Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

WP:ARBECR is the CTOP rule for certain topic areas such as Israel/Palestine that says (paraphrasing) "must have 500 edits to make edits on the talk page, with the exception of edit requests". Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus is currently on the front page, and its talk page is getting a lot of non-ECR edits.

• How strict should admins be in enforcing this? Should I be deleting sections such as Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#Addition of Indian reaction to incident, Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#Legality, Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#UK response to the attack could be added? Or does the community consider these to be poorly formed edit requests that are an exception to the rule?
• What about non-ECR editors opining on sections such as Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#Consulate NOT embassy in title?
• Also, what's the main idea behind this rule? Is it an anti-sockpuppet thing?
• Would EC-protecting the talk page make sense? For what duration? And it would need to be logged as a CTOP action, I presume?

Thanks for helping me admin better in this area. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In my experience it hasn't been enforced when new editors don't cause problems in ECR areas. Maybe the restriction exists as a pretext to revert edits that don't very closely align with guidelines, and to prevent SPA's in the area. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't comment on that, duh, but have an edit request:

Please move the talk page to Talk:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. To match the result of the move (I guess) at the top of the talk page.

Clicking 'article' from the talk page redirects and clicking 'talk' from the article redirects again, I'm surprised the edit request button in the article still works under these circumstances.

– 143.208.236.57 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Talk page moved to match the mainspace article name. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Convenience link -> Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_sanctions_upon_related_content

I'm interested in this question too. The following remedy seems clear.

• "Extended confirmed restriction – only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, with certain exceptions as provided below."

Non-EC editors can make edit requests. What I've observed, in practice, is that talk page comments that generally resemble an edit request with specificity will be treated as an edit request. Not sure how many non-EC editors actually notice or care about the instructions in the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} template. The EC restrictions are fairly strictly enforced for article content (unless it is something like a typo fix), mostly by editors rather than article protection (for reasons that have never been clear to me). Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

enforced ... mostly by editors rather than article protection (for reasons that have never been clear to me). Yeah, that doesn't seem ideal to me either. It's quite bitey to let someone make an edit then revert it, if we could instead just blue lock things. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. When I do it, I try to use an informative edit summary along the lines of

• "This is not an edit request. Editors must be extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except for making edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY."

But this kind of action is probably often interpreted as Wikipedia editors supporting Hamas barbarism/sadistic IDF war criminals etc. Non-EC editors who excitedly rush to truth-bomb the topic area can be a bit feisty. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Where talk pages are concerned I see it as a "helper" for implementing WP:NOTFORUM. If non-EC editors are making useful contributions on the talk page that actually helps improve the article, it would arguably be detrimental to clamp down on that, so IAR comes into play a bit there. But if there's loads of discussion and it's taking up lots of your time just to keep up with it, then the EC rule is a helpful way to limit the volume of discussion and hopefully keep it on topic. WaggersTALK 08:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR is perfectly clear and has been clarified at ARCA, edit requests only and nothing else. A new non EC editor should be given the usual notices as well when removing non-compliant edits so they know why it is being done. The edit request need not use the template but it needs to be clear that it is an edit request.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

How does one make it clear that it is an edit request without using the template? Do they have to suggest something in a "change X to Y" format? In your estimation, do any of the 4 sections I linked above qualify as edit requests? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the four sections you identify (note the page it now titled: Talk:Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus):

1. "Addition of Indian reaction to incident". This appears to be a good faith request to improve the article. One of three things should happen:
   • An ECR editor adds relevant content to the article
   • An ECR editor explains why the content shouldn't be added to the article. This could include it already being there, but should not be related to the non-ECR status of the requester
   • A request is made for the OP or someone else to suggest a specific wording to be added.
2. "Legality". This is unambiguously an edit request.
3. "UK response to the attack could be added" is the same as #1.
4. "Consulate NOT embassy in title". This is a move request rather than edit request (but we cannot expect non-editors to know the difference). It should have been answered in a much less bitey way, but saying "this needs discussion before being implemented" is correct.

So these are all good faith requests to make changes to the content of the article and so should be responded to as if they were made by ECR editors. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That was discussed at ARCA, the template is not strictly necessary and obviously there is some editorial discretion involved but personally, I would allow #1 (assuming that's an RS), remove #2 and #3 (with edit summary "not an edit request") and remove the opinions in discussion (or strike them if already replied to). Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"Consulate NOT embassy in title" looks like quite a good example of what often happens when the edit request only rule isn't followed. It can get a bit chaotic, especially if other non-EC editors join. One question is whether non-EC editors can participate in that kind of discussion. I think they should not for a variety of reasons, their involvement should be limited to their own edit request and necessary clarifications. This opinion at ANI might be of interest. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The two most important rules here are:

1. Any good-faith comment must be answered in a civil, non-BITEy way. Rejection is sometimes correct, but rudeness or even BITEyness isn't.
2. If it looks like a request, and accepting the request would invilve editing the article, it's an edit request. The templates help attract the desirable attention to it, but are not necessary for it to be a request.

Animal lover |666| 17:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your second point. I also agree with avoiding rudeness and biteyness, not because it is right, but because it has no utility and can be counterproductive. It is often the kind of response that ban evading/fire starter editors who exploit the naivety of the assume good faith policy (rather than assume nothing) in ARBPIA want. In Wikipedia's system, which prioritizes civility over unbiased editing and honesty, an impolite adversarial response provides leverage. There is, in my view, little to no evidentiary basis for people's confidence in their ability to distinguish between good faith actors and bad actors using deception to tunnel through the 500 edit barrier. Another important rule is that any lack of strictness in the enforcement of rules is, and will continue to be, efficiently and effectively exploited by bad actors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Tangent about creation of articles

I need some additional guidance in this area, so I'm piggy-backing here rather than opening a brand new thread. Daniel Case has been helping me. For background, please see User talk:Daniel Case#WP:PIA questions. In a nutshell, I want to know when administrators should delete a page falling under WP:PIA (apparently it's discretionary) and how the deletion should look. The specific page is Yossi Sariel, which was created by Welchshiva, whose account was created on December 9, 2023, but who didn't start editing until April 13 and focused only on creating this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I WP:CSD#G5 if there has been no significant editing by an extended-confirmed editor and it isn't immediately obvious that the article is notable, doesn't fall foul of NOTNEWS, or is otherwise problematic. If I don't delete it I immediately ECP the article. I have restored some of these to draft and user space at the request of EC editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You absolutely should not be nominating or deleting such articles per G5 unless the creator is a blocked or banned user, because there has been no consensus in any of the discussions that G5 applies to ECR enforcement. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should have this argument yet again, and it will continue to be the common practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We can have the argument as many times as you want, but unless and until there is a consensus to amend the speedy deletion policy then your and others' actions are going to be in breach of it and discussion of desysoppings for wilfully acting contrary to policy is going to happen sooner or later. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

And honestly I don't think we should even be deleting an article by a banned or blocked user simply because of who created it. If I saw such an article in my own area of interest, I'd want to fix or whatever. If I saw someone else delete it, I'd want to recreate. It just seems silly to be so glued to this rule that we can't relax it for a reasonable contribution just because of who created it. I feel like this rule probably was intended to make such deletions easier if needed, not to delete useful articles. Valereee (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any benefit in deleting a promising article simply because it was created by a non-EC editor. That particular article looks like it's a BLP1E, though. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit of a gotcha because as soon as the article is given (for AI area), the talk and editing templates, then via WP:ARBECR, the creator will no longer be able to edit it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a problem, though? If the article is worth keeping, let's not delete it simply because of who created it. Fix, draftify, whatever is the right choice. Delete if that's the right choice. But automatically delete without assessing seems shortsighted. Valereee (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Uhuh, who is making that choice/doing the assessing though? The submission for approval process seems the best way so draftify + submit for approval might work. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

No real objection to draftifying and submitting for approval, but in theory the person considering deleting could assess or move along. If you aren't a good enough judge of the topic, maybe the next person along will be. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it will depend on the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators. Levivich (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

So far looks like endorsing ScottishFinnishRadish modus operandi as did, as far as I can tell, a prior RFC from about a month ago. More complicated than I had thought, though I cannot readily see why we are happy to limit new editors to edit requests on talk pages but are willing to permit whole articles to be created (by the same group?). Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "willing to permit whole articles to be created" is really an option that anyone is entertaining, and limiting new editors to edit requests doesn't mean that we automatically and every time revert any and all edits by new editors that are not edit requests. If a non-XC editor made a good edit to an article that is covered by ECR but not actually ECP'd, I don't think we'd always in every case revert that edit. Similarly, I know that when a non-XC editor makes a comment on a talk page that isn't an edit request, we don't always and in every case revert those comments. Sometimes, call it IAR if you want, we let them slide. So even if we do not permit non-XC editors to create new articles in ECR areas (and in I/P there is an edit filter designed to technically prevent that from happening), but if one slips through, I'm not sure it follows that deleting the article is always in every case the right approach. And that doesn't mean that leaving it alone is the right approach either, there are other options (draftification, userfication). But hey, I'm in the minority on this. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

...and it's worth noting that WP:ECR explicitly says "administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations," so ECR already contemplates the idea that article creations in violation of ECR might not be deleted. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW for a concrete example, see Palestine studies. That's an article that I'd long thought Wikipedia needed and had contemplated someday writing. I'm glad someone else did it. That person happens to not be XC. It's a violation of WP:ECR. Nevertheless, I don't see how Wikipedia benefits by having that article deleted, though. That's a concrete example of a good ECR article creation violation. Levivich (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the discretion part, the rules need not always be strictly applied, although I think they should be most of the time. Still, why can't the new articles just go through the submission for approval process usually recommended for new editors. If they are good, they are going to get approved, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree with you (and AFC is how the Palestine studies article got published). But that would be impossible if we went about G5'ing or otherwise CSD'ing such articles. In fact, this is why I voted for draftification in the RFC, and why I'm strongly opposed to CSD'ing them. Levivich (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If it was draftify + mandatory submit for approval I could go along with that. A couple I encountered before were articles just showing up in mainspace (and with POV titles), which can still get sorted out but is just a pia to do. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like SFR's approach is being endorsed, certainly the misuse of G5 is not. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Rough count is 11 of 17 responses endorsing the use of G5, even if not their preferred method. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a good thing RFCs aren't a vote because almost none of those responses even attempt to address the explicit opposition to expanding G5 (and in at least one case has not given any explanation for their opinion at all). Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion concerning the question of religion and whether or not it is an appropriate subject for the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Administrators and experienced editors are encouraged to join the conversation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That whole board is grim. Secretlondon (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question)

(Discussion with closer)

Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified:

Reasoning: The following is copied and modified from my post at Chetsford's talk page. I think that Chetsford's close was generally correct, but I think that this aspect is an incorrect assessment of consensus: A few editors suggested that, regardless of outcome, it should not be used for WP:BLPs. No direct reasoning was presented for that, however, some indirect reference to our policies could be divined within the greater context of the remarks of those editors and these suggestions were not really rebutted. I searched the RfC and "BLP" was used six times in the discussion. Only two of those mentions are in relation to the reliability of the source, and as Chetsford noted, neither provided any direct reasoning:

• In addition, based on some of the past statements linked, a use for BLP or politicised situations within the fog or war would be very reckless at best.
• Yeah, I have very little faith in their editorial review which go beyond WP:BIAS and regularly WP:Fringe. At best, they really shouldn’t be used for anything related to BLP, Russia and Israel, at worst (and IMO this part is most likely) a full depreciation may be in order.

The only indirect reference to policy is to BIAS (as FRINGE is a guideline), and Chetsford discounted that argument in another part of the close. I can't really divine what other policies these editors may or may not have been thinking about. I'm not sure what past statements the first commenter is thinking about, and without more reasoning, I wouldn't say that this single argument is strong enough to establish a consensus that Mondoweiss should not be used for BLPs just because nobody happened to rebut it in a long discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved

• Endorse close Amend While the specifics of BLPs weren't addressed in-depth, it's a reasonable addendum for clarity. They can be used but people should be careful with each individual article...not sure why that's not a blanket statement for every source on Wikipedia. For example, the NYT has published some egregious "journalism", but that doesn't mean it's always wrong on the basic facts. Every source should be evaluated for accuracy on its merits. If I say "Person AB said in an op-ed '<insert quote here'" and then cite it, there's very little reason to doubt that statement is true, but quoting it for purposes of establishing it as something that's true is inappropriate without additional verification. Buffs (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Amended: This sounds like a WPian hearing what they want to hear. There isn't a need to add additional steps beyond what we normally do if people are going to abuse that to exclude the contributions of others. I'd prefer to keep it as-is, but I certainly can see that point. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wow...the EXACT reason I said it SHOULD be included was used...#clairvoyance Buffs (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Amend Remove the BLP clarification: 1) Regardless of the sources' reliability, we always them with great caution for biographies of living people. 2) No valid reason was given for why Mondoweiss should be treated differently from the other RS. 3) Such an unneeded clarification can easily be misconstrued to mean that Mondoweiss shouldn't be used for BLP. Just this week, one of the RfC participants used the close statement to claim that we should avoid using Mondoweiss for BLP. Obviously, it ended up in RSN again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend to remove the statement about BLPs. If only two editors made an unsupported assertion and nobody else discussed it, then it isn't a valid part of the consensus. I'm all for interpreting arguments to try and pull a consensus out of the flames where it isn't obvious, but "divining within the greater context" in this manner is a left-field supervote and should be removed. The rest of the closure is reasonable. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Involved

• I've archived my discussion with Voorts here for ease of review (versus diffs). For what it's worth, considering the contentious topic area involved, I am in full agreement with Voorts that review of the close is appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend close to read "and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution for biographies of living people." I don't think that the relative silence on the issue should have been construed as agreement with the two editors raising that specific, there was a lot else going on in the discussion besides that, especially since one of those editors appears to have construed the close as a license to remove citations for BLPs. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend close to 3 (Gunrel), optionally clarify the statement about BLP requirements per the qualifiers suggested by Chetsford per the arguments made by @Chess and @BilledMammal, which were not sufficiently addressed; also using the votes as an indicator. Acknowledging that I advanced the BLP arguments poorly (and thanking @Chetsford for his generally accurate deciphering of what I meant), I would suggest the following, in the spirit of his comment made here, @Bobfrombrockley here and as a compromise: used with great caution for biographies of living (and recently deceased) people, and not to be used in cases of (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself. In addition and as a partial clarification, perhaps e) should be content marked as activism and similar would be appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You're going to need to bolster your opinion more than "we should do what I want", when support for #2 had ~6.5:1 support over yours. This is not the place to relitigate this RfC, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I‘m pretty sure you’re off on the math, as I voted 4 (which obviously endorses 3 over 2). That option obviously does not have consensus (and just for the sake of clarity, removal of problematic BLP uses is not backdoor deprecation, the overwhelming majority of MW uses are non-BLP or unproblematic). The straight vote count (as stated by Chetsford) has the average at 2.6, and of the counted votes, 14 votes included at least 3 (including 2 or 3), while 21 did not, of which an overwhelming amount were 3 or lower (please check my math).

  I was unaware that we are not supposed to reference specific points when requesting a reassessment of the outcome, and have struck that part, except in context of the phrasing to avoid (light) plagiarism. Thanks for making me aware, this is one of my first contributions to such a noticeboard :) FortunateSons (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  When giving a list of options (1. Action A 2. Action B 3. Action C 4. Action D and 5. Action E), saying "the average is 2.6 so we should choose option 3" is a horrible misunderstanding of statistics. You are heavily weighting all other actions other than #1 (Example, 20 people !vote 1, 2 people !vote 2, and 3 people !vote 5, the "average" is 2 despite an overwhelming preponderance of people !voting 1...in other words, a 5 is worth 5x a 1). Rounding up only further exacerbates the issue. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Second attempt at a more policy-compliant argument, please correct me if this one is also wrong:

  The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed, and similar arguments where not fully rebuffed in general; therefore, the section regarding BLP should remain as is, or be alternatively clarified while remaining in the spirit of discussion and close.

  Regarding the status of the entire source, I believe that the arguments made by those voting for „higher than 2“ should have led to a close of 3, and respectfully request that it is amended (as well). FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  "The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed" They were addressed. You just didn't agree. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Someone posted on the talk page and it appears the organization is publicly soliciting Wikipedia editors to edit its page. I wasn't sure where to go with this but it seemed worth bringing attention to. Marquardtika (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It will likely come to nothing, but if it starts getting vandalised I'm sure there are now a half-dozen admins watching the page that can assist. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is highly promotional in tone. I see that an advert tag was added in April 2020 and almost immediately removed. I will add it again. Donald Albury 16:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This user has been making personal attacks for warning them of DE (seen here) and spamming on my talk page (see here and here). Please block them ASAP. Please ping me if anything changes. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked for harassment. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I was adding 2 links to external links of the laureates on a .org hall of fame site....anbhf.org and ibhf.org..... 143.43.176.131 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You were warned to stop adding links to those two websites to every hall of fame inductee, but you did not stop, and so now you are blocked from editing any article. Please familiarize yourself with our guidelines on external links and on link spamming. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, IP! I'm happy to unblock once you understand that this isn't something Wikipedia considers constructive. Valereee (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't be so eager. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I added 2 links for help. Jeyyrix1 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that this user has added fake topicons to their userpage, including admin. FWIW. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The OP is clearly new and fumbling. I added a standard welcome template to their talk page to hopefully steer them toward something productive. Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Fumbling, yes. New, no. LTA blocked and global locks requested.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I was recommended to drop a notification here from the community discord for editor visibility. Please drop a message on my talk page if this needs to be reverted.

Briefly, we compiled a set of key values of Wikipedians and their opinions on research ethics from a workshop with a small group of editors. We'd like to hear from core editors and administrators to understand if these opinions accurately reflect the broader community. We'll use these thoughts to seed further discussions in our next workshop with WMF employees, researchers, and editors—our goal is to use these findings to orient IRBs and researchers to community guidelines and ensure that are followed to avoid community-level harms. If you would like a private space to leave your thoughts, my email is in the instructions section of results page, otherwise the meta talk page is a great place to discuss. Zentavious (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Following requests to the Arbitration Committee, the CheckUser access of Joe Roe is restored and the Oversight access of GeneralNotability is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks GeneralNotability for his service as a member of the Arbitration Committee and Oversight team.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

I hadn't filed an SPI in quite a while, filed one and am waiting for it to be resolved. So I am curious about the present SPI backlog. I don't remember the backlog being this long in the past but maybe I'm wrong. SPI right now has a backlog of 46 cases waiting for a CU and also 73 Open cases... - Shearonink (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been waiting on an SPI on a pretty routine set of socks for over a week. It does seem like a pretty bad back-log. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it does...and there seem to be a number of SPIs that have been attended-to but haven't been cleared from that noticeboard. Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I tried my hand at 2 and unfortunately picked to the problematic ones. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

My sympathies. The sock master/puppets that I & a few other editors have been battling continue to be obsessed with changing a sourced from impeccable reliable sources circa/approximate dates (like say just a year or an "either this year or that year" date) to a specific date and he/she/they seem obsessed with changing circa/approximate dates to specific dates in November. This behavior has been going on for at least months on a range of articles. Lately they've stepped up the funfunFUN and I am wary of somehow getting inveigled into a 3RR situation. This is not a content dispute, this is a situation where this editor has engaged in repeated reverts, changing referenced information and always using as their source user-edited sites like FindAGrave. There's also some circular sourcing going on where they cite wikidata and when I dig down on wikidata it actually says the circa/approximate/year-only dates are correct. Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi there – dropping a quick heads up that CAT:RD1 currently has nearly 50 pages needing to be reviewed for copyright revdel. Admin assistance would be greatly appreciated. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Skitash is a prominent Wikipedian in North African politics and history Wikipedia, but I believe his behavior is not adequate for the website, an opinion which is shared by many of the contributors in the field I talked to, and I would like to report his behavior, especially as Wikipedia has gained a lot of attraction as a trustworthy source, and his writings have been used to discredit Amazigh/Berber culture, its importance and its impact in the Maghreb.

The Amazigh people are the indigenous population of the Maghreb, they have played a significant role in its history but a lot of (generally Arabist) thinkers in the Maghreb attempt to undermine their significance by discrediting their contributions to the region.

Skitash uses connotated language, e.g calling Tamazgha a "fictious entity", when other similar articles like Akhand Bharat don't use this connotated and biased language against it. We can see in revisions like that the user undermines even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source, assuming all censed speakers of Arabic speak it natively, while ignoring the 25% Berber speaking population for which it is almost systematically a native language (the census is not about nativity at all by the way). He also removes Amazigh language names in articles, even when it consists of Amazigh toponyms such as Souss-Massa and in Souss-Massa-Draâ (see revision ), where he removed the Amazigh writing of name the region that is the cultural heart of Moroccan Amazigh (particularly the Shilha people), plenty other examples of this erasure of mentions to Amazigh people and languages can be found in the history of his contributions, but he reverts every correction, threatening an edit war, and discouraging most amateur Wikipedians.

His negative and biased contributions need to be stopped as they are both heavily impacting Wikipedia and offering a non neutral version of Maghrebi history to the general public. And even a quick google search can show this user has a very bad reputation in his erasure of Amazigh in Wikipedia Taluzet (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You have a lot of really good points, and the fact that colonial peoples often bury the histories of indigenous peoples on Wikipedia is and has been a major concern for a long time, but your tone is not great and will turn many people against you. Try calming down and explaining again in concise, neutral language, instead of just attacking Skitash.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. After going over Skitash's history, there is a lot of whitewashing the history of Arab imperialism, colonialism, and their abuses against indigenous peoples of their conquered lands, but that is a matter for ANI, not here. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Should I redirect the post to ANI? Taluzet (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"colonial peoples" Are you referring to me as such? If this isn't a personal attack, then I don't know what is. Skitash (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's an observation. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. This appears to be a continuation of this ANI from last year. An ethnic dispute being dragged to Wikipedia is never going to end well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand, I took the initiative to report them only after seeing numerous other contributors to Maghreb related articles have had the same issues of erasure whenever they mentioned Amazigh people or gave the Amazigh term for something, some asking for a report to be made, so I tried taking action to assure admins are at least aware of the connotation of User:Skitash 's articles and the biased perspective of Maghrebi history they give off Taluzet (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Your accusations lack merit and are merely unfounded aspersions. I have always contributed to Wikipedia with widely accepted sourced content, and accusing me of discrediting Amazigh/Berber culture or being an Arabist is baseless.

"calling Tamazgha a "fictitious entity", when other similar articles like Akhand Bharat don't use this connotated and biased language against it. I am assuming you didn't bother reading the article or any of the cited sources there, but I will present them here. The following sources explicitly state that "...its replacement with multi- dimensional entities: a domestic region (the Rif, Tafilalt), the external region (North Africa) or a fictitious entity (Tamazgha) whose borders transcend states and nations?", "They imagine a Tamazgha land that transcends the current nation-states that they live in." and "This nation lives in an imagined geography in Tamazgha, a region that stretches from ‘Touareg lands in Niger to Siwa in Egypt to Kabylie in Algeria and, of course, to Morocco’". That is simply the very definition of Tamazgha according to reliable sources. Even the body of the Tamazgha article explains that the term is used "to imagine and describe a hypothetical federation spanning between the Canary Islands and the Siwa Oasis, a large swathe of territory including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Egypt, the Western Sahara, Burkina Faso and Senegal."

I have no idea what your point about "nativity" concerns but that makes absolutely no sense. The content you deleted in Culture of Morocco is sourced and backed by official census data. Your point about it being "illogical to think the that 18% of the 25% censed Berber speakers acquired it as a second language" is merely your unsubstantiated personal opinion. There is no contradiction between 92% of the population speaking Moroccan Arabic and 26% speaking Berber, as Morocco is a multilingual country. I have no idea why you would accuse me of undermining "even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source" for reverting your unwarranted and unjustified sourced content removal.

The Berber names you mentioned were not only removed by myself, but also by others as they were complete WP:OR. A discussion is currently underway on this matter, and there are plenty other editors who agree with my perspective and have expressed concerns that IPs have been going around and arbitrarily changing these unsourced Berber names without an explanation. As we know, Berber is not a single, unified language, and there are no existing dictionaries for the various Berber languages that exist.

Speaking of neutrality, I find this ironic as it appears that the sole purpose of your account is to use Wikipedia as an ethnic WP:BATTLEGROUND, focusing solely on pushing an agenda in Berber-related articles. Going through your contributions, all you have been doing is deleting sourced content you don't agree with for nonsensical reasons and replacing it with whatever you like and adding unsourced content. Nothing more. This pattern is evident on your talk page, which reveals that you disregard all your warnings regarding sourced content removal.

Furthermore, I'd like to draw attention to this ANI from last year in which I reported Taluzet for edit warring, misinterpreting sources and a lack of willingness to engage in constructive discussions, in which many editors argued that Taluzet is clearly WP:NOTHERE (interestingly, Taluzet harassed one of these editors on their talk page for participating in the discussion). Skitash (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You used a source that states the percent of Moroccan Arabic speakers overall, including L2 speakers, interpreting it as the percent of native (L1) speakers, especially in a comment that just serves to say that only Moroccan Arabic speakers really make a significant portion of the speakers.

About the names, why do the Arabic names not require sourcing? Are names in different languages treated differently?

I don't understand how using my account on a specific category is wrong, I don't push any agenda aiming to undermine the existence of another people.

I would like to apologize for the behavior on the ANI mentioned, I was new to the website and this was my first dispute with any user, I haven't even contributed to Wikipedia all that much this year, just mostly helping in the French Wiktionary, the issue of you contributing to the whole wiki with a clear bias is what brought me to return and file a report in the name of all Amazigh and Maghrebi wikipedians concerned about how this negatively affects the article. Taluzet (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"interpreting it as the percent of native (L1) speakers" When exactly did I do that? The sentence simply states that "92% of Moroccans speak Moroccan Arabic" and "About 26% of the population speaks a Berber language". These are straightfoward, objective facts according to the 2014 Moroccan census, and nowhere does it specify native or L2 speakers in the lead. Besides, this sourced content has been present in the lead for several years and was not added by me. Arabic, as the fourth most spoken language globally, is easily verifiable, unlike Tamazight, which consists of several mutually unintelligible and uncodified languages. Skitash (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It clearly says "92% of Moroccans speak Moroccan Arabic as a native language". If you didn't write it then why did you immediately revert it when I made the correction?

All titles are written in an orthography that was standardized by the Moroccan IRCAM, it's pretty easy to verify if you simply ask a Wikipedian that writes it. Taluzet (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

We need to realise that WP:NPOV does not mean that all points of view should have equal billing, but that those points of view represented in reliable sources should be covered "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". Without the sources being presented we can't tell whether Skitash has been following this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have included all the sources in my response here. Please take a look if you will. I am puzzled as to how my reversion of Taluzet's removal of long-standing sourced content backed by government census data constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV and "undermines even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source" as they have claimed. Skitash (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

My comment was directed at Taluzet, who doesn't seem to be arguing on the basis of reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I already told you, the census is not about native languages, it's just about spoken languages, seen by the fact the percentages in each column don't add up to anything close to 100% Taluzet (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, you will get a lot of conflicting sources on the Maghreb, mostly due to the fact that those sources achieve different goals. For example, on that ANI concerning the usage of the word Tamazight/Amazigh and th self-identification of Berber people using that word, Skitash presented a source that states "Historically, these groups did not call themselves "Berbers" but had their own terms of self-referral. Kabyles, for instance, refer to themselves as "Leqbayel," Shawiyas as "Ishawiyen," and so on", which is a true statement (apart from the 'Historically', since it's a point about modern ethnonyms, and not ancient ones which were more likely to be the widespread Amazigh and Tamazight), because these 2 groups, as well as most groups in Algeria, do use these newly adopted ethnonyms traditionally, but the point he references that in which is "Historically, Berbers did not have a collective term of self-referral but had their own terms to refer to themselves." is not correct, as the names Tamazight and Amazigh are widespread today in traditional use and even more widely attested in pre-modern times, through ancient sources, toponyms and expressions, but the article Berber languages as presented in this version uses a language that suggests it wasn't used in the Berber world prior to modern linguists' promotion of this term.

So I blame Skitash of nitpicking and extrapolating these sources to achieve a goal of discrediting Amazigh language Taluzet (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're referencing a content dispute that took place last year, but what you're contesting is a sourced objective fact that is present in multiple Berber-related articles. The statement you mentioned, "Historically, these groups did not call themselves "Berbers" but had their own terms of self-referral. Kabyles, for instance, refer to themselves as "Leqbayel," Shawiyas as "Ishawiyen," and so on", is found word for word in the source. What you're bizarrely trying to do is dispute the findings of the author, a cultural anthropologist who conducted research in Algeria, by saying that you're right and the author is wrong and replacing this well-sourced information with a dubious unreliable source from 1986. Skitash (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The author of the "dubious unreliable source" is Salem Chaker, one of the founding fathers of modern Tamazight linguistics, anyone in the field should know him, as well as the famous "encyclopédie berbère" he directs. Taluzet (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It is dubious and unreliable. Your source is WP:UNDUE, it's nearly 40 years old and does not warrant replacing the already established credible RS. We've already discussed this previously, and your misinterpretation of sources has been evident. The source you provided doesn't support your claim at all, and you have consistently made WP:OR assumptions and ridiculous claims such as "Mazax is obviously the same word as amazigh"

Anyway, this noticeboard is about behavior rather than content disputes. Since you accused me of not being neutral, then why did you hardly respond to any of the the counterpoints I made in response to your baseless accusations? The only thing you addressed was the issue on Culture of Morocco. If your concern was solely about the "native language" part (which was not added by me and was present on the page for several years), why did you delete the whole paragraph along with its reliable sources rather than just those two words? This is highly unusual, and suggests that you're distorting my edits to portray them as non-neutral when this clearly isn't the case. In fact, you're the one using Wikipedia in a non-neutral manner, as evidenced by your clear intentions to edit war with the goal of pushing a POV, your persistent personal attacks and your warning-plastered talk page (indicating a disregard for them). Given this pattern of behavior, I believe you should be blocked for being WP:NOTHERE and violating WP:NPA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOR, WP:EW and possibly even more. Skitash (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

First of all, the source you are using for Tamazgha is very clearly biased and violates the neutral point of view rule, the author states "These contradictory attitudes contribute to a growing sense of cultural and linguistic alienation and exacerbate feelings of exclusion among Amazigh, thereby complicating national integration." and also "The royal initiative is an encouraging one provided the king shows stronger political will to enforce it in face of a hostile administration and an outdated vision of national unity that still prevails among influential Moroccan elites." clearly showing the author is addressing the issue of Tamazgha in a hostile manner, as he deems it to be a challenge to the national unity of Morocco and the kingdom, presenting the situation with a lot of bias for the Moroccan state. Paraphrasing such articles in your definition of Tamazgha as 'fictious entity' I believe is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia

Surprisingly all the warnings in my talk page are from you, and every other contributor in Berber related articles I've asked have had the same issue of you fighting against Tamazight representation in the Wiki, I have not had any issue in my other contributions.

Here are various examples online of this issue, where you can see User:Skitash is known by many for his political tendencies and him acting upon them in Wikipedia, by using and paraphrasing dubious sources that go against the consensus of the geneticists and linguists of the region, apparently even removing Kurdish town names too to replace them with Arabic :

Talk:Maghreb

Taluzet (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not the only source present in the article. Multiple reliable sources corroborate the exact same perspective. If you took a brief moment to read the Tamazgha article, you would learn that it describes what Berberists see as "the geographic embodiment of a Berber imaginary of a once unified language and culture that had its own territory". This is essentially the definition of Tamazgha, which has been agreed upon by scholars and other Wikipedia editors and has been present in the article for over a year at least. Are you suggesting that Tamazgha exists, and is a real political entity stretching across the entirety of North Africa and encompassing 12 modern-day sovereign states? I don't see what you find so "hostile" about the author's tone, but this further underscores my point that you often baselessly label editors, authors and scholars as non-neutral based on your own viewpoint. I challenge you to provide a source that asserts Tamazgha is a sovereign nation state that exists.

Regarding those links you attached, I have no regard for what like-minded POV-pushing individuals that promote disruptive editing and an ethnic agenda have to say about me and the various other Wikipedia editors they have targeted. What I find interesting is that this has given rise to several recently-created meatpuppets and sockpuppets such as AmazighAcademic, Elyelm, Rumihoney, SaraWiki123, Yassaa.m, Aniguran and Algerien berber (I wouldn't be surprised if you were among them) who all share things in common: to use Wikipedia as an ethnic battleground, delete sourced content and stir up edit wars, behaviors that largely mirror your own. Were you not aware of how these several meatpuppets disruptively edit warred against me and other editors until admins stepped in to protect Tamazgha and Abd el-Krim? Skitash (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue with your edits in Tamazgha is calling it a fictious entity right at the beginning of the definition, by paraphrasing a biased article. Your objective is clearly to discredit the concept of Tamazgha, and discrediting Berbers seems to be the objective of a lot of your edits in the Maghreb Wikipedia. I am not asking you to call it a righteous nation-state or anything, just to be treated as any other unofficial 'great' homeland is like Kurdistan or Akhand Bharat, that are called concepts or geo-cultural regions, because that is the neutral term, that does not send a biased message to the reader.

But it is only one example of you misusing sources in order to skew the message given by Wikipedia articles so that it can fit your personal narrative of erasure of Berbers in the Maghreb and replacing indigenous names and mentions by Arab ones.

Your reputation among Maghreb circles is not to be ignored, and even neutral observants can clearly see you are pushing a colonialist and arabist agenda into Wikipedia, that - as others said - is trusted and used by a lot of people afterwards as a 100% legitimate and objective source.

I have no responsibility in the actions others have taken against you, it is sad that these people take the situation irresponsibly which ends up in the favour of your quests of erasure of Berbers simply through your knowledge of Wikipedia etiquette and taking advantage of their ignorance, I decided myself to take the matter to the admins Taluzet (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be entirely based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. "Fictitious entity" is what RS describe it as, and has been in the article for over a year, with agreement from other editors. "just to be treated as any other unofficial 'great' homeland is like Kurdistan or Akhand Bharat, that are called concepts or geo-cultural regions, because that is the neutral term, that does not send a biased message to the reader." Why don't you present sources describing it as such? Kurdistan is distinctly different, being a geographical location united by language and geography. Tamazgha isn't a geographical location, it lacks a clear geographical definition and whatever lands it claims do not share the same language and culture. If you have any concerns, go ahead and take them to the talk page of the respective article.

The rest of your argument largely echoes your initial accusations me against me and ignores my responses to your unfounded claims and personal attacks which you have failed to address, and regarding "neutral observants can clearly see you are pushing a colonialist", no reputable, established Wikipedia editor expresses this view. On the other hand, I know Wikipedia editors who think you're clearly not here to contribute constructively as seen in the previous ANI.

Moreover, I contribute to articles pertaining to the entire MENA region and revert vandalism in a broad spectrum of topics, not solely focusing on Maghrebi-related ones like you do. Portraying my account as solely dedicated to the Maghreb is misleading and dishonest. Skitash (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I addressed all the points above, I apologized for my behaviour in the ANI that happened a year ago, and I was unexperienced in Wikipedia etiquette as it was my first ever such interaction in this website.

As for "not solely focusing on Maghrebi-related ones like you do", first of all I only really contributed in Berber related stuff, not the whole Maghreb as long as it was political (as you do), and are you really blaming me for that, because you literally do the same to the Arab world, the difference is I chose to keep myself to a subject I am familiar with (Berber linguistics), not acting as an authority on every minority in the region by misusing biased sources and avoiding sources of experts that tackle the subjects in question directly, like when you used the work of cultural anthropologist Jane E. Goodman which is exclusive to Algeria to tackle on a universally Berber, complex linguistic question, and then proceeded called the work of the notorious Salem Chaker "dubious and unreliable".

You're showing this ethnic bias you're blaming me for to Arabs much more than I do, and you're extending it over to minorities under the Arab world.

I didn't say your account was exclusive to the Maghreb, but I have heard many complaints about your actions in the Maghrebi Wikipedia. Taluzet (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, feel free to continue reiterating same unfounded accusations you've been repeating for the past several hours, without offering any revision links or meaningful points. Clearly, you must be the real expert here, knowing more than all those cultural anthropologists, scholars, credible authors and editors you disagree with and accuse of bias. My job here is done; we'll just have to wait for the administrators to come to a conclusion. Skitash (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

|

Consensus is that no admin action against the userbox is needed here, and that the appropriateness of the userbox can be discussed WP:MFD if desired. Leaving open the part of the thread where the issue is whether the OP is WP:NOTHERE. Sandstein 09:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Important to note the userbox has since been edited. It previously displayed with a black squared letter 'G', tilted at the same angle as a Nazi swastika, inside a white circle with a red background, styled with similarities to the Flag of Nazi Germany. The image was removed by the creator.

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

---

This userbox seems wildly inappropriate, and could be easily used as an anti-Semitic dogwhistle, and very loud whistle at that. Especially during the rise of antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war (not a political statement, by the way). The userbox was approved in Feb 2024. A KKK userbox would be immediately taken down. How was this approved? There are steps that take place to review each userbox, what was the process in this one being approved? And who approved it?

G	This user is a Grammar Nazi.

Source: User:KomradeKalashnikov/Userboxes/Grammar Nazi

TheSpacebook (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Userboxes aren't "approved", and anyone can create one. I'm not sure why you decided to bring this to AN - if you have problems with it, you can talk to the creator or take it to WP:MFD. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this should go through WP:MFD. I would encourage TheSpacebook to {{Atop}} this section and file an MFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"if you have problems with it, you can talk to the creator" You want me to communicate and negotiate with someone who creates Nazi-like content? WP:NONAZIS. Plus, I’m not versed enough on the intricacies of anti-Semitism or Nazism to engage in a debate about something, but I can clearly recognise Nazi symbols. TheSpacebook (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

While "Grammar nazi" is a common term that is not associated with Nazism, I think that logo pushes the bounds a bit too much. Would be better to use something less suggestive like a book or pen. — Masem (t) 03:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• This appears to be precipitous, and very likely an overreaction. While in questionable taste, I am doubtful this is some kind of crypto-Nazi imagery and would certainly not support any administrator intervention at this point. I am somewhat disappointed by the OP's shoot first and ask questions later response to this. Perhaps they are unaware that the term nazi is often used as a synonym for a martinet or someone who is very strict in a particular subject area? I also note that there has been no notification as required of all reports at AN. No communication of any kind, no notification (required) and a likely unjustified failure to WP:AGF. You may color me unimpressed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• KomradeKalashnikov helps out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas, creating userboxes that other editors request. This particular one was requested by another editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas/Archive 24#Request - February 9, 2024. I don't like the image either, but I'm guessing they just grabbed the first result on Commons when making it. Anyways, not seeing anything that MFD can't handle. DanCherek (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  MFD is not needed yet; just talk to the editor about it, I bet they'll be receptive to someone pointing out that the design is a bit too close to actual Nazi symbolism to be in good taste. They'll probably just redesign it to something more grammary and less Nazi. Levivich (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a Soup Nazi userbox? Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see this as glorifying Nazism or Hitler, and it is a common term, "grammar nazi", so not sure what the big deal is. We're a big tent, not everyone has the same sense of humor, but I think we are better off spending time dealing with people who are actually trying to inject bad POV into articles, rather than worrying about userboxes with pop culture references in them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Discussion about the OP

• @Dennis Brown I agree. I've often seen the term used and have no problem with it. For me it doesn't imply that the person is actually anything like a Nazi. I do have a problem with the OP though as they've deleted their talk page which now reads "Not to be confused withThe Space Book" with two innocuous userboxes. As User:Acalamari said in the declined Arbitration request here., this user shows up at the drama boards to often. Comments there included suggestions that they were trolling and that a ban might be appropriate. It's ok to remove all the warnings etc from a user's talk page, but making it look like a user page just seems to be another example of the problems I and others have seen with this editor. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  You prodded me to go look at this: , which shows 10% of his edits are to articles. 53% are to WP: and WP Talk: I'm not sure what s/he is here for but it doesn't seem to be to edit articles or build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  If someone's actions are brought to WP areas, it's likely that they will spend a lot of time there. There's also the fact that many big issues are discussed and resolved just so ONE edit can happen. Others contribute in WP in order to enable others to edit. I wouldn't look that much into WP vs mainspace percentages. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, the post was about the image, which clearly displays Nazi symbolism, NOT the phrase "grammar Nazi". The ‘not to be confused with’ on my talk page is a clearly a joke, no? And my user boxes are also satire (which is where I came across the userbox), I’m just trying to WP:ENJOY myself. Lots of editors have userboxes on their talk page and I haven’t made a user page as I want one place for everything, people can still leave comments. And the comments were removed as I’ve reflected and had a fresh start. How can anyone have an issue with this as per WP:DRC. What is the problem here? I’m here to build an encyclopedia, if you look at my recent proposal User:TheSpacebook/lifeline, clearly a lot of work has gone into it to make Wikipedia better and solve an issue that keeps popping up. 53% of my edits being backend shows I’m personally more skilled with suggesting and building improvements. And I used the correct avenue to suggest it (village pump). But I do have some drafts on my computer which I’m meticulously fact-checking each cite for mainspace articles too.TheSpacebook (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  To add to the above. My issue was that Nazi symbolism is being used a humorous manner, NOT the phrase "grammar Nazi". And I’m not versed enough on the intricacies of Nazism and anti-Semitism to debate anyone on it, but I can clearly recognise Nazi symbolism. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  And I’ll also just add my extensive edits on the Where is Kate? article to keep it reliably sourced and free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies (the other editors I was working with to do this also thanked me for helping in the effort) has now been deleted from public view. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Update: I’ve placed all the relevant items on my talk page into a 'talk page banner' (something I just discovered). It looks less like a userpage now. I just want to manage as little amount of pages as possible, to keep it compact. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  @TheSpacebook Of course you are free to remove comments. No one should leave comments on your userpage, that should be yours alone to manage. You might want to read WP:ARCHHIVE and set up one for your talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Amazing! Thank you for telling me about that. I can see that bots can do this automatically, which saves a lot of time. I thought every user cut-and-pasted the comments into their archive. I’ll get one set up then, thank you! TheSpacebook (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  TheSpacebook, please stop modifying your comments after people have responded to them. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry! Currently travelling and I don't have Grammarly on my phone. Just thought the topic was a bit more serious (Nazism and anti-Semitism) that I shouldn’t be misrepresented on. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  You have been told not to do this often enough that you should have learned your lesson. Don't modify if they've been replied to, just reply saying something like "What I meant to say was...". Doug Weller talk 13:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  The OP is clearly taking the piss. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  By notifying that Nazi symbolism is being used in a humorous manner (my issue wasn’t about the phrase)? Or that I suggested and programmed a solution to the issue of the inclusion of suicide helplines, which often gets raised, in a manner which is more subtle than a banner or disclaimer (User:TheSpacebook/lifeline)? I have now reverted my comments to the pre-reply state and followed the advice, by replying. It’s just a serious topic. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Propose community ban. I'm sorry to do this and I hope I don't take too much flak for it. I find TheSpacebook immensely tiring. Many editors have made suggestions to them, including myself. Occasionally, TheSpacebook will agree to those suggestions and then rampantly ignore them. They cause an utterly disproportionate amount of wikidrama and rarely contribute constructively to building an encyclopedia. I'm sorry to say, I think Wikipedia is simply better off without them. --Yamla (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest if you are tired of the poster, you skip over his material. I would also advise him, presuming he is reading, to get off this page ASAP. Carrite (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

(I put this comment in the wrong place, but won’t delete to avoid edit conflicts) The pie chart is inaccurate as the Where is Kate? edits have been deleted. Me, along with other editors worked tirelessly to keep it free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies, whilst it was going through the deletion procedures. It can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Consider making this sanctions proposal in its own subsection, or it may get too messy to close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• (ec) When I saw the OP's contribution pie chart, combined with nearly a week of radio silence over the Easter holiday, I was concerned that this might be a troll account intent upon creating mayhem for the sake of mayhem and NOTHERE. A respected Wikipedian made the good argument in a thread about him at WPO that pie charts for newbies venturing into controversial areas are apt to be unconventional — particularly when comments on project pages are edited and re-edited, as the OP is wont to do.

OP explained he was on vacation with his family over Easter and has engaged meaningfully, if critically, off-Wiki. My worst suspicions have been set aside, I believe this is a newcomer intent on addressing problems or engaging in quality control of content at WP, particularly in the area of BLP. I've advised him to do some conventional editing here to build some social capital before wading into the next content swamp, but that doesn't seem to have appealed to him. I would advise that people treat this account as a well-intended newbie, however, as I believe that is the case here. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The pie chart is inaccurate as the Where is Kate? edits have been deleted. Me, along with other editors worked tirelessly to keep it free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies, whilst it was going through the deletion procedures. It can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This comment wasn't a reply to you by the way, but I’m not going to delete it as per the edit-conflict-ice I’m skating on being razor thin. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

But thank you for this comment, I believe it accurately reflects my intentions, in a way that if came from me would sound suspicious. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• And the comments were removed as I’ve reflected and had a fresh start. Does not look like it at all. For me, every single watchlist update from AN today has been this editor making minor edits. It's annoying just seeing it in the watchlist. I can only imagine how disruptive it must be to actual attempts to edit the page. I am starting to think they need a ban from editing highly watched, highly edited pages at a minimum. I don't think I'd support a community ban just yet because there have been some good things, I think. Lesser remedies should be tried to encourage the good, and keep the bad in check until they start doing better. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  This was about edit-warring, contentious topics, and canvassing off-wiki (which I haven’t done for any of my new suggestions) etc. Off-wiki, I have worked to pool opinions on topics, so I’m better informed should I bring it on-wiki. My suggestions were taken to the right place: BLP talk page, village pump etc. I bought this humorous use of Nazi symbolism straight to the Admin noticeboard due to how serious the issue is, and I’m not educated enough on Nazism and anti-Semitism to engage in a debate about it, if I was to put it up for deletion. Admittedly the comment editing is a place I need to work on; to note, I was on a train and some of my comment edits were sent when there wasn’t a reply, but weren’t received by the Wiki servers as trains in the UK are known to be intermittent with the connection as they pass through areas like the countryside. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  So what we are looking for is you acknowledge the concerns raised. Moxy🍁 15:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I said "Admittedly the comment editing is a place I need to work on" in the comment you just replied to. And I notified this noticeboard about the humorous use of Nazi symbolism (not the phrase 'grammar Nazi') as this issue is way above my pay grade to engage in a deletion debate about. I fail to see how I’m not acting in good faith.TheSpacebook (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Neither I nor Moxy questioned your good faith, but you're not making it easy. You brought your good faith up, then went on to make 20+ more edits, which included appending an unsigned note to Sandstein's close with some interesting edit summaries. I am assuming Carrite did not say lightly that they're convinced you're a good faith newb, and not a troll as it increasingly looks like you are. Good faith or not, you need to stop or be stopped. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's my best guess anyway. The WPO thread is worth peering at, YMMV. Mark me down as opposed to a C-Ban and Good Block tossing him from here for a day for failure to listen to pretty much anyone... Will he figure it out? Betting heavily against but we shall see... Carrite (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I’ll just make one more comment, me taking this straight to AN was reactionary. But in hindsight, I should’ve taken it to MFD. Thank you to those who made me aware of this process. I was just shocked to see a userbox humorously displaying Nazi symbolism (again not the phrase ’grammar Nazi’, rather the image of the userbox), and thought it required immediate attention. I also should’ve made absolutely clear that my issue wasn't the phrase 'grammar Nazi' too (a phrase I was already aware of). If you look at my specific actions (and look past me being unaware of certain procedures and policies) I hope that editors can see that my intentions and the issues I raise are well meaning and in good faith. Thank you for telling me about MFD and the talk page archiving bot too. My talk page is always open to drop a link to policy if I go against it, and it will be always well received. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Before Doug tagged me above, I'd already seen TheSpacebook appear yet again in my watchlist on this dramaboard. While I actually agree with TheSpacebook that the image of the userbox was inappropriate (and the userbox itself is questionable, as it can be read as anti-Semitic and / or making light of the Holocaust), the manner in which this was handled suggests that it was meant to cause as much drama as possible. Besides the abysmally low percentage of mainspace edits, the user doesn't take on board feedback, as evidenced by being told yet again not to modify their comments after people have already replied. Support Yamla's proposal for an indefinite block and community ban, with the rationale WP:NOTHERE. Acalamari 17:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I said my previous comment would be my last, but I must respond to this. Me bringing this straight to AN was to quickly get the userbox taken down if deemed inappropriate. If I took it to any deletion request (such as MFD), or even WPO, it would’ve caused way more drama than having admins (which is a small group) quickly take action on what I deemed to be a serious matter. There are wider implications of opening discussions about Nazism and anti-Semtism, and with the current climate, it’s best not to open up such discussions due to how nasty they get. The discussion about whether the userbox was anti-Semitic or not would’ve turned sour extremely quickly if a large group of editors got involved, it’s best left to the experienced admins. I’m glad we agree the image in the userbox was inappropriate and could read as anti-Semitic. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I’ll add again, that the low percent of mainspace edits currently doesn’t take into account the deleted article Where is Kate? Myself and other editors worked tirelessly to keep it reliably sourced and free from promoting conspiracies: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Spacebook, you've made eight edits to this page in the last 15 minutes despite multiple editors saying this is a problem. Either stop posting or learn to use the preview screen -- ideally both. You are literally digging a hole for yourself at this point. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  The problem raised in this discussion was that the comments that had be replied to but admittedly editing comments in general is something I need to work on. With the discussion being directed at me, it’s important that I’m not misrepresented, so I’m trying to get the responses posted as quickly as possible. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Spacebook, the problem is that: No. No edits need to be replied to. That's you thinking. I'm telling you this: if—instead of rep

• I've blocked TheSpacebook from this page for 24 hours for disruptive editing, bludgeoning, still not using preview or making sure their statement ready to publish, and throwing dirt all over the place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. But I’m not going to put any money on them learning their lesson. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Good block. We don't need unnecessary drama, and TSB seems to have a track record in that department. I would strongly advise them to devote more of their energy to building an encyclopedia and less to starting or throwing gasoline on dumpster fires. All of which said, I respectfully oppose a C-Ban at this time as premature. Let's see if they take any of this onboard. But yeah, there needs to be some changes going forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Oh I agree a C-Ban would be premature. They should be given another chance. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The few administrators responding at this queue haven't much interacted with a whitelist request I made 2 weeks ago. The vibe I get is that because the source in question relates to WP:MEDRS, anyone looking at the request would rather not bother with it. Could an admin take a look at my request in full, please?

(For additional context, I started out with an RSN thread, where I noted the source seemed reliable, and questioned why it's on the blacklist to begin with.) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I am banned from editing topics related to Mormonism, but one of the main reasons for my ban is that I did not sufficiently disclose potential and actual COIs. I've talked to the admin in charge of my ban, and he is okay with me adding COI banners/explanations to talk pages even if they are in the topic of Mormonism. Please let me know if there are any objections--I will continue adding COI banners to talk pages on Monday, 4/22. I list some details of the kinds of things I would like to disclose over on my talk page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The TBAN is considered to be imposed by the community so there's not really an "admin in charge" of it. It's always good to ask when you're unsure; personally I don't see an issue with the specific task of adding COI disclosures to talk pages. DanCherek (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I guess then read this as a more "is this okay?" then "I'm going to go do this now." *smiling sweat drop emoji Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This relates to Quayshires. I'm wary of not biting a relatively new editor. Maybe they haven't seen talk page notifications, or might be editing in a way that doesn't display them. This editor has started a few new pages with content copied from other pages. One of them was actually a good idea, being 2024 Limerick mayoral election, being a split from 2024 Limerick City and County Council election. The mayoral election is indeed notable enough to get its own page. However, I noticed it because a good part of the page was material which I had added to the other page. I notified the user of the etiquette, but I've since noticed that they have done the same, and for pages where there was much less need, such as 2023 Philip Schofield affair scandal with material copied from Phillip Schofield, and 2024 Børsen fire with material copied from Børsen. I was wary of Chancellorship of Jeremy Hunt, being a large page recently created, but it turns out that one is new, just mostly worked offline. The editor has made some constructive edits, but is both creating pages unnecessarily and not adhering to policy, such that I think some nudge from an administrator is warranted. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)