Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators. It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here. Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Click here to start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	1	120	0	121
TfD	0	0	6	0	6
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	33	0	33
AfD	0	0	6	0	6

• 15 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 23 sockpuppet investigations
• 30 Candidates for speedy deletion
  • 0 Duplicate files
• 2 Fully-protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 12 requests for RD1 redaction
• 137 elapsed requested moves
• 31 requested closures
• 78 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 15 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (20 out of 3678 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Chinese government response to COVID-19 2022-03-31 23:31 2022-07-01 23:31 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts MelanieN Martin Ballard 2022-03-31 21:18 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Draft:Blake Barden 2022-03-31 19:49 2022-04-14 19:49 create Repeatedly recreated Star Mississippi Template:RT data 2022-03-31 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:User WP 2022-03-31 07:51 indefinite edit,move lowering protection, ECP user needs semi-regular access Primefac Portal talk:Current events/2007 September 21 2022-03-31 00:55 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Sophie Anderson (actress) 2022-03-30 20:35 2022-09-30 20:35 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ponyo Saffron Barker 2022-03-30 20:34 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ponyo List of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine 2022-03-30 07:18 2023-03-30 07:18 edit,move Arbitration enforcement: Straight to WP:ECP. WP:ARBEE, WP:ARBBLP. 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine -related El C 2022 Bnei Brak shootings 2022-03-30 06:33 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page Doug Weller 2022 Beersheba attack 2022-03-30 06:32 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller Tyagi 2022-03-30 04:19 indefinite edit,move Raising protection level due to continued disruptive editing and edit-warring from (auto)confirmed accounts; see WP:GS/CASTE Abecedare Module:Rotten Tomatoes data 2022-03-29 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2505 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Rotten Tomatoes data 2022-03-29 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2504 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Ezhava 2022-03-28 18:12 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/CASTE ToBeFree Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-03-27 2022-03-28 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3448 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Deyin Giby 2022-03-28 14:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated TheresNoTime Draft:Hela Apparel Holdings 2022-03-28 11:59 2023-03-28 11:59 create Repeatedly recreated Deb Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967 2022-03-28 06:48 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page Ks0stm List of prime ministers of Pakistan 2022-03-28 01:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ARBIPA; requested at WP:RfPP Ad Orientem

Darkfrog24 unblock request

Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) has been unblocked by ArbCom for the purposes of making an unblock request to the community. I have taken the liberty of copying his request here, as per the instructions provided by the unblocking administrator. The text of this request follows below. RGloucester — ☎ 18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Upon unblock I will continue contributing to the encyclopedia as before: Working RSN, providing translations from other Wikis, and working biology articles such as Hadesarchea, though my activities have shifted more toward Hylidae. I have a list of articles from other Wikipedias that I plan to translate. I've spent the past years at the Simple English Wikipedia with only positive incident. I've been awarded several barnstars and participated in many editing events. I was given patroller rights there long ago. All is going well. I've started many articles there, including Alberto Santos Dumont, Green-eyed tree frog and Trolley problem. I was on the team for two Good Articles: simple:Tropical Storm Arthur (2020) and simple:Sento and helped a little on simple:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I helped organize Simple's branch of two edit-a-thons.

I recently witnessed a block experience on another website, and it gave me insight into how my posts must look to other people. The disciplinary system is more complicated than it looks on the surface, and that's not the worst thing in the world. I accept that it is the admins' job to interpret policy. I asked ArbCom about their decision to block me in 2018 as I was appealing a lesser sanction, and they answered me. I consider it asked and answered. I plan my next appeal of said lesser sanction to be qualitatively different from my last, as stipulated, and to continue to obey said topic ban until it is lifted. As I have always sought to do, I will work completely within Wikipedia's posted rules. If there is anything else that the adminship wants me to do or not do, they need only post on my talk page with my instructions.

I have never attempted block evasion in my life on this or any website.

What I want most of all is to put this in the past where it belongs. I realize that will take time and work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 isn't able to edit here currently, so I'll add the timeline that was requested of them here on their behalf. Operator873 ^connect 02:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Responses

Two parties at the thread have asked for a timeline of events and more information. I put this together today:

In assembling this timeline, I realized I'd actually forgotten a lot of this. I don't think this timeline has everything but it does have most of the major parts. To address Ivanvector's point about Wikinews, the answer is no, the situations are not related. What happened on Wikinews during the early days of the pandemic in 2020 was that I criticized an admin action by saying "it's overkill." This statement was deemed to violate WN:NEVERASSUME. If you want to read just one link that shows the core of my case, I recommend this ArbCom appeal from 2018: [1] What I did wrong and kept doing wrong was grossly misunderstand Wikipedia's system for handling blocks and other sanctions. I thought that appealing a block meant providing an elaborate, detailed, multi-part proposal for solving underlying problems ("I'm ready to be part of the solution!") with tons of links and diffs explaining why the original sanctions were wrong, and that is absolutely not how the Wikipedia system works. In fact, by trying to do things that way, I was driving people nuts! As one user put it, I was writing a "call for the annulment of the sanction, not a showing that it's [not] necessary." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

In early 2016, I fell under a topic ban for part of the Manual of Style. I don't know how to give more detail on that without saying anything that could be interpreted as relitigating it. Do I agree with the topic ban? No. Have I always done my best to obey it anyway? Yes. The site can't function otherwise. After the topic ban was placed, I thought the right thing to do was to ask the enforcing admin question after question after question about what was expected of me, what was and wasn't allowed, on and on. I thought that was establishing, "See? I'm willing to follow the rules and be a team player!" but what I was actually doing was exhausting the patience an already overworked volunteer. I'd actually planned to make monthly reports to him about what I was doing elsewhere on Wikipedia, as if he were my parole officer because that's what I thought was going on. At my formal appeal of said topic ban, I thought the right thing to do was to provide evidence that the original accusations were wrong. Again, that's not how we do things here.

In 2016 I was topic banned from the manual of style over WP:LQ, a rule that has to do with whether or not we're allowed to use American rules for quotation marks. As you can see from the Manual of Style Register this has been a subject of contention going back to long before I joined Wikipedia.

• Initial complaint placed by RGloucester: [2]
• Another complaint: [3] I don't really remember what this was about and I'd rather not reread it.
• Another complaint by RGloucester. I remember this one. Someone invited me to a discussion involving my banned topic and I said what amounted to "I can't go because I'm under a topic ban," but I did also include a link that the admins said was a violation: [4] Like I said earlier, if the admins say it counts as a topic ban violation, then I have to treat them like a referee in a sports match. If I remember correctly, the part of my post that they considered a violation was visible for forty seconds before I reverted it myself, without being asked, before this complaint was filed.
• Now the AE block... [5] I thought that WP:BANEX meant I was allowed to talk to the enforcing admin about these things, but the admins and ArbCom have decided it does not mean that.
• Since it was an AE block, I appealed at ArbCom once in late 2016 [6] and again in 2018. But AE sanctions automatically become normal sanctions after one year. In my case it was a little longer, but I appealed again in I want to say 2017 through the normal unblock system.
• I then spent the next six months working RSN and generally contributing to parts of Wikipedia that I hadn't been to before, staying fully away from the Manual of Style. I remember that time passing without incident.
• I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [7] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised.
• I appealed that block to ArbCom, and the appeal was declined.
• ArbCom invited me to appeal to the community in 2019. I did, and it was unsuccessful. [8]
• It has been two years and seven months since my last appeal. I've spent that time constructively contributing to other Wikimedia projects and practicing being a team player. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Community input

• Support unblock Darkfrog24 has become an integral part of the Simple English Wikipedia community and garnered the respect of that community and the sysops there. I hope my support of this editor, without hesitation, may speak somewhat to that end. While simplewiki is not enwiki, I believe Darkfrog24 will prove to be an invaluable asset to the English Wikipedia when granted a fresh start by the community. Operator873 ^connect 18:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've collaborated with Darkfrog24 on the Simple English Wikipedia, where they are a very helpful, trusted, and community-involved editor whose volunteering is highly valued. I am in support of an unblock. Vermont (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock – Regrettably, this unblock request shows the same lack of acknowledgement of the reasons for the initial block that has been displayed in previous unblock requests, and is laden with the same quasi-legalistic arguments about the procedure by which the block was enacted. Any unblock request must acknowledge the original reasons why Darkfrog24 was blocked, and show at least a modicum of contrition. Anything else is opening up the encyclopaedia to the same sort of incessant disruption that Darkfrog24 wrought upon the encyclopaedia years ago. RGloucester — ☎ 18:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC) - struck, see below.

Just looking over the standard offer, I see a requirement to avoid the initial behavior that led to the block as the only stipulation regarding past issues. I feel Darkfrog24 addressed this in their request. Additionally, I'll further point out that the stand offer specifically mentions "Apologies and other expressions of remorse aren't necessary, but basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively are." Not only has Darkfrog24 distinguished themselves on other projects, they have specifically expressed the willingness to move forward productively on this project. I think this is an excellent opportunity to AGF and allow a chance to reintegrate. Operator873 ^connect 19:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

In the first place, Darkfrog's case is anything but 'standard'. We're well past that point. We've had eight years of appeals, all of them tone deaf wastes of the community's time. While I agree, no one should be forced to grovel and beg for forgiveness, nor is that what I'm asking for here, this unblock request itself is an example of the 'initial behaviour that led to the block'. I do not believe that Darkfrog understands what Darkfrog did that lead to the block, and therefore, I have no reason to believe that they will actually abide their topic ban and avoid such behaviour in future. For Darkfrog to be 'productive', they will need to express a clear understanding of the topic ban that was issued, and why it was issued, without asking for endless clarifications. RGloucester — ☎ 19:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support their work on Simple does the thing that we literally always ask for: demonstrate the ability to work collegially and without disruption on another project, and assuming that CU corroborates that claim, I think it's an easy decision to unblock per ROPE. I note, in passing, that neither WP:SO, WP:BLOCKING nor WP:UNBLOCK demand any kind of grovelling "contrition", and I do not think it is necessary to make people crawl to see that they know where they went wrong. I also think that it ill-behoves those that supposedly non-partisanly move an editors unblock request here then begin WP:BLUDGEONing the same discussion. What gives? SN54129 19:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a bit rude, don't you think? I have Darkfrog's talk page watched because of our previous interactions, and noticed no one had copied the request to AN as was requested. BLUDGEONing? Sometimes, I wonder about Wikipedia. One comment, a bludgeon. In any case, I will withdraw, if not for yours or Darkfrog's sake, for my own.RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @RGloucester: I apologise for Assuming Bad Faith as I did; I've seen that kind of thing happen, and it's offensive when it does. But, I admit, one edit does not a bludgeon make. Sorry! SN54129 20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You also removed my comment...[9] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• If we want thoughtful participation from more people than just those who have had past dealings with them, there needs to be some background here. As someone unfamiliar, I have no idea what topic DF is even topic banned from, no idea what led to their topic ban, no idea what they did in violation of the topic ban to earn a block, and no idea why multiple previous unban requests have been rejected. There is no way to find all this without some detective work. Is the theory that every single person who comments here is supposed to spend an hour and do this research for themselves? Since @Darkfrog24: is the one requesting an unblock, here is the minimum I'd like to see from them:
  • Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to the topic ban
  • Link(s) to the discussion(s) that led to their multiple blocks
  • Links to the previous unblock requests.
• If someone besides DF wants to compile this instead, OK I guess. But until then, this is an insufficient unblock request, and I conditionally oppose it until it is fleshed out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Sorry, I never circled back on this. Info was provided a while ago. If I have time I'll review and opine, but if not, the reviewing closer shouldn't consider this an oppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  DF has written their timeline on their talk page. Operator873 ^connect 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't expect a forced apology for past wrongs but I do expect that those past wrongs are at least acknowledged in an unblock request. I'm not familiar with this user, but from what I can gather from links in their extensive block log, they were topic-banned from a particular subset of the manual of style, I cannot discern for what reason, and some time later were indefinitely blocked with talk page and email access revoked (as well as UTRS eventually revoked) because they just would not stop wikilawyering and attempting to relitigate the topic ban. The fact that they were also indefinitely blocked on WikiNews for the same type of behaviour (allegedly also over that project's style guides), and the fact they've explicitly stated their intent to relitigate the same sanction again in their unblock request, does not sit right with me. I both commend and applaud your contributions to simplewiki, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  To quote from the 2016 Arbitration motion: "She is very strongly advised to focus that appeal on her future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of her topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas." I interpreted Darkfrog's comment about appealing lesser sanctions to be in line with previous advice, aka to work on editing constructively in other areas prior to trying to immediately re-enter the sanctioned areas that caused issues last time, and to abide by those sanctions so long as they are in place. And yep, I've had a hard time trying to sift through all of the archives, it's a rather annoyingly complicated set of discussions. Regardless, Darkfrog is certainly capable of contributing constructively to community projects, and I don't see how this block is preventing disruption by continuing. Vermont (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Then, as Darkfrog has not done so, tell us what the [expletive deleted] ban or block (it is unknown whether it was one or both, as the title of this section refers to unblocking but subsequent comments talk about a topic ban) was for and link to the relevant discussions. How can anyone independent come to an opinion without this information? And having to spend time digging around for that information will inevitably end up biasing people against her. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not enough information has been provided for anyone to have an opinion. User:Darkfrog24, you are the one asking to be unblocked, so you need to tell us (with links) why you were blocked. You can't expect others to do any detective work to find out. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• The following provide some background to the later portions of the situation: 2019 AN unblock appeal, 2018 AE appeal closure diff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• And here's a link to the 2016 ARCA motion declining the appeal of the original indef block and topic ban. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of thoroughness, I'm going to say here also that DF has posted their timeline on their talkpage. Operator873 ^connect 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Those demanding some sort of act of contrition are on thin ice for actual policy. All that matters is that henceforth Darkfrog24 promises to be a positive contributor, and has the work at other projects to show that they are capable of it. DF's work at Simple is absolutely all the evidence needed. (Those asking about a timeline of events can see the one DF24 placed on their talk page, being that that is the only place they can currently post.) oknazevad (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. The failure to provide links to the discussions that led to the imposition of the sanctions and the previous discussions that declined to remove the sanctions is a very bad indicator, and to me, shows disrespect to editors trying to evaluate this unblock request without wasting editors time in conducting detective work. This editor has had many years to study and learn what is required to formulate and submit a successful unblock request. I looked at a unblock request from 2019 that is linked in this user's block log, and noticed that I had opposed the unblock based on comments from TonyBallioni which I agreed with at this time and still agree with today. Then, I checked out a block related conversation from 2016 which included comments from Drmies that gave me great pause. That was eight years ago. Some may argue that this was all quite a few years ago, but that argument is only legitimate if we have solid evidence that this editor has abandoned that disruptive point of view. I see no such evidence. The editor's supporters point to their good work at Simple English Wikipedia and I suppose that is a point in their favor. With no disrespect to thar project, I consider it to be relatively minor in comparison to this project, and I am sure that pageviews will back up my claim. So, perhaps this editor's best niche is as a contributor to that project, where they can make positive contributions to that offshoot project, but are unable to disrupt the flagship project of the Wikipedia movement. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: DF is unable to post their timeline and relevant links here as they are currently blocked. But they have posted the requested information on their talkpage. Operator873 ^connect 02:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Operator873, thank you for providing a link to where this blocked editor says After the topic ban was placed, I thought the right thing to do was to ask the enforcing admin question after question after question about what was expected of me, what was and wasn't allowed, on and on. I thought that was establishing, "See? I'm willing to follow the rules and be a team player!" but what I was actually doing was exhausting the patience an already overworked volunteer. That amounts to additional evidence that this block remains necessary. What we need to see for an unblock is evidence that this editor has completely and definitively abandoned this type of disruptive behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect, I think DF is specifically saying they see this was a mistake and a part of the problem. Hence, they do not intend to repeat it in the future and, at the minimum, are requesting WP:ROPE. Blocks are cheap. Operator873 ^connect 03:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Cullen, that's them describing their past misconceptions from almost three years ago. See the last sentence of what you quoted. Vermont (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I don't care about apologies or statements demonstrating understanding; I don't pretend I can judge a stranger's mindset based on written correspondence. What I care about isn't what's in their head or heart but their actions, specifically whether they can contribute to Wikipedia without disrupting others. I believe they can after skimming their Simple Wiki contribs [10] and talk page (2021 is a year of what appear like productive collegial conversations), and their Wikinews contribs since being unblocked there in December [11]. Maybe I missed some recent red flags but absent evidence of recent problems, if they can edit without problems at Simple for the last couple years and Wikinews for the last couple months, they should be fine here. And if not, they'll get blocked again. Levivich 03:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Generally rather oppose due to extensive off-wiki experience with the user that led to me leaving #wikipedia-en back in 2019 when this user was allowed to "help" others with their policy questions there during their block. I believe they have always had the genuine intent of helping, but reading their name here again brings back bad memories. They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  It pains me to see someone say any reason made them walk away from Wikipedia. Indeed, that is, perhaps, the worse outcome of any conflict on Wikipedia. However, with respect to you and not intending to offend, but... isn't They may have completely changed since then, of course; I just tend to guess they didn't. the precise embodiment of assuming bad faith? I understand some folks expended a lot of energy in 2019 regarding DF and the incident they were involved in. However, in 2022, I hope those same people can see the amount of energy DF has put into re-earning enough trust to be given a chance. Operator873 ^connect 23:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  From the IRC channel, not the English Wikipedia itself. I assume good faith, but it was clearly combined with incompetence back in 2019, which may have changed. Assuming that this might not have changed is not an assumption of bad faith, it's just pessimism. That should be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's a fair statement and I think I understand what you mean. While I can't speak for Vermont, I can say my reason for being here supporting her is that I am witness to her improvement and will put my name on this statement: I know the troubles are in the past and she's ready to move forward. Operator873 ^connect 23:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I also noticed that and had a similar concern. Though, it looks like that should hopefully no longer be applicable with the unban discussion. Naleksuh (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Moving to support based on the responses and timeline. I do think the user understands why they were blocked by ArbCom on their last topic ban appeal, and acknowledges that rationale such that those particular issues won't recur. From the appeals of the block, it seems we as a community have pulled a "gotcha!" each time they appeal: if they acknowledge the topic ban we say "they're relitigating!" and decline; if they don't mention the topic ban we say "they don't acknowledge the ban!" and still decline. Well we can't have it both ways. They're a user whose past productivity on this wiki has been noted and who has remained active on sister projects throughout their block here, which is what WP:SO asks for. They're here committing to respect the topic ban even though they disagree with it, which is how topic bans work. They should be given the opportunity to comply.

Regarding the topic ban, which is not being appealed here; Darkfrog24: in each of your requests where you've noted the topic ban, you've made a point of also noting that you disagree with it. You need to refocus; saying you don't agree with the ban kills your appeal before you even get started. Successful topic ban appeals start with the sanctioned user acknowledging that their own disruptive behaviour led to the sanction, and that the sanction was necessary to stop their disruption; that's how you convince the community you won't just do the same thing again. It seems you've appealed many times already on the basis of the propriety of the ban, and each time those reviewing agreed that it was appropriate and necessary. You will not successfully appeal until you also acknowledge that it was necessary. Nobody here has any moral authority to demand contrition or apologies, and that's not how any of this works, but a successful appeal does sound something like "yes I did these things and I was sanctioned because I would not stop." Best of luck. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Unblock I recognize DF's name, but I don't know that we have had any substantive interaction; still, for me, this seems an easy support. They are clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and should be given the chance to do so. I also don't mind a stance of "I believe this decision is wrong, but I am willing to abide by it" (but note I am not an administrator). I would however, urge DF to be less litigious in general--I think the original block was appropriate. That said, all the best, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• "I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [26] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised"--that led me to two comments by Thryduulf, this and this, and those comments are still valid. I also agree with comments by Cullen328. I'll add that the way this request is going, starting of vague and partly in denial and then moving into minutiae is exactly how earlier conversations/appeals went, and it's exasperating. On the other hand, Levivich makes a valid point and who knows, it's been a while. Putting all that together with my own memories (which bring back a sense of failure and frustration on my own part), I find it impossible to choose one option over the other, and will wait and see what the community says. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• I wasn't aware of this until seeing Drmies' ping above. I still have strong memories of just how exasperated I was by Darkfrog24 (which is significant given that it was years ago), such that I don't wish to spend any time evaluating this request so I will not bold any opinions. However I will encourage not unblocking without a short leash such that, should they return to their previous behaviour or anything else disruptive that a block can be swiftly reimposed without wasting yet more of the community's time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I wasn't sure if I should ping you or not: I know this was as much a time sink for you as it was for me. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    Just felt I should briefly chime in again to explain my thinking--which is mostly about the nature of DF's transgressions. They were, as far as I can tell and somewhat recall about being an administrative time sink and aggravation. I don't mean to make light of that as an issue; as I said above, the block was deserved. But it strikes me that if anything like that were to reoccur, it would be instantly obvious by its very nature. I think we all agree DF could be a worthwhile contributor, they just need to make sure their behavior doesn't make them a net negative. I believe they should have that chance, though, as ever, my information is only partial and I fully appreciate how others (especially admins!) could reasonably come to the opposite conclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – I said I would not comment further, and I wish that I could do so, but it seems there is a real problem in terms of institutional memory here. Perhaps too much time has passed, as some others have said. I take Ivanvector's point that, in order for the topic ban to be acknowledged, it needs to be discussed. However, one must take care to note the specific way in which it is being discussed. Please see this comment that Darkfrog has added. I would like editors here to draw their attention to one particular remark, specifically the following sentence: In 2016 I was topic banned from the manual of style over WP:LQ, a rule that has to do with whether or not we're allowed to use American rules for quotation marks. As you can see from the Manual of Style Register this has been a subject of contention going back to long before I joined Wikipedia. This may seem to benign to anyone here who is not familiar with the dispute, but I can assure you that it is not. The initial topic ban was issued precisely because Darkfrog continued to advocate for a position that quotation style is an ENGVAR issue. Contrary to community consensus, and a pile of reliable sources that were brought up each time it was discussed, Darkfrog would argue that there are 'American' and 'British' quotation styles, and that Wikipedia needed to acknowledge this fact.

Because this argument was repeatedly rejected at the main MoS page, Darkfrog moved the dispute to a few subpages, one of which was subsequently deleted Wikipedia:Manual of Style/External support, and one which was userfied User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register (please note the creator's comment at the top of the page). Darkfrog's reference to the 'Manual of Style Register' is in fact not benign at all. This page, previously at the title Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register, was used by Darkfrog as a PoV fork of the MoS, despite the fact that it had no community consensus behind it. Darkfrog used the page to compile random stuff that Darkfrog deemed useful ammunition in disputes, and its previous shortcut of MOS:REGISTER gave it an air of legitimacy. Please note very carefully that Darkfrog linked directly to a section of this page that Darkfrog had compiled for this purpose, without providing any of the background information about the page, and with continued reference to it as if it had the authority of an actual MoS page. This is the exact sort of behaviour that led to the original topic ban, and is proof that Darkfrog has not 'dropped the stick' as people are wont to say here. The advocacy campaign, and the attempts to legitimise Darkfrog's position, continue...in this situation, how can an unblock be justified? This really will be my last comment, and I do apologise if my participation here is deemed a nuisance...but it seems like I am one of the few people that actually remember what happened here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

My view on this as I said above is that Darkfrog is not appealing their topic ban which covers all of these past disputes, they're stating that they intend to respect it. Even though they explicitly disagree with it I see no reason not to believe that they're capable of abiding by it. It seems to me that has always been the case, with the exception of their nagging of a relevant administrator (which they now acknowledge was both "testing the edges" and harassment) and their crossing the line in an AC appeal. I think they also understand that if this request is successful and they then violate the topic ban again, the resulting block will be quite permanent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, if, as Thryduulf says, Darkfrog is truly given a 'short leash', and Darkfrog truly intends to abide the restriction, then I suppose I can withdraw my opposition to an unblock. In order for such a 'short leash' to be enforced, however, it is important for administrators to familiarise themselves with the specific nature of the behaviour that led to the block. I will strike my oppose. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm very dubious about unblocking this editor. The response to my simple request to show why they were blocked/banned was not to provide a few links with a brief factual account but to give a rant about how hard done by they were, which is exactly the kind of behaviour that led to the block in the first place. If the editor is to be unblocked then I hope that those who want this are willing to take responsibility should anything untoward happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Apologies, but I was hoping you could clarify your message. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems you're saying DF has gone on a rant but, they're blocked. They literally can't participate here and have only provided a brief synopsis on their talkpage with links to the requested information others have asked for. I'm just confused about you talking about their behavior where DF can't actually participate? Operator873 ^connect 23:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This does appear to be their edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. And I copy/pasted that edit here. But, I think it's a bit of a reach to call that a rant. DF was specifically asked for all of that information. She provided as requested. Operator873 ^connect 23:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's a rant. There's loads of self-justifying commentary there rather than just a statement of the facts that she was specifically asked for. That's exactly what she was blocked for. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This is very clear sysop misconduct + one-way IBANs are a problem; unlike anything here. I was not familiar with the Arb matters at the time, but it does not appear to be necessary as of right now. Darkfrog24 can use common sense; even in times when many editor editors do not, and I hope to see good contributions from Darkfrog24 in the future, and improve the encyclopedia. Naleksuh (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • NeilN isn't around to answer to that accusation, but I strongly disagree - this was a measured and appropriate warning to a user violating a sanction imposed under the authority of arbcom, who was in the process of talking themselves into a total block. NeilN warned them at least twice more after this to stop before pulling the trigger, and then their UTRS access was also pulled because they still didn't stop. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Okay, I wasn't aware of that. I also didn't really have a problem with the talk access being removed when it was eventually, I was more concerned with the specific diff alone. I've also just now seen that NeilN is not around (ironically, their last edit is telling everyone they will be more active after a two month break, then took a 3.5 year break :/). I still think it was not handled perfectly, but I remove my statement about very clear sysop misconduct. Naleksuh (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No, Naleksuh, that is not sysop misconduct. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This right here is why 1-way IBANS are a problem. If Editor X is banned from talking about or interacting with Editor Y, but Editor Y is not such restricted, and then Editor Y makes uncivil/abusive/inappropriate/baiting/whatever comments about Editor X, it's essentially a trap. If Editor X reports the abuse being directed at them, they are technically violating their restriction (at least by the letter), because it's impossible to report abuse from another editor without mentioning that editor. That what appears to have transpired here. It takes two to tangle - it doesn't matter who "started it" or who was more "at fault" - if two or more users are problematic with each other, then round robin ban all of them, or ban none of them. IBANS are relatively trivial compared to topic bans, so even if one editor was "more to blame" then the other, sanctioning them both with an IBAN is hardly excessive, and prevents this very situation. In this particular case, the "ridiculous suppositions" definitely didn't help their case, but the admin in question was also rather aggressive considering that the question appeared to essentially be asking for the ban to be made 2-way. Even if such a request is violating the letter of a ban, it should be allowed under most circumstances as a specific exception. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:C4E0:11CC:3658:77A0 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is being appealed here? The title says that its a block, much of the previous discussion was about a topic ban, but now you people are going on about an interaction ban. Can we get some focus here for us uninvolved editors who shouldn't be made to spend hours digging through histories to find out what this is all about? And I mean simple facts, not people's opinions about those facts, which can come separately. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of layered sanctions involved here, many of which resulted from DF24's problematic behavior while appealing existing sanctions. The inciting sanction was a TBAN from discussing quotation marks and quotation styles imposed in Jan 2016. This was later expanded to encompass the entire MOS, broadly construed: [12]. Shortly after, she was blocked for a week at AE: [13]. Finally, at the end of February 2016, she was indeffed for wikilawyering the TBAN: [14].

She was unblocked December 2017, but the MOS TBAN remained in force. In June 2018, she attempted to appeal the TBAN, but as a result of further wikilawyering at that appeal, she was blocked for a month and given a one-way IBAN with SMcCandlish (June 2018). This apparently upset her to the point of making the comments that NeilN admonished her for in the above-noted now-struck comment. Later that day, NeilN upgraded the one-month block to an indefinite block, as a result of the now-suppressed comments on her userpage. Other appeals via unblock request, UTRS, ArbCom, and a community request like this one in 2019, have followed and failed.

All three sanctions - the TBAN from MOS, the IBAN with SMC, and (obviously) the indef - are still currently in force. I believe the current appeal only concerns the indef, but naturally the other sanctions have come up in discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, ♠PMC♠ is correct in that this conversation is only regarding the indef and not any of the other sanctions. DF will abide by the TBAN and other sanctions while reintegrating into the community and rebuilding the trust with the community in general. Further, DF has fully acknowledged rebuilding that trust will be a lengthy process: I realize that will take time and work. Operator873 ^connect 21:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Unblock - It appears that Darkfrog24 has not only complied with the indefinite block but has contributed to the Wikipedia project in the Simple English encyclopedia, where they have made positive contributions. It appears that Darkfrog has learned from their mistakes and is ready to edit collaboratively in the English Wikipedia, subject to the same restrictions as had earlier been imposed. (That is, I am supporting the unblock, not any lifting of restrictions.) (As I explained yesterday in another case, I have a particular strong distrust for anyone who engages in block evasion or sockpuppetry, and this is not such a case.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support unblock...with conditions - I feel a bit qualified to speak about DF's unblocking request, as I have had substantial interaction in the past with the editor, all of it extremely negative. I was blocked due to my interaction with this user on an article (DF was blocked, as well), and at the time I considered them pretty much among the worst Wikipedian I'd ever worked with. In short, I fucking loathed Darkfrog with the heat of a hundred suns; very few other users have ever made me feel that way, or could make me lose my temper the way I did when around them. There was tendentious editing and - I am still positive to this day - socking. I was close to walking away from the Wiki-EN forever, all because of the user.

But that was over 5 years ago. It took a near indef block to get me to change my own problematic behavior, so maybe the block that Darkfrog has been subject to has changed them for the better as well. I am not saying that I am never tempted to lash out; I am saying that my desire to edit collaboratively has since outweighed my need to be right. So, in that way, I suspect that I have actually changed.

I suspect that DF is in this same position; the impulses are still there, but maybe the user has begun using the correct tools to interact with others better. They seem to have found a better place for themselves in the Simple Wiki (which I consider to be just as vital as the regular Wikipedia), and while I have not looked at Darkfrog's interactions there (though someone should if only to confirm that they are better at editor interaction), I want to believe in Second Chances; I am a better editor because I was afforded a second opportunity, and it follows that DF might be as well.

It is because of that history - and my own reflection on it - that I would support a conditional lifting of the block. The possibility of change does not mean the implementation of change. I think a second chance is warranted. If they mess it up, they mess it up. Give the user a chance at their own redemption. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The conditions to be what? I've looked into the archives and diffs at some length -- more than might have been wise or good for me, in hindsight -- but I'm still in two minds as to what to comment on it, or indeed even whether to. (And yet, here I am.) In particular it'd seem unfair to the user to get into the weeds of the MOS stuff when they're enjoined from commenting on that at all on this projecct; other than their several prescriptive-grammar userboxes. Frankly my heart sinks to read that they "will continue contributing to the encyclopedia as before", "plan my next appeal of said lesser sanction", and their compliance is framed in terms of "until it is lifted". I know that Hiberno-English is if anything over-supplied by use of the subjunctive, but a "would" or three would go a long way here for me. But from their activity on both simple: and on wikinews, it seems like an issue they're still very invested in, and see it less as a style-guide choice, but as a great right to be wronged in the form of overturning the "ban" of "correct" "American English". (To SYNTH some descriptions they've previously used here, and more recently at those other WM projects.)

But surely if they're to have any further "conditions" (much less any sort of (IMO rather unfortunately phrased elsewhere) "short leash"), it should be something clear and transparent, not just something ominous-sounding but vague. And conversely, if they're not unblocked at this time, it would be a minimal service to them to indicate what they should do to be so in future. Rather than as seems to have happened in the past to be essentially told "you did it wrong this time, try again next year", which would surely be deeply frustrating for anyone. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian, I'm looking at closing this since it seems everyone who wants to comment has said their piece, but before I do so, if I do unblock are there any specific conditions you have in mind? Bear in mind that this request is only to lift the block not for a full amnesty, so if I (or anyone else who decides to close it) decide there's a consensus to unblock, it won't stop any other topic or interaction bans from remaining in place. ‑ Iridescent 18:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iridescent, Not having any interest in Darkfrog's contributions since my unfortunate interactions with them, I can only offer an informed outsider's view. In the past, DF has been determined to enforce their view of an article on the community; the idea of collaborative editing was utterly lost on them, as they considered everyone else to be intellectually stunted. Then there was the very strong indication of socking, which I am hoping was a one-time flirtation that I voiced to an admin at the time. And of course there has been the MOS content issues which eventually led to their indef ban.

Maybe they have improved, having switched over to the slower pace of the Simple Wiki-en. Maybe their patience with others has grown, and their need to win an argument eased. Speaking for myself, those would be the only reasons to let them back in. Taking into consideration the views of others who have had more interaction with DF, I would submit that the user be limited in the following ways:

-a permanent ban of anything related to MOS. This is intended to be all-encompassing; any attempt to wiggle around the rules should result in massive damage from the BanHammer.

-A one-revert rule for the first 3-6 months, to encourage them to use the article discussion page to build consensus. As above, any attempt to mis-characterize a revert as a content edit should result in a BanHammer beat-down.

-Mentoring with someone that admins feel is completely opposite to DF. This might not be fair to the mentor, but it would provide DF with a 'devil's advocate' and someone to talk to that could provide an alternate view of a situation the DF might find personally frustrating.

-a review of the user, sort of like probation, at the 6-month and 12-month point, post-unblocking, to be conducted by an admin fully aware of DF's tactics used in the past to 'pretzel' the rules. If the user should pass these two probationary reviews, we should allow the user to free range - but maintaining the permaban on MOS and MOS-related topics.

It's important to keep in mind that we cannot change Darkfrog's personality; we are here to try and channel her usefulness to the Project into effective editing - and thus better articles - in the Wiki-En. She has shown she does quality work when her ego is removed from the equation. Once she accepts that the manipulative aspects to her personality are only detrimental here, she will likely stifle them, as she has seen the results of her failing to do so in the past. That's my two cents' worth. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, DF does have an active topic ban related to MOS, that is not being appealed here. And speaking as someone who works with her relatively frequently and has only done so for under two years, your description is far from how I would describe her today. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Admin Reorientation

Are there any reasonably active admins who would be interested in conducting a reorientation for old admins such as myself who'd like to pick up the mop again? Many of the technical and/or cultural changes of the past years may be dissuading some old-timers from making a gainful return to the wiki they loved so well. Babajobu (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• I hope you can get back up to speed, but the mood towards long inactive administrators returning with their mops is not so friendly right now. You've made less than 500 edits in the last 15 years, so expect some push back. But welcome back and good luck. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• You can start here: WP:ADMINGUIDE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks for showing interest in coming back! Which areas are you interested in? Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators is good reading if you're interested in that. I'd recommend reading all the way through WP:CSD regardless, as several criterion have been revoked by the community over the last two years. A big debate is SNG vs GNG for notability on some topics (mainly sports figures right now); that can get kinda nasty at times so I'd encourage you to hold off on any AfD closing in that area until you've worked up a bit more active. If you're interested in main page stuff, WP:DYK always needs more admin help and would be willing to give you a refresher/crash course. What specific areas are you interested in working in? Hog Farm _Talk 13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I could be of help in requests for protection. Many changes there, not the least the introduction of pending-changes protection. Lectonar (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm happy to cover AfDs for those that have that as a focus area - while Hog is absolutely right regarding the current furor area, I'm happy to cover the field more broadly, whether for Babajobu or others.

  In fact, the idea in general is very interesting - perhaps we should have a page with volunteers broken into admin-action categories for those interested in getting reacquainted. More broadly, just getting out and doing the core mission of some content edits is good for picking up changed norms in that area. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  In 2019 I implemented pending pages protection for the article on Eric Reguly. If you have any feedback, positive or negative, on the manner in which I did so, my attention is yours. Babajobu (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Articles on the Middle East, the California Correctional System, and farm equipment would all make fine fare. Happy to hold off on closing any AfDs. Babajobu (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• You have made a number of uses of the admin tools, as recently as 2019. You are not as inactive as you think, or as others above think. ☺ You already know about pending changes, for example, because you set it on Eric Reguly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) twice. Some of the cultural changes are good things. We are nowhere near as willing to keep articles in the bands, businesses, and biographies parts of Wikipedia as we were in 2004/2005. But again, you know this. You deleted Deori Kalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) last year. Three simple principles will keep you away from lots of minefields: Don't use the deletion, protection, or blocking tools to win arguments in your favour. Be prepared to talk to people. Don't rush to closure. And since you were around in the early 2000s, you can tell Hog Farm what the schools notability debate was like. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks for getting back to active mopping; we need all the help we can get! My suggestion is to pick an area to concentrate on rather than trying to do a little of everything. That way, you'll get up to speed on that specific area. In my own experience, I find I'm much more likely to do something stupid when I wander into an area I don't usually work in, thinking I'll just help out a bit. Often, it's more like a bull in a china shop.
  The big take-away from the recent crop of arbcom cases is that everybody understands that admins are human and make mistakes, but as long as you're quick to admit you goofed and revert your action, nobody's going to get too bent out of shape. It's when admins dig in their heels and refuse to talk about an issue that things go bad. If there's anything specific that you're unsure about, feel free to drop a question on my talk page, or if you prefer, email me. And, if I might do a bit of recruiting for the area I'm working in these days, WP:SPI can always use more patrolling admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • And, of course, always remember to sign your posts ^[FBDB] Nosebagbear (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    • And date them, too... --Blablubbs (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• If the currently suspended recent admin conduct cases had proceeded, I would very much expect them to have centered around the admin in questions understanding of WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT. Those are really important points to keep in mind. I'd add that coming here and asking this shows more clue than some other recently returned admins, so you're off to a good start. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Can you link me to those abortive cases? Curious where said admins got mixed up on WP:INVOLVED. Thanks. Babajobu (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Babajobu I think they are referring to Jonathunder and Timwi. The Signpost has a decent summary if you don't want to read through all the drama in the actual case requests. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  And the third one is Geschichte. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Heh I remember Jonathunder. He and I disagreed rather fervently in 2005 over whether Wikipedia should follow Chicago Style or AP Style in the spelling out of numbers in non-STEM articles. He seemed committed to the wiki's welfare, I'll give him. Babajobu (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wow,I really did show back up at a heck of a time to be a legacy admin talking about re-engaging with admin functions. It does seem like WP:ADMINACCT is taken more seriously than it once was and that some old-time admins have been bafflingly frivolous and flagrant in their breaches of WP:INVOLVED Babajobu (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for returning! Most admins don't bite and will probably be happy to answer any questions – it might be a good idea to watch areas of interest for a while, figure out which sysops are prolific in those areas, and reach out on their talk pages whenever questions arise. I'll also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators has some pointers that may be useful. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks to everyone for the input. Reorientation syllabus has been provided! Babajobu (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• A couple of more things I think that need to be brought up is that the mop has a lot more strands than it used to... 15 years ago, there was just block-delete-protect, but each of these has gotten significantly more complex. There are many more levels of protection beyond just full- and semi-protection, and they each have their standards for when to use them (see WP:PROT for all of the details). There are now revision deletions, which when I first starting adminning, were not possible, that are sort of a "suppression light" that allows admins to remove individual edits, much like oversight. We now also have the ability to block users from specific pages rather than just site blocks, which is probably the most significantly useful addition to the mop toolset in all my time as an admin. There is also a lot more arbitration enforcement procedures than their used to be... When working on adminning in Arb-Com sanctioned topic areas, use of admin tools needs to be logged (something I occasionally forget), and most of these areas also place articles under "editing restrictions", such as enforced 1RR and the like. --Jayron32 14:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I find the AE process very confusing. So much so that I just stay away from it, for fear that I'll accidentally do something terribly wrong. For somebody looking to pick up the mop again after a hiatus, that's not where I would recommend starting.

  Another new thing is that there's now a wide range of permissions which can be granted (and revoked in some cases) by any admin. See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Along those lines, you no longer have the autopatrolled permission; it got unbundled from admin rights by RFC a little while ago. You might want to visit Special:UserRights/Babajobu and re-grant that to yourself, which odd as it may sound, is perfectly acceptable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  The two things that make AE particularly difficult to work with is 1) The logging requirements (all sanctions in the area (protections, rev-dels, blocks, etc.) need to be logged and 2) AE sanctions have a built-in first mover advantage. Unlike other admin actions, which any other admin can undo, AE sanctions should not ever be undone unless the blocking admin agrees OR ArbCom themselves over-rides it. I understand why this exists (in the past, disruptive or harassing editors could build a cadre of admin friends who would rescue them and protect them from meaningful sanctions), but it does make it a bit of a minefield to work in. --Jayron32 16:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Along those lines, you shouldn't unblock somebody without first consulting with the admin who blocked them. Violating that is a relatively minor transgression, except in the case where the block log comment includes some variation on "checkuser-block". Unblocking a CU block is one of those bright line things that will almost certainly get you dragged to arbcom for a first offence. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  In the distant past I don't recall many wheelwars, I think most admins would not have considered unblocking someone without conferring with blocking admin. Non-admin editors thought there was inappropriate level of solidarity among admins and we were often referred to as "The Cabal." Sounds like there'd been change there. And honestly, AE and AfD now sound terrifying. Babajobu (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Jayron32 one of us is having a small misunderstanding - either me for what you'er saying or your for what you're required to log. You only need to log if you're using Arbitration Enforcement authority. So, to use one example, if you're doing a regular page protection of the kind and type you'd do anywhere, there is no need to log it. If, however, you're protecting earlier or at a higher level of protection that you would have were it not that topic then it is an AE action, should be noted as such in the log doing it, and then should be logged at WP:AELOG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  • While that is true in theory, Jayron32, WP:AE has migrated to be much more of a consensus board. Rarely does any admin just jump on a close/sanction. In fact, they often drag out until they are stale. This is one reason I've become more active at WP:AE, which isn't particularly enjoyable, but I'm one of those admin that isn't likely to wait more than a week to close cases. Most of the time, there is very clear consensus among admin (2 or 3 at most). If there isn't, I typically won't close at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Revision deletions seems like it would be very valuable in biographies of living persons. Blocking otherwise good editors from individual problem articles rather than sitewide...yeah, very good. I don't even remember how to log use of admin tools, will find out. Better that I probably not be autopatrolled for the time being, someone may catch something worth catching. Babajobu (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, and Babajobu, I expect to be fairly active for the next couple of months. I'm not sure I'm a good active teacher, but if you want some basic mentoring via email, I'm game. I think individual mentoring would be a good idea, rather than a system in place onwiki. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest you create yourself a test account (mine is User:RoySmith-testing). You can use that to experiment on. Block it, unblock it, grant or revoke privileges, etc, without worry of breaking anything important. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Babazilla would be a semi-traditional name. Though Bababish has quite the Sopranos ring to it too... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done thank you. Babajobu (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Another Nigerian hashtag problem

I came across Wikipedia:Meetup/WikiForHumanRights 2022 in Nigeria today because one of their members was violating WP:OVERLINK on a number of pages. This is far from the first time this has happened, with this ANI thread being the latest discussion on the noticeboards about the matter. I have handed out a number of warnings, and a couple of participants have been blocked for failing to respond to multiple reverts and talk page requests to stop, and I have also left this blunt message on the Meetup's talk page; they keep telling folks to just "add wikilinks!" without actually telling them how to do so.

Current hashtags: #W4HRNG, #W4HROWR, #W4HRLAG.

This is one part discussion on how we can sort this out amicably, and one part heads-up that over the next 24 hours (and then until April) we're likely to be hit with a ton of these hashtag edits. Tracking can be done with https://hashtags.wmcloud.org as well as edit filter 1017, assuming it gets updated by whomever said on IRC that they'd update it. Thanks for the vigilance. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't appear the organizers have followed up or followed through on my previous complaints and I don't think a filter is sufficient given the massive disruption at this point. CUPIDICAE💕 18:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this does look disruptive. I have never seen a competition with prizes have a beneficial effect here, but that just may be because I only see those ones that cause a problem. Can anyone show any useful such competitions? If not, then I would suggest that we ban competitions with prizes from the English (because that's the only one we have control over) Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Core Contest is a fine one. DanCherek (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is a chronic problem with edit-a-thons. The idea is supposed to be to get new editors but what tends to happen instead is a bunch of people making clueless edits for the duration of the event, admins having to block the most persistent ones, and then the event ends and the new users never come back. It's essentially self-defeating for everyone involved. The addition of hashtags is a new thing I don't think I've seen before. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  The addition of hashtags is a new thing... at least it makes it easy to track their edits. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would add that trying to ban such events is probably a bad idea as it would just encourage them to be organized off-wiki and we'd have even less of a chance to get through to the organizers. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  A previous hashtag asked users to add images to articles that didn't have them, which of course prompted people to add non-free images to articles, get reverted, get annoyed, and in some cases get blocked. I think a later one went less disruptively when it was made clear to users that the images should only be sourced from Commons. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, both years of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (identified by #WPWP) have been disruptive. The issue with was never non-free images (at least on the AN/ANI threads I was watching). The issue was Commons images being inserted by inexperienced editors at extremely high rates of speed resulting in numerous errors (compounded by their limited engagement with experienced editors). Many of the images didn't actually belong in the articles they were being jammed into, the captions were at best vestigial or at worst downright misleading, and the formatting was often wonky. Individual editors got blocked, and edits with the hashtag were throttled in 2021, but many contest editors continued to try to jam the edits through despite the throttle, so the whole thing continued to be quite disruptive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Filter 1073 generalised to cover this contest. No actions beyond tagging and logging, but of course this can be changed if needed and consensus is found. firefly ( t · c ) 20:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I get some help on the article cripple punk?

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

---

I don't have rollback rights, and it's been a while since I've asked for page protection, but I'm having trouble with the consistent addition of uncited and unsupported material on the article cripple punk.

No source mentions the exclusion of mental disabilities, but one or two editors are very insistent that it be added in; the article could likely do with protecting and rolling back to the last revision that supported this. Thank you!--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 00:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Taking a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I dropped a friendly needs better sourcing note on BeeTheFae's talk page. Beyond that, this looks like a good old fashioned content dispute that probably should be sorted out on the talk starting with an examination of what the sources are saying. I'm not seeing a need for page protection right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Ed Krassenstein redirect creation request

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

---

Ed Krassenstein was deleted numerous times in 2018 and can no longer be created, except by an administrator. I created Brian and Ed Krassenstein about Ed and his twin brother, who jointly have had substantial verifiable coverage and multiple reasons to qualify them as notable. Brian Krassenstein redirects to the two-person article. Can an admin please create a redirect from Ed to Brian and Ed? Thanks! White 720 (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 09:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! White 720 (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Revdel for some very boring edit summaries.

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

---

Boring revdel needed for boring edit summaries by boring IP hopper for the IP Special:Contributions/186.96.50.39. Summaries by other IPs have already been removed. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I revision deleted the edit summaries in question. Just a friendly reminder to not post revision deletion requests at AN/ANI/etc. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion instead. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Can I safely block this IPv6 range?

There's a large amount of vandalism coming from the /32, almost certainly a school I'd guess.[15] And I never can remember, how should I have shown this other than as a link? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You can use this template: 2409:4053:d93:9bec::/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). This is a rather well known type of huge dynamic range known as 'Indian' or just 'Jio'. Users will typically have access to several of them. If you've ever heard anyone say 'Indian ranges can be very difficult', they're referring to this type of thing. That's it for my analysis. I'll leave you to judge the collateral. There will be lots. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The first thing to mention is that if you look at any sufficiently large IP range, you'll find a lot of disruption. Second, mobile IP ranges can be a huge pain. Some mobile network operators have more customers than the population of the United States or European Union; see List of mobile network operators. Some of these companies dump their customers in huge IP ranges. Partial blocks are one solution. I've found it frustrating to deal with partial blocks. I sometimes use confusing features of MediaWiki to mitigate collateral damage, but this can cause massive collateral damage when done incorrectly. It's easier to just do a site-wide, anon-only block that allows account creation. People can still edit freely, but they have to make an account. This does nothing to stop sock puppetry, but it can seriously cut down on impulsive vandalism. You can also do an overlapping mix of hard blocks, partial blocks, and anon-only blocks with account creation enabled. For example, I might do a soft block on the /32 to disable anonymous edits but allow account creation, then do overlapping hard partial blocks on certain topics that are subject to sock puppetry. It's a nightmare to clean up these complex, overlapping blocks when other admins mess them up by changing the block settings, though. You have to know CIDR and remember what each block was designed to do. It can seem deceptively straightforward, but I've confused myself a couple times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both. I’ve decided to walk away from this one. And I’m running out of time, bowel cancer op Wednesday, so I won’t be around for a few days after that. But a soft block does sound as though it might mitigate the problems there. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Your standard "RFPP is backlogged" notice

I'm being pulled away from WP for a little while and can't handle it myself, but if anyone wants to take down a moderate backlog of ~15+ requests, it's a quick job for a few bored admins. --Jayron32 14:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Looks to be mostly cleared. Thanks to everyone that helped out. --Jayron32 16:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

sockpuppet

Dear wikipedia administrators, I am a sockpuppet of User:Skh sourav halder. Faofln (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked you. PhilKnight (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion: Opening of proceedings amendment

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee procedure on "Opening of proceedings" (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings) is amended so the first line reads: A case is eligible to be opened when it meets all of the following criteria

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion: Opening of proceedings amendment

Consider using a other than your real name is here to contributions.

Consider using a other than your real name may caused to editing your talk. Please review for contributions. Wrugtrab (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by BotNL, talk page access removed by me. Just trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for closure review

I'm requesting a closure review for my RfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79, topic # 7. It was a wide-ranging discussion that affects a policy concerning WP:FILMPLOT. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion was never formally closed. I think you want WP:CR to request a close. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 12:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the procedure over at WP:CR. Do I leave my request for closure under the Administrative Discussions sub-section of the Request for Closure section?

The three entries there aren't phrased as mine would be. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:MalnadachBot

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

---

I'm getting sick of seeing this bot dominating my watchlist. Is it doing anything useful... it seems to be mostly tweaking signatures in long archived discussions. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree. I know I can filter out all bots from my watchlist, but I do find some of the edits by other bots useful and therefore don't want to filter that out. But it's been a while now for MalnadachBot, and on the balance of "useful improvement to Wikipedia" versus "really, really annoying", this seems to be falling on the latter... Singularity42 (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

If not for that bot, how would you remember all of the old AfDs you watchlisted? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Just be thankful you're not watching every daily DRV log page for the last decade like I am. A couple times I've logged on to see it's run up against the irritating 1000-page watchlist limit all by itself. —Cryptic 18:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't be nearly so offensive if it fixed all the problems in one edit, instead of picking a user to follow around and change just their signature one at a time. There's no excuse for the last four edits to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) be separate, for example. —Cryptic 18:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Its late in the night now and I don't have time for a detailed reply, so will keep this short. My bot has been discussed in detail at WP:BOTN and found to be compliant with bot policy. I would urge everyone to read the still open discussion at BOTN to know why these edits are necessary and why not everything can be done in a single edit. If you want to hide only MalnadachBot from your watchlist, it can be done by following the instructions at WP:HIDEBOTS. --ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, it's Chris Rock to my Will Smith right now. I shouldn't have to find a way to disable notifications from a bot that is doing nothing useful other than filling up my watchlist... 210 entries out of 250 this morning. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Please keep discussion threads in one place. See this thread at Bots/Noticeboard. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Full protection review

• IP over Avian Carriers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry to raise what is a rather unimportant issue but most edits at this article for the last five years have involved edit warring over an image. I'm involved but have fully protected the article until an RfC that I just started finishes. Does anyone have an opinion on whether I should have protected or whether another admin should monitor the situation while the RfC is in progress? Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that you're involved, I'd say asking at WP:RFPP would have been a better move than protecting it yourself. And ornothogonal to that, semi-protection would have been sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Separate from the main issue, an entry at WP:LAME seems more than warranted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Re semi, it didn't seem fair to privilege the small number of registered editors who also join in the edit warring. I take your point about RFPP and if anyone wants to adopt the current protection or change it, of course that's fine by me. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for creation of New page for - Nestaway Technologies pvt. ltd.

Hi Administrator forum,

I write on behalf of Nestaway Technologies a home rental startup in India, that would like to be listed on Wiki pedia.

I write to request you to sanction the creation of a new page for the same

Thank you and regards Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua1094 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Administrators do not need to "sanction" pages except when a page has been protected. I highly suggest you read through WP:YFA, determine if your company meets the requirements, and IF those are true use the Article wizard to create a draft, which will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. It is highly unlikely that a startup rental company will fulfil notability guidelines. Have a read of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I suggest that you don't waste time writing an article that is likely to be deleted. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Good point, I've updated my message slightly. Primefac (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 sanctions warning in an AFD discussion

• John Campbell (YouTuber) (AfD discussion)

I've warned all participants and taken the gentle option of refactoring and cautioning where discussion has either become uncivil or strayed from the purpose of an AFD discussion into discussing matters of COVID-19 itself, rather than leaping straight to actual sanctions themselves. I hope that the warning is enough and that it does not get to that point; and people stick to what an AFD discussion is actually for. Please keep an eye out.

Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you please block this user and stop him from pestering us?

This user, Special:Contributions/213.107.84.221, is a menace. He just left me a message about removing shows like My Spy Family and The Batman from the List of WarnerMedia television programs page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AdamDeanHall&type=revision&diff=1080255209&oldid=1080063061&diffmode=source

So could you please put a stop to him so that he doesn’t leave us any more messages? AdamDeanHall (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

That IP user's talk page is currently a red link. That tells me there is at least 5-6 steps before "Running to the admins to get a block" before you should run to the admins to get a block. One of those steps should also have been "Notify the user you ran to the admins"... But even before that, you should perhaps just tell them to stop spamming user talk pages and see where that gets you. --Jayron32 15:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You said that I could tell the IP user to stop spamming user talk pages. Well, I just did; and here is the proof: User talk:213.107.84.221 AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) AdamDeanHall, while your request was perfectly acceptable I thought it might be better to leave a warning template on their talk page just letting them know that we appreciate good edits and frown upon spamming and harassment. I'm also going to leave a generic message letting them know that, if they have any questions concerning Wikipedia they can ask their questions at the Teahouse or create an account and go through the WMF Growth Team's mentor/mentee program which would hopefully afford them the opportunity to have their concerns addressed while learning and growing as an editor. An admin can take any action they deem appropriate, I'm just doing this as an act of kindness directed at both the IP and the understandably frustrated OP. --ARoseWolf 19:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I also notified them of this discussion. --ARoseWolf 19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

a user intentionally added a factual error and defends it and refuses to communicate

heyo. i stopped editing since before 10s since wiki is more about fighting in comments than actually doing good and here we go again.

so i noticed an error in the article and instead of being anonymous as for last 15 years i had to log in back to edit the page. i made two edits fixing mistakes in the article. and then those got reverted into obviously wrong state and i was blamed for vandalism. okay so as to not to start diff war i went and wrote to the user in question and gave a direct wiki link that can explain a word that can be not known to casual people (but should be known to people who literally edit the sentences in the foreign language in question). and i gave a link to the japanese page where they clearly spell the name of the film letter by letter and i did even add a direct quote from it that spells the name of the movie letter by letter. well, instead of a dialogue the user outright deleted a discussion and refuses to have a dialogue and intends to defend the obviously wrong state. soo can someone tell them to not defend outright false information? --Agof K.P.2 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you got the wrong user there. User:Eiga-Kevin2 wasn't the person who reverted you on the article, he was merely the user to whose (old) version to article got reverted. The person who reverted you was somebody else. I'd suggest closing this noticeboard thread for now, and you first go and talk to that other user and explain your edit to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

huh? i hate this new web two point null and void design with terrible visual editors. okay i retract my remarks about the user calling me a vandal, removing my edits, and my pleads to autoritah. but still they could've try to communicate and either tell me that it was someone else or ask me what i'm on about. --Agof K.P.2 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)