense, but there are some in there that definitely need some review, and currently there isn't a consensus process in place to do that. (other than RPP) Acebulf (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      And a further result is that sometimes articles would get created at sub-optimal titles. For example, Akshay (given name), a long index article created in 2015 and currently more or less lost down the avalanche of search results for anyone looking for it, is at this unnecessarily disambiguated title because Akshay was salted in 2008. – Uanfala (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Moves to such titles are handled at WP:RM#TR all the time. Even in cases where it turns out the "new" article is a recreation of the salted one, moving it to the original title tends to alert the protecting admin if they're still around, and in any case leaves us in no worse position than we were before the move. I've moved Akshay. (And I'll see about building a query to find similarly-dismabiguated cases.) —Cryptic 01:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair, I think a lot of these venues are daunting, especially to new or casual editors, and really just not worth the effort for many. If we're requiring someone to show up at a venue to get something done, and showing error messages when they try to do it themselves, it's pretty likely it won't get done at all (e.g. the case of Akshay until today). That they can request it be done isn't really a good reason to keep protections which shouldn't exist. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Generouswriter

    I don't know why, but my gut is telling me this might be one of those payed-for editors to create listing for some company called Existing Conditions. Govvy (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is Generouswriter. I am still learning how to use Wikipedia properly, so apologies in advance if this is replied to incorrectly! I am not a paid editor. I am transparent in my affiliation to the company, Existing Conditions. But I am striving to be as objective and professional as possible. I am still working on the article, but of course will reach out for further objective feedback as the project progresses. Generouswriter (talk)

    Hello Generouswriter. Since you say that you are transparent, then please explain the nature of your affiliation with Existing Conditions, and how it does not rise to the level of a paid editing relationship. In brief, if you have any financially beneficial affiliation with the company, then you are a paid editor. Here is what it looks like to me. You set up an account and made your ten routine edits to get autoconfirmed, gaining the power to directly create encyclopedia articles. Your eleventh edit created your user page. You then immediately set out to create an article about this company. Your article was completely unreferenced and therefore violated Wikipedia's core content policy of Verifiability which says "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." We do this by summarizing what reliable sources independent of the topic have to say about the topic, and we provide references to those reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) describes the basic standards required for an article about a company. The bottom line is that you quickly got yourself qualified and added a completely unacceptable article to the encyclopedia. Clarify your relation to this company, read and study Your first article and use the Articles for Creation process in the future, so that experienced editors can review and approve your article creations before they are added to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination

    At whatever timescale is seen fit, could we have a group of admins to close this debate? I think a group would help. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 23:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't see why it should be a group close; consensus on the issue seems clear. And even if it wasn't, one competent admin seems sufficient for that particular deletion. Though, the community may want to discuss the underlying issues raised. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Probably just worried. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 01:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the sensitivity of the subject and the rather one sided nature of the nominations I think this needs to be allowed to run its course for the full seven days. We may need to have a broader discussion within the community about where we draw the line with userboxes that promote or advocate for one side or another in hot button subjects of social/political debate. Depending on how this is closed I may open that discussion at the Village Pump. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad Orientem, I agree. Things like User:Charlie Smith FDTB/Userboxes/bluelives✔ seem like a bad idea to me. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor point, but wouldn't that name run afoul of some sort of naming convention? Other than copy/paste I have no idea how I'd add that to a page. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MR close

    I closed the move review for Parasite at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September. Since this is my first use of the move review close process as documented, I'd be grateful if someone could look and make sure I did things correctly. Thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've fixed your title as you closed a move review, not a requested move. This closure however is a clear vote count that goes against the 2019 RFC that explicitly allows for PDABS in certain circumstances. As I said in the move review, most of the Opposers in the RM were re-litigating that RFC instead of arguing why the standard hadn't been met in this case, and thus the RM closer was correct to give them little to no weight. Iffy★Chat -- 08:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Moved my earlier comment at JzG's talk): Not that the underlying matter is gravely important (really, who gives a fuck whether a disambiguator contains a year?), but I think that it's ironical to close a complex, divided, 20-participants Move Review discussion with a supervote of your own. FWIW, the headcount in that MR was 12:9 for overturning by my count, making it dangerously close to "no consensus". I don't think that anyone in that MR was re-litigating the RM, on the contrary, it was all about merits of policy vs. practice, and principles of NOTAVOTE. I'm not really requesting that you reverse that close, but I find it... lacking. No such user (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No such user, so you want me to expand on my reasoning. Happy to do that. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: you used an uppercase for Result meaning the template didn't work [49], I've fixed it for you [50]. You may want to check either a preview or the final save to ensure it produces the desired result to reduce the risk of such errors. BTW, are move reviewers supposed to modify the close in any way when overturning and not relisting? The text of Wikipedia:Move review#Closing reviews doesn't seem to mention anything. But the table does say "close RM" for cases when the page wasn't originally moved (which doesn't apply here) although in such cases the RM was already closed albeit incorrectly. It doesn't say that for cases like this where the page was originally moved but it's also seems a bit ambigious since it's partly referring to cases when you relist. I had a look and found this no consensus overturned to moved where the closer only noted the result in the template (and carried out the necessary moves) and this move overturned to not moved where the closer did amend the close to note the change. Which is sort of the opposite of the table. The second one was highly contentious so that could be one reason. The MR does provide the rationale so maybe it's not considered necessary to amend the move? But at a minimum, I think it may be helpful to note what overturn means in the template i.e. overturn to not moved/moved. P.S. I haven't notified either of the other MR closers since this isn't about them and I'm not suggesting they did anything wrong. If people do start to discuss such things please notify them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne, Thanks - I did wonder why it didn't change visually. I honestly don't know about the original close - the instructions only mention adding a parameter, not amending the close. The instructions also don't mention courtesy-notifying the original closer of the MR close, which I did anyway. I feel bad for Sceptre as this was a valiant effort. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppose I'd better put my two-penneth in: I don't begrudge Guy for making the close at all; as long as you're taking the mission seriously, I've always found him to be one of fairest admins on the encyclopedia (sure, he's abrasive at times, but don't confuse not suffering bullshit with bad behaviour). I think that his closure of the move review is fine, and whilst I still maintain my closure was correct, I also accept that, at least, there wasn't a consensus to endorse; it's not like the other controversial MR close of a move I made, because I can tell Guy has the humility to admit he's new to the process. That said, I hope he won't mind me slightly refactoring the close template so the longer rationale is above the hide button, as we normally do for contentious MRs. Sceptre (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Sceptre, please feel free. And no disrespect at all to you, this is certainly not an indefensible close. I feel bad about it, and I hope you are not offended. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The MR was closed too soon. While MRs with a clear consensus can be closed after one week, most remain open much longer. The August ones, for example, were all open 3-5 weeks each. This one in particular was still very active and evolving when it was abruptly closed after the bare technical minimum of a week. One editor weighed in just nine minutes before it was abruptly closed. Knowing how long MRs stay open I usually only check MR once or twice a month, so I, for one, didn’t even get a chance to participate in this one at all. I suggest the community would be best served by reverting the premature close of this MR and letting nature take its course. —-В²C ☎ 13:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Born2cycle, it was closed after a week. Per the guidance. I would remind you that the status quo ante is not the move but the previous title. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The written guideline is one thing, which, btw, says at least seven days, reflecting the fact that MRs often are open much longer, especially when consensus is not clear after only seven days. I’m pointing out the unwritten conventions to usually allow much more than the minimum seven days before closing, conventions that have been followed for years at MR. I can’t recall a close/active MR ever being closed so abruptly, so it’s likely to rarely be an issue, hence no need to clarify actual convention in the guideline any further. Until now, apparently. But it really shouldn’t be necessary since you can revert your premature close. Thanks. —-В²C ☎ 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Born2cycle, at least a week, and a close against overwhelming numbers. Reverting to status quo ante seems reasonable to me. As to what next, see below. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether that particular close “against overwhelming numbers” needed to be reverted to status quo ante was of course the topic of the discussion (and not for you to decide in a super vote close of the MR) which you closed abruptly and prematurely, before consensus could develop on that question either way. Please revert your close and let it progress where it’s supposed to continue, at MR, not in some obscure subsection of this AN. —В²C ☎ 16:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I see both the RM and the MR as a local-consensus-v-global-consensus issue. In the RM, local consensus to not have pdabs cannot override the global consensus that pdabs are OK. Thus, Sceptre's discounting of !votes that did not apply global consensus was proper. Similarly in the MR, many people said it was a supervote based on the numbers, but global consensus is that we don't count heads. The close of the MR should have discounted overturn votes based on numbers. Also, I think involved/uninvolved !votes should have been taken into account. Given that the consensus at the time of close wasn't overwhelmingly clear and it had been open a week, probably the easiest/best solution is to reopen the MR and let more people !vote in it; give it 2-4 weeks total or until participation dries up. Lev!vich 06:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    On the underlying issue...

    The original RM is unfinished business. Experience indicates that move requests rarely go away, and IMO Sceptre may well have been right on the merits. I'd like to suggest we reset the RM to "closing" and invite Sceptre to lead a panel close, to remove any appearance of supervoting. Does that seem equitable? Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: Good idea. Overturning this close does not mean that the Sceptre's result when applied to the RM itself was wrong. The arguments in favour of moving do appear stronger, and opposition is mainly from those who don't believe in partial disambiguation under any circumstances, despite the fact that the community has repeatedly said it's OK on occasion.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru, Yes. I focus here also on a specific comment from the MR: "The conflicting guidelines and intrinsic subjectivity of what constitutes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC". I think that is correct, and the lack of any single objective standard clouds the issue here. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru, the policy page at WP:PRECISION shows examples of Wikipedia projects setting naming conventions to follow. Leeds North West and M-185 are primary topics yet have parenthetical disambiguation per the related naming conventions. Since these exist through an endorsement of policy, the general guideline of WP:DAB cannot be applied to strip these of their parenthetical disambiguation. In the same vein, WP:INCDAB is part of WP:DAB and cannot be applied to override naming conventions for films. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Erik: - thanks for your reply, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. WikiProjects and their regular contributors do not have a privileged status when it comes to determining article titles, and furthermore a particular naming convention guideline is only useful as long as it is supported by arguments made in RMs and Wikipedia's overarching policies. And the community decided through a sitewide RFC that primary topic has higher priority than INCDAB, in this RFC (albeit that the bar for determining such a PTOPIC is higher than it usually would be). There is no special carve-out for films, which means we are allowed to use the name Thriller (album) but not allowed to use the name Parasite (film). The Leeds North West example isn't really the same as this one, because it wouldn't be obvious to a casual observer what "Leeds North West" referred to - it might just be an area of the city. Whereas "Parasite (film)" would overwhelmingly refer to just one topic as primary. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that they are not the same thing, but they are similar. Policy at WP:PRECISION is indisputable that there can be "exceptions... by Wikipedia projects". If these are exceptions for UK Parliament constituencies and highways as examples, then such exceptions are not limited to these instances. The casual-observer argument cannot apply because these are not particularly special sets of topics than other ones on Wikipedia. At this time, we are not an encyclopedia that disambiguates every title to make sure even casual observers understand. Furthermore, even the "Leeds North West" example arguably has an overly detailed parenthetical disambiguation term where it could easily be Leeds North West (constituency). If policy has tolerance for this kind of lengthy detail for this specific subject matter, then disambiguating by release year is relatively minimalist. Furthermore, release years are key grounding details throughout film resources, databases, and articles. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is conflating WP:PRECISION with the following subsection, WP:ATDAB. PRECISION allows for exceptions to the general naming conventions, such as for settlements in the U.S., for parliamentary constituencies or for highways. But Bothell, Leeds North West and M-185 are all WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs; the parenthetical is not for dab purposes. WP:ATDAB (which references WP:D, which includes WP:INCDAB) governs disambiguation and cannot be overruled by incompatible narrower guidelines. Station1 (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're rolling things back, the RM should be opened for a time for further comments. The interpretation of the new guidance in INCDAB is an area where consensus is still evolving, and its clear that the issues on which the move will be decided did not get an airing in the move discussion.--Trystan (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve been asking Guy to revert or reverse the MR, but I don’t think reopening the RM is appropriate or would be useful at this point. No one in the MR even suggested that, which I think is telling. It’s the MR that was closed abruptly and prematurely, not the RM. —В²C ☎ 20:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Today's AfD page

    Hi. Something odd is going on with today's AfDs. They're grouped together by topic area, rather than just a list of oldest to newest. I thought it was a mis-placed AfD template on that page, but that hasn't fixed it. Any clues? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    These are two separate issues. I fixed the template, but the transclusion problem comes from several edits like this which I unfortunately do not have time to fix now (and will not have time for at least three more hours). I hope it would be useful for whoever takes this up.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Ymblanter. I thought it would be some weird transclusion issue. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is/was Cyberbot I transcluding delsort pages? – Joe (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed 3 transclusions. Let's ping cyberpower678 and ask... Cabayi (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice one - that has fixed the problem. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it has something to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OK Chlöe, based off the pages it keeps transcluding. It looks like Bennyaha created that nomination incorrectly, so some things were thrown off, most notably the categories on the page. I think I've got it taken care of? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Amorymeltzer, Thank you for figuring it out while I was doing my beauty sleep. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration motion regarding Abortion

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    The one-revert restriction on all articles related to abortion, authorized by the community here and modified by the Arbitration Committee in the Abortion arbitration case, is formally taken over by the committee and vacated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized for all pages related to abortion, broadly construed.

    For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Abortion

    Request to delete User:Gioguch/sandbox/ccs.js

    I request to delete User:Gioguch/sandbox/ccs.js. I cannot place {{db-self}} on the page, it is not in wikitext. Please delete it for me. Gioguch (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. For the record, it does show up as a template being deleted, just not on the page itself. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gioguch, you can still use {{db-self}}. If you place it on a CSS, Lua or JS page, it'll be added to the same category and processed in the same way as any other page, except the template won't be displayed and only the text will. Hope this helps in future :) Ed talk! 18:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass edits by user: AndriiDr

    I was just gnoming about and noticed a few edits pop up from the user, who was altering the English spelling of "Kiev" (the city in Ukraine) to the Cyrillic-phonetic of 'Kyiv.' Upon further investigation, these 200+ edits look like bot edits, as indicated by the user's contributions on 22 September alone. Apparently Discospinster tried to address this on the user's page(1), and the user acknowledged (2), but has failed to undo themselves.
    I don't know how to undo mass bot edits, except one by one; I am presuming there is a better tool to accomplish this? Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (notification provided to AndriiDr here)
    It was decided that it is possible to use Kyiv in modern context, and the article was renamed.(1) But Jack Sebastian revert my change, which is correct, in my opinion. (2) Сan you explain me what's wrong with this cite wich you cancelled; to gov.ua, where it written Kyiv, not Kiev, please? You can switch the language of the website in the upper right corner. I make all my changes by hands, not by a software. Sorry for my google translate. --AndriiDr (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to re-address the nearly 300 edits made every few minutes over the course of 9 hours; that's for someone more familiar with these sorts fo things to sport out. Kyiv is the Cyrillic spelling for the far more common "Kiev". I think that this sort of wholesale editing (be it bot or user initiated) seems inappropriate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Both spellings are romanizations of Cyrillic. The spelling Kiev is Russian. The spelling Kyiv is Ukrainian. The city is in Eastern Europe, and any dispute over the spelling is subject to ARBEE. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the matter is settled. In this [51] edit most of the changes in the lead were quite inappropriate as the replaced names fit the ones the cities had in the 1930s.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is questionable as well and likely will be reverted after the current discussion have been completed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Kiev/Kyiv issue is a matter of spelling, not a name change like Burma/Myanmar or St. Petersburg/Leningrad/St. Petersburg. The difference is that the name change has historical significance. A spelling change... not so much. In other words if Ivan Doe was born in Kiev in 2010 or 1910 I don’t think it’s a problem to say he was born in Kyiv. It’s the same name of the same city, just spelled differently. —В²C ☎ 00:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It does matter. It is a spelling difference that has to do with two countries with two related East Slavic languages that are at war. And in Kyiv, the accepted romanization is Kyiv. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a discussion currently about it at Talk:Kyiv#Related articles--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me add that AndriiDr (talk · contribs) keeps making these changes, blatantly ignoring this thread.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As well as administrator Mzajac and probably a few more users. Their defense line is that since the article has been moved all instances of the name of the city and the derivatives everywhere in Wikipedia must be replaced as a result of RM.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Had the RM taken into consideration all the questions that were raised here and at Talk:Kyiv#Related articles?--Jetstreamer Talk 00:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, no, it had not, it was only discussing the current name of the city and has not even mentioned historical context (other than the fact that Kiev was earlier userd more often than Kyiv). However, there is a fraction of users who read the RM as a blanket permission to move all instances, in titles and bodies of the articles, where the city is mentioned.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom 2020 election RfC

    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020 will close in a few days. One proposal that might pass is to require a minimum of 15 supports for a proposal to pass, but there are several proposals mutually exclusive proposals that have not had that level of engagement (i.e. "Do X" and "Do not do X" both have fewer than 15 supports). To avoid any complications from this it would be very useful if more editors could express their opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Q

    Can one of you look at my block log, and identify whose socks I've been blocking? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock request from LoganBlade

    Declined per WP:SNOW, and this is also now a checkuser block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Preamble LoganBlade was blocked for two weeks by Gadfium for edit warring and removing an RfD tag. (She had had earlier, short-term blocks for edit warring that had expired.) She then vented her frustration at her situation by adding (understatement of the century) unfortunate, poorly chosen, and regrettable imagery and personal attacks to her unblock request and talk page. (Not adding the dif's. It's stipulated in her unblock request. Really, that content should be revdel'd.) She now acknowledges these poor choices and regrets them. Yamla reverted those edits, and extended the block to indefinite, and removed talk page access. She made an unblock request at UTRS that was sufficient to restore talk page access for her to appeal her block at WP:AN.

    • Copied from her talk page--

      I got into an edit war over a redirect page being frozen over a misunderstanding which lead to me being banned for 2 weeks. I then used NSFW images from commons to insult the administrator which lead to me being banned under WP:NOTHERE. Instead of edit warring, if a situation like this happened again I would initiate a discussion on the talk page to allow the other user to tell me that someone creating an AFD means the redirect gets frozen. I would not insult my fellow users again. Blade (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

      --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note the original request before Deepfriedokra's coaching:

      I was banned for 2 weeks because I didn't know an AFD request freezed the redirect so another edited decided to edit war instead of informing me that AFD meant the redirect was frozen. So when I got banned for 2 weeks I thought I would be in compliance with the NSFW policy when I filled up my page with NSFW pictures. As far as I was aware I had carpe blanch on my talk page. I was blocked under WP:NOTHERE. I think I am here to build an encyclopedia. You can see my track record by having a glance around my contributions history and I ask you to do this before declining the unblock request. If I was just here to troll I would have probably left a long time ago. I am indeed here to build an encyclopedia. I understand and acknowledge it was totally unacceptable. With my limited knowledge of the NSFW policy, I believed it to be allowed. The context was a ban which I thought was unfair and could have been solved by telling me that someone starting an AFD discussion meant that the redirect got frozen. The root cause was to insult the administrator I thought was incompetent and assumed I was familiar with the many rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Moving forward I will 1.) Read up on the rules. 2). Not look for loopholes to insult my fellow users. 3). Not edit war and start a dialogue before it escalates. I understand the zero-tolerance policy now. I did not before. My only encounter with NSFW rules on Wikipedia before that was that they were allowed. I had never had an encounter with the rules around using inappropriate imagery as an attack so I just assumed with my knowledge of that combined with what I knew about what I can do to my user page and took it to mean there were no rules around it. I should have used my common sense but I was frustrated with that administrator. And hey. You can always reblock me again. Thanks for taking the time to read this and help me get back to editing. Blade (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

      Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block I placed on LoganBlade would have expired by now. While she did react strongly on her talk page to the block, we are generally understanding of such initial reactions. I'm happy for the indefinite block to be lifted at this point.-gadfium 09:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (weakly). It was not just NSFW imagery, there was also the matter of changing someone's signature from their name to "BumBoy". Admittedly, that was the least of the offensive behaviour from this user, but I simply don't see a sufficient accounting of any of this. It's borderline-homophobic hatred and has no place here. Fundamentally, LoganBlade's approach to Wikipedia appears incompatible with a collaborative environment. Note, though, that my oppose is weakly held. If other people believe it's worth unblocking to extend WP:ROPE, I'm fine with that. Easy enough to monitor the user and immediately reblock at the slightest sign of problems. --Yamla (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. That was probably the worst reaction to a justified block I've ever seen. Admittedly if Gadfium is happy with the unblock that does bear significant weight factoring he was the target, but as far as I'm concerned their (over)reaction is a clear indication the user does not have the correct temperament for the project. Glen (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I find it a problem that Deepfriedokra coached the editor on what to say in their unblock request: [52]. --Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Softlavender, I don't think this is a problem - admins regularly do that kind of thing all of the time. Often it's when they decline an unblock request (along the lines of "This request doesn't address the reason you were blocked - to be unblocked, you will need to blah blah blah..."). I don't see any problem in offering a blocked editor some advice on how they can make the best case possible - but in this case, I don't believe that Cicero, Shakespeare and Voltaire, all working together under Deepfriedokra's careful tutelage, could have crafted an unblock request I would be willing to accept. GirthSummit (blether) 14:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Meh, that's what I was thinking. If people could just read and understand WP:GAB, there'd be less blame-shifting and more cogent unblock requests-- or not. The striking difference is she did take in my feedback. Many do not after many declines. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose absolutely not. The original 2 week block for edit warring looks OK, the deleted history of Jesse Kempson shows clear edit warring and it came after several other blocks for edit warring. The user reacted to this block by posting a bunch of obscene images mocking the blocking admin, vandalising the block message and inserting a bunch of homophobic slurs. Unsurprisingly they lost talk page access. Then they posted an unblock request [53] in which they said they thought that this was an acceptable thing to do because users have some leeway on their talk page and because Wikipedia doesn't have a blanket ban on the use of explicit images. I don't see how any of that makes any difference at all, and it's not at all reasonable to expect to be allowed to do that sort of thing anywhere. When they were told that approach wasn't going to work they posted the above unblock request four hours later. I think it's pretty clear that they're just saying what they think they need to say to get unblocked and haven't had a genuine change of heart. Indefinite doesn't have to mean infinite but the user does need to remain blocked for some time and the burden is on them to show they can edit constructively before they get unblocked. Hut 8.5 12:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The user has been here just five months, managing to get three blocks in that time, before getting indef'd. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Absolutely not. That's about as clear cut as it can be of someone who isn't going to work collaboratively on the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose HeartGlow (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I made the mistake of looking at those talk page diffs. Nope. I'm also skeptical of the sincerity of this new request. DoubleCross (‡) 12:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. As several others have said above, absolutely not. A clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Posting a stream of grossly offensive homophobic images and slurs in response to a totally justified block (and not the first one either) and claiming as an excuse not knowing that doing so is not allowed. But apparently not seeing much wrong with posting a stream of grossly offensive homophobic images and slurs as such. Thanks, but no thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. When this user was blocked the first time, part of the issue was leaving an inappropriate image on my talk page to express her displeasure (diff). If my memory is correct the user was warned about doing that back then. --Equivamp - talk 13:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, timingwise, that raises the likelihood that this is, indeed, Skiyomi. If a checkuser should happen by . . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - sorry, no. I like to look for ways that even the most justifiably banned users might find a way back to the project, but a person who posted that level of homophobic garbage directed at another person without it ever seeming to occur to them that it was not the least bit acceptable, not just to have written it on this website but to have published it anywhere at any time, and then defended it in a series of unblock requests (UTRS appeal #34425, UTRS appeal #34534), ought not to have access to the internet at all, let alone edit this project. Goodbye. Frankly, I know Deepfriedokra's heart is in the right place, but it seems like a bad call to have tried to help this trashbag in the first place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In UTRS appeal #34534, the question was raised as to whether this was the banned user, Skiyomi. I don't see that this was ever answered. The NSFW imagery, along with the surprise at the "discovery" that people think this inappropriate, matches. However, Skiyomi has a rather specific porn fetish which isn't matched here. Still, I think it's worth checking if this is Skiyomi in another guise; if so, we can at least WP:SNOW-close. --Yamla (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I raised that concern, but the times don't match. Pattern does not fit. Would probably be worth a CU's time to nail down this detail. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you did flag one of the UTRS tickets for CU, but I can't tell if anything happened with it. The logs show that LoganBlade was checked back in June - the logs aren't very descriptive but no action was taken. Nonetheless, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LoganBlade. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There's nothing borderline about the homophobia evident in their response to their block. Venting, I'm fine with - if someone had said 'fuck all you fucking assholes' in a fit of pique, I'd be more than willing to look past it - but someone who chooses the use homophobic abuse, post obscene imagery and make childish attempts to humiliate other editors by speculating on their sexual proclivities and their genitals because they're pissed off? No, that is not somebody who is compatible with this project. GirthSummit (blether) 13:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any spare time they have in the next year or so needs to be focused on becoming a better human, not editing an encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not - Homophobic trolling bullshit has no place here and falls under WP:ZT to me. The whole "user page with pro-lgbtq pro-leftist userboxes but engaging in trolling crap" reminds me of a certain sockpuppeter. Deepfriedokra mentioned a possible CU, which I think would be worth running (based on the trolling behavior and similarities to known sockpuppeters) before even entertaining the idea of an unblock. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Questionable site

    I recently found a site called qwe.wiki. It is, effectively, wikipedia pages google translated from the english wikipedia page and copy-pasted into the site without any editing as far as i can tell. The site is also plastered with ads. Does wikipedia allow this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:73:12AF:1:2924:B0DD:4D48:C284 (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like it's already been reported at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/PQR#Qwe. It's also been reported to Google AdSense as well for possibly copyright violations. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This was previously "qwerty.wiki"; a normal Wikipedia mirror with the twist that they machine-translate, which usually makes a mess of things. Kuru (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=980283472"