User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Your Personal attack on me

I'd rather you accused me of dishonesty out in the open rather than in an edit summary. DuncanHill (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a shame you haven't been blocked for smearing an editor without providing a shred of evidence. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. That is what accusing another editor of abusing you with homophobic links when they were trying to explain to you that, yes, homophobic bullies do sometimes use the phrase “I am gay” to harass and abuse others is. That’s false, they were not abusing you, and you should not be allowed to claim it without someone challenging the idea, because that is a gross personal attack on WhatamIdoing. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying it's ok to for WMF accounts to send unsolicited email with links to homophobic material with an instruction to read it to an editor who is complaining about the homophobic results of a WMF project? And that the gay editor should not then complain when it happens? Or do "good intentions" excuse any actions, whatever effect they have on the person subjected to them? I was physically sick after reading that email. But no, the sender did no wrong and I am dishonest for complaining. But you care oh so deeply about this and the WMF wants to make a safe environment for editors. DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

DuncanHill, I’m saying that your attacks on WhatamIdoing are beyond the pale and that if you repeat them again I’ll take you to ANI to get an IBAN or block. That is not what happened: you claimed that a tool identifying “I am gay” as abusive was homophobic, she correctly as part of her job tried to reach out to you to show you examples why a tool might think that (i.e. people bully gay people using that phrase on Wikipedia) and explain that while the tool had issues, it was trying to detect abuse. You then started misrepresenting her actions as targeted homophobic abuse. You do not get to do that. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The tool did produce homophobic results. You can pretend otherwise all you like, dress it up as good intentions, but it did. With a tool what matters is what it does, not the intentions of the creators or funders. I think you are to some extent at least mis-stating what I said, and I am sure you are mis-stating what happened on Meta. But you will "give a dog a bad name". I will bow down before your threat of a block, and promise never to complain about perceived homophobia from any WMF account. For the record, I never mentioned the other editor's name here, as it didn't seem relevant - it was the WMF bit I was unhappy with. I don't know why you went out of your way to name them. I've had very little interaction with them since anyway, out of my choice. I'll try not to have anything to do with you either. And I still won't have anything to do with Meta, you've confirmed for me that was a good decision on my part. DuncanHill (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The tool was idiotic for a variety of reasons, yes. That doesn’t mean everyone who is trying to explain to you that it wasn’t actively trying to harm gay people is supporting homophobia. Anyway, I’m glad you’re not going to be making the accusations anymore, so thanks on that end. Also, as a note, I didn’t threaten to block you: I said I’d take you to ANI. I’m involved here now so I’d never block myself. Being clear on that is important to me.TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I never said the tool was "actively trying to harm gay people". Please don't suggest I did. I said its results were homophobic, which they were. One doesn't have to intend harm to do harm. It can be idiocy, incompetence, lack of imagination, or a good old-fashioned over-reliance on being "well-intentioned". "Well, we're trying to do a good thing so if people complain about what we're doing they must be wrong". And if we excuse harm on the grounds that the person causing it "meant well" then we give a get-out-of-gaol-free card to every so-and-so going. "I meant well, so shut up and stop complaining". DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for closing the two long-running discussions at Talk:Donald Trump. Those things can run on forever, with less and less of value being said, until someone steps in and makes whatever sense there is to be made out of it. Great job. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Lead images RFC close

Hi Tony, please reverse your close at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Lead images. I think you've made a "supervote". On raw vote counts, it was 9 in favor of Choice 2/2a, and 8 in favor of Choice 3. Your close is based on your assertion that Choice 2 violates BLP. Nine editors disagree with you about that (I'm one of them). The argument that, in an article entitled "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation", including a picture of Joe Biden violates BLP, is, frankly, nonsensical. (The same editors who argued that including a picture of Biden violates BLP also argued that the article title including Biden's name violates BLP, but each time, that argument was rejected by consensus, including at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 1#Requested move 14 April 2020, and many discussions since then. ) Your argument that including his picture somehow implies that a crime was committed is also totally not grounded in any policy (or even logic in my view)--it's sheer speculation on your part. You admit in your closing statement that this line of argument is not in BLP policy, but you say "the principle" counts. I don't see why your interpretation of BLP principles should trump the interpretation of BLP principles of the participants in the discussion. You should !vote in the discussion if you have an opinion about which is the best choice, rather than close it. Most importantly, though the RFC has been open for 30 days, there is no rule that an RFC must be closed after 30 days (as you well know), and this one seems like an obvious one to keep open to see if consensus emerges. I'm kind of surprised that you chose to close this at all given that opinions were split so far. So, please re-open it, let it run longer, and let someone else close it. Thank you. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think it's a fair close. It was roughly evenly split and there's a strong bias in favour of the BLP policy when weighting arguments. I didn't say that the consensus was against including a picture of him in the article, but that the argument that the side-by-side one has the potential implication of a crime in an article about a sexual assault was a pretty strong argument that was never really refuted. The relevant principle from the BLP policy is Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. The policy doesn't directly address images, but the principle there is pretty clear: the structure must be neutral. Images are part of the structure.

I don't really have an opinion on this issue so I have no intent on voting, but the arguments for including a Biden image are mainly stylistic and the arguments against it are BLP based, and no one supporting inclusion has rebutted them. There's only one possible outcome of a discussion like that: the Biden image doesn't get included.

If you'd prefer, I can update the close to say there is no consensus for including an image of Biden next to Reade in the article at this time. It would have the same result. I also don't think closing it later makes much sense: I do think there's agreement that an image of her should be included. The question is whether or not he should be included side-by-side with her. There is certainly not a consensus for that. We don't count noses, we weight based on policy. "This shows them at their ages at the time" and "You'd expect to see both of them" have significantly less weight in our policies and guidelines than the principle that articles about BLPs should be formatted in a way that is neutral.

Like I said, if you want me to rephrase it saying there is no consensus to include a Biden image beside her, let me know. I think that's pretty apparent and would be non-controversial to say. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the root of it is the argument that the side-by-side one has the potential implication of a crime in an article about a sexual assault was a pretty strong argument. I disagree with that. There is nothing in PAGs that says a picture of two people side-by-side in an article about an allegation of a sexual assault has the potential implication of a crime. I doubt there is anything in the real world that supports that implication, either. The implication of a side-by-side picture in an article about an allegation is that one is the accuser and the other is the accused. (Also why I support a picture of the accuser on the left, and a picture of the accused on the right, as I said in my !vote.) I think this "crime implication" argument is unsupported; you think it's a pretty strong argument. This is the difference of opinion between pretty much all the editors !voting for 2 (side by side) or 3 (accuser only).

Even if we accept the argument that side-by-side photos imply a crime, sexual assault is a crime. A crime is what's being alleged.

Similarly, I disagree with 'You'd expect to see both of them' have significantly less weight in our policies and guidelines. Surely I needn't quote to you all our PAGs that make reference to reader expectations, and how articles should generally meet reader expectations rather than astonish readers. In an article entitled "Joe Biden blah blah blah", you'd expect to see a picture of Joe Biden. In an article about an allegation, you'd expect to see a picture of the person making the allegation and the person against whom the allegation was made (as was pointed out in the discussion, e.g., Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal and Alleged Libyan financing in the 2007 French presidential election.) For these reasons, I think this is a pretty strong argument, while you think it has significantly less weight. Again, that's the same dispute among the editors !voting for 2 or 3.

That you agree with the argument that a side-by-side picture implies a crime is the reason why your closing this in favor of that argument is a supervote. A closer shouldn't close a discussion in a certain way because they personally agree with one of the arguments.

I don't think there is consensus for 3 in that discussion; I don't think there is consensus for 2, either. A "no consensus" close is not helpful, and given that the RFC has been open for 30 days, there's really no reason to close it right now. It's better if it stayed open and we allowed more editors to weigh in (you could be one of those new editors weighing in). There's no reason that article needs an image right now; there's no harm it letting the RFC run another week or two. There are options that haven't been explored yet such as having a picture of both of them but not side-by-side, or having a side-by-side picture with a caption that militates against any implication of a crime. Will you reconsider and re-open it? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That wasn’t a formal RfC, but a talk page discussion. A closure was requested so I responded. You are more than welcome to open additional talk page discussions to explore other options you mention. Indeed, that is the best way forward in the consensus building process. There’s no consensus for them side-by-side and the BLP argument was not rebutted: that means we don’t include it in that format. I’m more than willing to clarify the close in light of my comments here, but no, I’m not going to reopen a discussion that was for the most part over: only two comments in the last 10 days. Additional discussions about how and if to include a picture of Biden can and should continue, but we don’t ignore valid and unrefuted BLP arguments simply based on close numbers. If you want me to update it to no consensus to include a side-by-side picture of Biden, I’ll happily do that, even though the policy weight was with 3, I can see a valid argument for reading the discussion that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You know I hadn't even noticed that that didn't have an RFC tag on it. That's even more reason to re-open it, so I can add an RFC tag to it. You closed it as Based on weighting of arguments, choice 3 has it., so if I were to start an RFC now, I would surely be accused of disruptive IDHT forum shopping etc. As it stands now, the close says there was consensus for Choice 3. If you revised it as "no consensus", I could open up a formal RFC, but I think that's the long way around; the shorter and better way would be to re-open the discussion and add an RFC tag to it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have anything to add to my response above: if you want to open a discussion about other options for including Biden’s image, you’re more than welcome to and that would be consistent with my closure. I would consider an RfC on the side-by-side issue to be beating a dead horse, but I guess there’s nothing stopping you. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm going to escalate obviously. Anyway, thanks for your time. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Good Lord, I just looked at the closing request at ANRFC. This request was posted four days after the discussion was opened, by one of the editors who has been making the side-by-side-violates-BLP argument, and it was in no way a neutral closing request, specifically making the BLP argument and asking for a "BLP-oriented admin" to close it. Talk about a dog whistle and you answered! Come on, this needs to be reversed and that closing request needs to be removed from ANRFC. That's just sheer canvassing IMO. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I was literally clearing ANRFC at a request based at AN. I didn’t even read the text under the header. Anyway, you came here with an outcome in mind and didn’t get it, so I don’t think any response you receive would satisfy you, but there it is if you are actually looking for a response rather than attempting to bait. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I can think of some easy ways to compromise here without having the two images side-by-side. Put the Reade image in the Lead and a picture of Biden in the "Background" section (maybe with the caption "Biden in 1993" or whatever). Or keep the picture of Reade in the "Background" section and put a modern picture of Biden in the Lead. Or put Reade in the "Allegation" section and Biden in the "Denial and response" section. It really is a narrow close, and the only thing it prevents is having the two images side-by-side in the lead. ~Awilley (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, I think those are all good ideas for compromises. I thought it'd be better to re-open that discussion, slap an RFC tag on it, and propose some of those ideas and get input, rather than start a whole new discussion, specifically because, as I said above, I was worried that my starting a new discussion would be met with accusations of disruptive editing of one form or another. Proving my worry true, Tony responded by opening an ANI thread accusing me of tendentious editing. That's more trouble than it's worth to me, so Tony wins; I'm not pursing this any further, but I hope you or someone makes those suggestions on the article talk page, because I think they're good ideas worth pursuing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you're going after Levivich here when he brings up a very valid finding, he's been more than reasonable. As the one who created that discussion, I don't think you should've closed it either, nor do I agree with the decision you implemented. You should reopen it and allow Levivich to implement an RfC. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I've requested that the community examine Levivich's long-term conduct when dealing with people he disagree with. I believe as a whole it is subpar. The community expects us to address behaviour as it occurs, so now really is the only time to raise the issue. While as an administrator, I have to be accountable, I am also entitled to the assumption of good faith and respect that any other editor, and indeed human being, on this site is entitled to.

On the Biden issue: as I said above, this was a very narrow close and there really was only one outcome possible under policy. I have also offered to amend the close to be "no consensus for a side-by-side photo." I have encouraged further discussion on the talk page as to if there is a way to include a photo of Joe Biden that could gain consensus and have broad agreement that it is within the BLP policy. If you wish to further discuss his content issue, the correct venue to do it is on the talk page. I encourage you to raise it there.

As a personal comment of someone who doesn't edit within American politics, I agree that readers like want and expect a photo of Biden in that article. I think working to figure out how to include it, if indeed it should be included, is likely a good idea for the encyclopedia. It needs to have consensus though, and needs to comply with the policies of the BLP policy. The best place for that discussion is on the talk page. My close was solely related to the side-by-side issue, which was what was being discussed. There was no consensus for a side-by-side picture even under the most sympathetic reading of the discussion. I felt on policy weighting, there was a consensus against it, but as I said, I'm more than willing to update the close to a more conservative statement saying there was not a consensus for inclusion of that format of image and that taking into account the BLP policy, it means that it should not be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Just stopping by to agree that we would need a larger community-based consensus on a change to BLP for the close to have come out otherwise. I also have some concern over the recent proliferation of accounts by editors engaging in perhaps a few dozen edits over a period of a few weeks or months, and then suddenly heavily and aggressively involving themselves in political discourse. I have seen accounts with these suspicious patterns favoring either party, with a concomitant increase in findings of identifiable sockpuppetry in this time. BD2412 T 05:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi TonyBallioni, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Where to report

Likely Fireslow-like accounts like this one? Will VIP be ok? PS. Also ping User:Ealdgyth and User:Drmies (semi?). And User:Materialscientist, in context of User_talk:Materialscientist#Where_to_report (tnx for blocking the sock, but a reply on what to do would be nice, even if it is just 'report them to my talk page'). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, sorry for the late response. I've been busy w/ work and also trying to take a break from this specific case for a day or two :) I'll look tomorrow night my time if that's okay. Might respond via email for WP:BEANS reasons. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No hurry. When you look into this do check the linked talk page where I have reported several new socks since. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus checked the BarNarDar account. Neither Fireslow or Icewhiz. Just someone who cares about the area a lot... Yes, I know proxies, but take my word it's neither SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Please note I just posted an update on the linked talk page. 500/30 looks like a very good idea right now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Since MS said he is not very familiar with behavioral edivence here and would prefer not to get involved, I'll be reporting stuff here from now. Just freom few minutes ago, there is [1], restoring Kasia's edit. From the morning, there is [2] (new account POV-pushing in the TA), and from yesterday, another SPI appeared here: [3]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, reporting here is fine. Just as a general note to you and anyone else who follows this page, I tend to prioritize quicker things on-wiki during the week and more complicated things on weekends. My work makes it so I can’t really do much beyond basic stuff M-F, and the Poland/Jew sock stuff is not basic. It’s probably the most complicated CU stuff I’ve seen in my time as a functionary. So if I don’t reply while editing elsewhere, it doesn’t mean I’m ignoring you; it means I’ve seen it and am waiting until I have time/energy to look. Berean Hunter and I have been working as a team on the Jews and Poland sock issue, so I would ping both of us whenever you report stuff related to it. He and I are friends so I don’t think he’ll mind.

BH, since I’ve pinged you, I know I have an email to respond to. I’ll try tomorrow after work. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you take a look at [4]? New account, removes/criticizes content previously removed/criticized by Ice (I can provide diffs if needed). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

And [5]. I do wonder if this one is someone's "comment" that 500/30 in this TA needs to be more widely applied... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Missed this one from 3 days ago, targeting an article I was working on: [6]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, I blocked Trader Rob and Crynot as socks of one another (on proxies and other info is  Inconclusive but they're obviously the same person). Also obviously someone else, but not sure who, so not tagging. Haven't checked the Zygmunt account as it behaves a bit different. Are there diffs of him repeating things that other socks in this area have done? TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Tony, did you read Jan Grabowski's piece about the editing of the Polish articles? Is it not possible that some of the new accounts are people in Poland responding to his article, including people living together or students in the same university? You seem to be blocking every new account that tries to improve those articles. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Not everyone. There's a reason I didn't block the third account: it could easily be a good faith user and I want to see overlap. The ones I did block have behavioral similarities in their edits outside of the content and appear to be using the same proxy service as one another. I agree that not every new account in this area is a sock, and that it's certain every account here isn't Icewhiz, but if two accounts are editing in the same area, with the same behavior outside of content, on a similar proxy, I think that's enough for a block. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but you didn't answer the question. Did you read Grabowski's article? He's a respected professor of Holocaust studies, respected around the world, including in Poland. When he writes in a daily newspaper that the English Wikipedia's articles on Poland and the Holocaust are being distorted, then you can expect there to be a response, perhaps particularly from Holocaust history students. And he is apparently preparing another piece.

But you are blocking all or most of the new accounts that make corrections. If they are living together or in the same university, it would not be surprising to find them using the same proxy. First, the reason you gave is that it was Icewhiz. Now it's using the same proxy or interested in the same articles. But really the common denominator is that Piotrus doesn't like the edits. It's important not to let the spectre of Icewhiz become that topic area's 9/11 or covid-19. Berean Hunter, do you agree with all these blocks? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven’t read the article, and I’m not blocking every account here. There are multiple in this thread I haven’t touched. I’m blocking the ones where the behavior and technical evidence suggests they’re either the same person or a specific’ blocked user, and I’m spending significant time on each account to avoid unfair blocks. I’m more than happy to talk to BH about these and if he disagrees reverse them. My goal is not to block good faith new accounts, but the flood of accounts that appear to be socks in the area. The Trader Rob account just claimed they’re part of an anti-fascist group that was instructed at a meeting how to clean up the area. While I’m not sure if that’s the truth, if it’s the case it’d be the coordinated effort of a far-left political group to influence Wikipedia, which is something the socking policy also doesn’t encourage. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you put so much stress on Grabowski's article. I am also an academic, and while I am not a historian like Grabowski (and hence I value his view about possible errors in the field of history, and I'll remind you it was me who brought them to the community's attention, including yours - no good deed...) I am, unlike him, an expert on new media like Wikipedia, and I feel in that capacity I can say that Grabowski's understanding of how Wikipedia works is lacking, to say the least - his discussion of possible factual errors or unreliable sources is interesting, but when he veers into conspiracy theories about Polish nationalists taking over English Wikipedia, and concludes readers would be better served with a 19th-century reference work instead, well... All of which I have pointed out in my reply, published in the same venue ([7]), which you are aware of, but for some reason, you keep ignoring. My reply was, btw, before publication, read and discussed by some members of the Polish WMF chapter, and I was made to understand they approve of it, though they couldn't say it officially as at that time they were lacking a PR person. Anyway, both newspaper articles were published in a relatively low visibility venue (online-only and paywalled), so it's questionable if they could have any significant impact (I am not aware that either received more than a few facebook shares or tweets). And btw, none of the articles these "socks and fellow travelers" targeted were mentioned by Grabowski (through I wouldn't be surprised if that changed, it is clear someone is monitoring our related discussions and enjoys throwing wrenches and such). The idea that there would be dozens of accounts that all of sudden show up and make Icewhiz style edits because they read an obscure article in a Polish newspaper is absurd. Finally, the idea that anyone in Poland feels they need a VPN to avoid scrutiny cannot be taken seriously. If you refer to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance (which I don't believe Grabowski mentioned), nobody has been convicted, and crucially, I checked and couldn't find a single discussion within the Polish Wikipedia community about this law having the slightest chilling effects or such. Likewise, I cannot find any discussion on the Polish internet about this, no petition of people complaining it is scary or such; when the law came out there were a few critical opinions it may have such effects, but we are now 2+ years after it passed, and it seems pretty much forgotten and ignored by everyone. Well, everyone except Icewhiz, who was quite active on the linked article, and I am sure he or another sock will soon make crystal clear claims that they need permission to use VPN because of it, if they haven't already, hoping to find a gullible admin who might think that Poland should be ranked in the same group as China, North Korea or such. In fact such argument was already used by a sock of Ice's, few days ago... not that's new - Icewhiz was already scaremongering about this issue in 2017: [8]/[9] and he didn't drop the issue (2019). So let's not spread sock-empowering misinformation, shall we? There is no reason for anyone in Poland to need a proxy-permission to edit Wikipedia. If you think otherwise, feel free to ask the Polish WMF chapter officially about it or such, for example by posting at pl:WP:BAR, you can even do so in English as many Polish Wikipedians are able to read it (I could also help you translate your query). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, Grabowski does have a good understanding of how Wikipedia works: people not familiar with the published scholarship on a topic add their strong views using poor sources.

I'm not arguing that dozens of accounts have responded, but that some might have, and even if not to that article, then for some other reason. The edits you revert are often good but you disagree with them politically. What seems to happen now is that you report the account to Tony, and Tony does a CU and blocks them. If his request for 30/500 is granted, it will entrench your position still further.

As for the situation in Poland, see this story about a piece of art—a memorial to the Jewish victims of pogroms—that a Polish government minister is suing over. A petition decries the "wave of ultra-nationalist far-right social prejudice that is working its way into the institutions of Poland". Also see Time magazine, 8 May 2020, discussing Grabowski. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of misdoings; I am not acting to "entrench my positon" but to help protect the topic area from massive socking, much of it originating from an indef-banned harasser, and for the n-time I'd appreciate if you would assume good faith towards my edits and apologize for commenting about me ("you disagree with them politically" - "Comment on content, not on the contributor").

As for the linked lawsuit, people file frivolous defamation lawsuits all the time and it means nothing until we see a pattern of convictions (so far, I believe there have been a total of zero...). All international watchdogs agree that Poland has democratic standards of freedom of speech and press, and as I demonstrated with diffs, the only person claiming otherwise in the wiki context is Icewhiz. I don't think it is correct for admins to be empowering such a user. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"Poland's Holocaust Law Is a Dangerous Threat to Free Speech, Time magazine, 9 March 2018: "The Speaker of Poland’s Senate has clarified that the law is aimed at Polish citizens, including those living abroad. In a recent letter, he called on Poles overseas to document 'all manifestations of anti-Polism ... expressions and opinions that harm us' and urged them to notify their embassies 'of any slander affecting the good reputation of Poland'." SarahSV ^(talk) 01:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Aha. Seriously? Politicians say various stupid things all the time. How about we discuss the state of democracy in the US based on some random comments by Trump? What matters is whether anyone is actually convicted. Still waiting to hear about that. And as can be seen in the Freedom House report mentioned by FR, Poland is still classified as Free, just like all of the EU (outside Hungary). Nobody needs a VPN in Poland to edit Wikipedia, not any more than people in US. Or Germany, where for example the law on Strafgesetzbuch section 86a ([10]) has actually impacted Wikipedia, German one at least, and they cannot display some historical images or such. Let's now see if some neo-Nazi socks will ask for VPN exception because of restriction to freedom of speech in Germany (after all, we even have an article on Censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany but not any on Censorsphip in Poland (this is just a redirect to communist-era article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Threatening to sue causes damage too. See "Princeton Professor Faces Libel Probe for Saying Poles Killed More Jews Than Nazis in WWII", Time, 15 October 2015. They eventually dropped it: "Polish prosecutors drop defamation case against Holocaust scholar", Times of Israel, 26 November 2019. But that isn't the point. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The 2015 lawsuit is hardly relevant to the 2018 law. And apparently Grabowski has launched suits of his own too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I appreciate your concerns with the content here, and while it is not an area I have done much work on here, I agree that nationalist and racist sources should not be used. I am not as familiar with Poland as I am with other areas, so I stay well clear of it from a content perspective, but I do appreciate the work you and others are doing in this area. I also understand your valid concerns that we may be blocking good faith editors who are new, which is why when dealing with this case I do not block many of the account Piotrus suggests as socks. While accounts may be suspicious, we need grounds to connect them to other accounts either on behavior or technical evidence.

As for Piotrus reporting to me: this is fairly common. Most CUs have a few cases the regularly work and users will reach out to them with questions rather than file an SPI if there's background they may know. In this case part of the background is that shortly after the Icewhiz ban there were accounts created targeting the real life family of an editor Icewhiz had been in dispute with. These accounts have been globally suppressed, which means not all CUs can see them or take them into account unless they already knew about them or are also oversighters. For obvious reasons are not part of the public record.

These accounts were on a very unique type of VPN that is rarely used and is usually difficult to identify when it is, but they were also on a subsection of the VPN that allowed us to know the service they were using. I dream of Maple (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was also on that very specific type of connection and had other similar traits that tied it to Icewhiz. Last week when another CU and I were discussing the case, they asked why we hadn't blocked them since they agreed on behaviour it was an Icewhiz sock. I said it was likely because they hadn't edited in a while, but agreed that given the confusion of this case, it made sense to block to document this for others such as patrolling admins and SPI clerks that. I went back through some of the previous socks that were on proxies and compared them to I dream of Maple and Icewhiz, and was able to find enough behavioral overlap both inside and outside the topic area to feel comfortable blocking AstuteRed and KasiaNL as suspected socks of Icewhiz. I specifically did not block at least one active user in the archive because I do not think there is enough evidence to tie them to Icewhiz or any other account, and there are multiple accounts in this thread that I have not taken any action on because I think they look more like passionate new editors rather than socks.

As for the two accounts I blocked today: as I said, they're on the same type of proxy and have other behavioral traits that match beyond just a similar viewpoint. The anti-fascist explanation is not one I particularly believe, and like I said on the Trader Rob page, we have no proof that these accounts are actually in Poland, which is something we usually look for when people are claiming that they're editing using a proxy out of fear of government persecution. The socking policy quoting a 2005 ArbCom case says For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

As there is evidence to suggest that they are in fact the same user, and the explanation they gave is that they are part of a group that was coordinating in a topic area that is extremely controversial and has experienced significant socking lately (both from the Fireslow and Icewhiz SPIs as well as LTAs trolling it because of how high profile it has become.) in my judgement it is reasonable to treat these accounts as the same person because there is a technical connection in terms of choice of VPN and they are editing in an identical manner. Since they are doing that in perhaps the most toxic and heated content area on the project, that is a violation of the portion of the sockpuppetry policy that prohibits evasion of scrutiny by other editors.

I'm sorry that this is long, but I've spent the better part of two weekends looking at this from a technical, behavioral, and policy perspective, and worked with a few others in classifying the respective sock families and looking at the accounts and figuring out which accounts to block and which ones to leave unblocked. I take this issue very seriously and have not rushed to block any account without closely examining what is going on and being comfortable tying it either to a master or another identifiable account. Blocking without being able to do so would not be appropriate in my view because of the potential for overlap with good faith new editors. If you feel there is any socking in this area that has not been addressed, please also feel free to report it to me or another member of the CU team, and we will do our absolute best to figure out what is going on. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks as ever for your hard work in this and other difficult controversial areas, Tony. It can't be easy sifting through minefields such as this, especially when you're busy IRL, and as far as I can see you're doing it fairly and with due care and attention. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Tony, thank you for this explanation. I appreciate it very much. I'm sorry for taking so long to reply. I was writing up examples of some of the things that have happened, but that will only lead to needing to say more, so I'll leave it there. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just a quick note that the statement all international watchdogs agree that Poland has democratic standards of freedom of speech and press isn't true, which is why for three weeks now we've been discussing this.[11] Cheers. François Robere (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • You know I am actually supportive of the inclusion of Freedom House rankings in Wikipedia, but the statement is true. Polish ranking has been decreasing ([12]) but it is still classified as "Free" ([13], with the 2020 score at 84/100; countries become "partly free" around low 70s and "not free" in the mid-30s). The current Polish score is better than South Korea (83), Israel (76), Brasil (75), India (71). Notably, European Hungary is classified as 70 and Partly Free. Other interesting "partly free" countries are Mexico and Ukraine (at 62). Russia is 20, China is 10 and North Korea is 3 (I am actually surprised there are few countries with even lower score than NK...). Anyway, Poland has some problems but it Freedom House you cite calls it, plainly, a Free country. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I know you are, and you opining there did not go unnoticed. You're of course right about the rankings, it's just that putting it in that particular fashion ("has democratic standards", rather than eg. "still has democratic standards") suggests stability, not a downwards trend. François Robere (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• PS - the statement Grabowski does have a good understanding of how Wikipedia works: people not familiar with the published scholarship on a topic add their strong views using poor sources is very much on point, as we should all be able to readily admit. François Robere (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you confuse the two articles. That's the argument I made in my reply to him (quote from my article, Google Translated for people who don't read Polish: "The truth is trivial: sometimes, good-faithed Wikipedians reach for weak sources and inadvertently reproduce their errors."). His explanation about Wikipedia problems was that they are caused by propaganda-pushing Polish government-affiliated nationalists ("In the state and loyal to the authorities media one can hear today that the "Polish historical narrative" must break through to the "historical world narrative" ... To permanently falsify history on Wikipedia you do not need a lot of money, just a few "dedicated individuals", which is most often caused by ideology. In this case - militant nationalism."). Or compare the title of his article, chosen AFAIK by the newspaper editors ("Put this crap on Wikipedia. Polish nationalists push the garbage to foreign readers") vs (also chosen by the editors) first highlighted sentence of my article: "There is no conspiracy of Polish nationalists falsifying history on Wikipedia, no matter how attractive such thesis may sound.". Anyway, Grabowski recommends 1) regulating Wikipedia through international law criminalizing fake news ("I hesitate to use the phrase "legal regulation", but it will be difficult to win otherwise. Perhaps the time has come for supranational, pan-European institutions (because I am afraid to mention Polish) to look at Wikipedia closely. Fake news are doing great there") and 2) in the meantime using 19th-century encyclopedia instead ("I just dusted up 20 volumes of Meyer's encyclopedia that I had inherited from my grandfather and which had been unused in the family library for years. By using it, I can be sure that the articles will not change beyond recognition tomorrow."). In essence, this boils down to whether one assumes good faith about Wikipedia editors or not. Yes, there are some errors on Wikipedia, but the question is whether one believes they are usually introduced either on purpose to push an agenda (Grabowski's view) or by accident/inexperience (my view). I believe all of us still here (as in, not indef banned...) labor to build an encyclopedia and edit this project in good faith. How about you? Do you believe there is a conspiracy of Polish nationalists, as argued by Grabowski? (Also keep in mind that ironically, with all the recent socking and disruption happening in this area, the vast majority of it does not seem to be coming from the "Polish nationalist" POV...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • So all three of us are in agreement. Excellent! François Robere (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Email

Hi Tony, I've sent you an email about a suspicious user. Thanks. Ss112 23:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

semi-technical question

In reverting one of my edits, a very new user posted this text into the article; "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Conversion+of+non-Islamic+places+of+worship+into+mosques&returntoquery=action%3Dedit%26undoafter%3D959200422%26undo%3D959201132". I have a sneaking suspicion they were asked to make the revert off-wiki, but I can't quite understand the link; any ideas what it may be? The edit was here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(Talk Page Watcher) Looks like an Undo, via the Login page as the user was not logged in Slight correction: That link is quite sneaky as, thinking about it, anyone can undo without being logged in... so that link would send the user to the Login page, then do the Undo after they logged in... however if a user was already logged in, the Login page would be skipped and that editor would potentially unwittingly make an Undo - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 02:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There's only so much sneakiness you can do with a link that goes to an edit page in diff mode and a large box that says you are undoing an edit. Almost all potentially dangerous actions on MediaWiki require a token to prevent against this exact attack. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is why I keep AntiComposite on retainer (also thanks Rich!) Vanamonde: apologies for not replying. Saw it then work happened and I forgot until I saw these notifications. I think the TPS answered this? TonyBallioni (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the messages. @Rich Smith and AntiCompositeNumber:, many thanks. If I understand you correctly, though, this would only happen if someone needed to transfer, off-wiki, a link allowing any editor to revert me; which is suspicious as heck. I intend to ask the reverting user about it. We've long suspect flagrant off-wiki coordination in some of the worst areas of ARBIPA, but this is the clearest proof I've seen yet... Vanamonde (Talk) 15:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Aktion T4

I am a bit confused about the protection of Aktion T4 (but I do not protest). You seem to protect the page based on "Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)" and that confuses me. Aktion T4 is a clear German subject. Can you explain? The Banner talk 20:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, The Banner, the motion covers the Holocaust in Poland as well. The Aktion T4 article discusses how it was implemented in regards to the Invasion of Poland, the eventual use of gassing as a part of the Final Solution, as well as the transfer to death camps and the eventual use of the technology on Polish Jews. I was going through the category tree for the Holocaust in Poland to help implement the new sanction since it doesn't do much good to prevent the socking in the area if we're doing it reactively. I didn't protect everything because I think the articles included in that category is a bit broad, but if it was reasonably related to the topic I went ahead and protected it. If people have objections to any given article, I'm fine discussing and removing if needed. This is a new sanction to this topic area, so figuring out how we apply it is going to take time on everyone's part :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks a lot. The Banner talk 20:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)

The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

• • Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
  • Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 20:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere and Piotrus: if the two of you want to list pages that are clearly within scope at User:TonyBallioni/Initial Poland 500/30 I can review and batch protect using Twinkle. Probably the easiest way to move forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection of David Engel looks like it should be on David Engel (historian), not the disambiguation page. Jan Grabowski (historian) is only a redirect; the article was recently moved to Jan Grabowski and remained semi-protected. Peter James (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Peter James, thanks. Fixed. I did look through all of these, but if it were easily determinable via popups didn't click the page. Any other issues, let me know :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Tony, if you haven't done so, I recommend enabling in preferences the following: "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" and meta:User:Piotrus/global.css this little code turns all redirects green. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Tony, I hope you agree with my position that some articles are too important to ECP preemptively. El_C 17:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... I have no clue why someone would want Russia indefinitely semi-protected... I think they were doing it under EE rather than this remedy, but I think it’s an odd request, and one we stopped doing ~2 years ago for ARBPIA. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Yeah, I keep conflating APOL with EE. Quick correction, though, Russia is already indefinitely semiprotected — the request was to upgrade the protection to EC. El_C 19:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

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

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I may be wrong...

...about who is who's sockpuppet, but I am quite certain that there is a substantial and sophisticated campaign of sockpuppet activity going on in relation to Trump and Biden articles. I am seeing many instances of new accounts popping up, making a handful of mundane edits, and then aggressively entering discussions on political topics, and occasional accounts (e.g., User:PurpleSwivel) coming into existence for the sole purpose of making a single proposal or argument on a controversial political topic, which accounts in the first group may then pile on. BD2412 T 22:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t doubt it. People are obsessed with politics and Wikipedia unhealthily and that’s usually what leads to socking of any sort. I’m about to head out, but I’ll look at that account when I get back online in a few hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent suspicious accounts

Can you take a look at [14], rather quackish SPA. Still waiting for a reply to my emails from a few days ago. Also [15], this SPA is a bit stale (December), but fits Ice's LGBT-interest angle. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Seen. Will reply tonight. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I will be waiting for it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

AN

Hi Tony, hope I'm not overstepping; would you take another look at your comments in this thread and consider striking or rephrasing some of the bits Sharab takes issue with? I think it's a good opportunity to try and de-escalate the situation, plus it will ModelDesiredBehavior for Sharab so that hopefully he can learn how to deescalate situations himself in the future. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Not an overreach, but I wouldn’t strike or rephrase even if he hadn’t retired. They were accurate descriptions of his behaviour. I reached out on his talk page to attempt to calm him down and he just further escalated. I’ve expressed before that I think the biggest problem on our project is that we give disruptive users every opportunity to show that they aren’t compatible with a collaborative project. I don’t think that problem is solved by giving the benefit of the doubt when someone has shown themselves to be a negative on the exact same issue on three different Wikimedia projects. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for considering. I'm glad you had reached out on his talk page, and sorry I hadn't noticed that. You seem to have interacted with him far more than I have, so I respect that given your perspective I'd probably think differently. Hope you're keeping well! — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to come back and say thanks for this comment. It was striking when I first read it, but as I've thought about it, I've really come to appreciate the point you're making. I appreciate your candor and how much you've given me to think on. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s an issue I’ve been thinking a lot about lately (obviously.) I’ve never really been one for civility blocks (in the Eric sense) so I don’t really want what I say to be read in that way. More so we have a lot of users who are here in good faith in the sense that they believe they’re doing the right thing, they aren’t really that incompetent even though they don’t follow our norms, and they honestly do want to build an encyclopedia, but despite all this the sum of all their actions is extreme frustration on the part of others. We need a way to describe this otherwise we’re going to be spending months and losing other editors in order to give one person as many chances as possible.

I think we put a lot of effort into retaining brand new users because we want to maintain a stable editor base, but I think the research that’s been done suggests most editors that keep our active editor count stable are actually returning users. I call it the entry-level white collar job after undergrad effect, but it’s a thing that we don’t really pay that much attention to. I’d argue that the crowd that’s maintaining our editor base (returning users) are much more likely to give up if they’re greeted by one of the editors we were talking about before regaining their footing. It really is a question of how many editors do we lose by trying to save one editor from themselves. There obviously needs to be a balance, but post-FRAM I think we’ve probably over-corrected on the willingness to deal with this type of behaviour towards the ROPE/AGF side (Iridescent recently summarized the current state of the block button well on his talk so he might have something of value to add here.) Some people just aren’t a fit for Wikipedia, and at some point they need to be told that. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If anything, Wikipedia operates on the quite lenient end of tolerating disruption from good faith editors. El_C 02:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It does, and I see the reasoning for that to an extent. If disruption is contained to one area a topic ban works quite nicely. I think there was a guy at AE recently who only edits soccer and pseudoscience. Great soccer editor, not so good at alternative medicine. That’s an easy solution to fix without blocks. It’s also more lenient than most other Internet forums would be. The problem arises when you have someone who combines many forms of disruption that aren’t really enough for a block on their own. We are absolutely dreadful at dealing with that. It’s where our AGF bites us in the ass the hardest. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, that is where the notion of WP:PACT fails rather spectacularly, resulting in often unimaginable timesinks. El_C 02:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and it’s gotten worse post-FRAM. Whatever your thoughts of him as a personality (courtesy ping), he was probably the best we had at dealing with this type of issue, particularly when it impacted content pages. He was also almost always right even if you didn’t agree with the way he went about it. Part of the falling out of both the WMF incident and the ArbCom case is that we’ve seen a bit of a culture shift where you’re very likely to get told how abusive you are if you act on this type of behaviour. There was always a bit of that, but it’s gotten much more of a vibe now.

Anyway, I wrote the WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE essay as a way to try to document the problem and in part as something that can be used as a counter-argument to excessive invocations of ROPE and similar ideas. I think there is a lot of frustration building about this part of our culture now, and I’ve always been a be the change you want to see type. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting take of this trend, Tony. I tend to agree with your conclusion. By the way, thanks for writing that essay. I think it's valuable and I read it with great interest. El_C 03:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Interface administrator

Per your request: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#IAdmin_request_(TonyBallioni), it's been 48 hours with no objections, so I've given you the interface administrator flag. SilkTork (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

DS request at Rula Jebreal

At Rula Jebreal, Daveout has repeatedly removed the word "Palestinian" from the first sentence (diffs: [16] [17] [18]). For a long time, the first sentence of the article has read,

Rula Jebreal (Arabic: رولا جبريل‎, Hebrew: רולא ג'בריל‎; born April 24, 1973) is a Palestinian[4][5] foreign policy analyst, journalist, novelist and screenwriter with dual Israeli and Italian citizenship.

This is sourced to Rula's own statements that she is a Palestinian: in an interview she did with Vogue and an Op-Ed she wrote in The New York Times. The long-standing text of Rula Jebreal explains both that she is a Palestinian (how she views herself, and how many Arabs with Israeli citizenship view themselves) and that she has Israeli citizenship.

I alerted Daveout to the existence of discretionary sanctions in the Israel-Palestine topic area, and then explained to them that Rula identifies herself as a Palestinian. Daveout then removed the word "Palestinian" for a third time, and responded, Oh! So if i decided to call myself Martian that's what should count? I think Daveout has made it clear that they should not be editing articles that fall under WP:ARBPIA, and I am requesting that DS be applied to this user.

Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, stop mischaracterizing my arguments, quoting only a small jocose irony as if I were some sort of vandal. I gave my reasoning why I think it’s better to describe her as an ‘’Israeli-Arab’’ rather than plainly ‘’Palestinian’’ (which may be misleading). It is basically this: 1) Most BoLP articles mention the person’s NATIONALITY on the lead. The ‘’Palestinian’’ identity, unless you were actually born in Palestine, is more of a cultural affinity than anything, it’s like being ‘’Jewish’’. But we won’’t see things like ‘’Aronofsky is a Jewish film-maker’’. We read ‘’Aronofsky is an American film-maker’’. On Anne Frank’s article we read: ‘’German-Dutch diarist of Jewish origin.’’ (and that’s only bc her Jewishness is relevant to the article). Cultural affinity or descendance is normally not as relevant as COUNTRY OF BIRTH. 2) Rula herself is quoted saying: ‘’He [the inteviewer] stopped when he got to Rula and introduced himself. “Are you Indian?” he asked. “No, I’m Israeli.” [Rula said]. 3) I’m not the only one who holds this opinion, another user wrote, on the talk-page: ‘’She is Arab and from Palestine, but she is also of Israeli nationality from her birth, so that the word "Palestinian" is not correct if uncommented. These datas (place of birth and nationality) can be found in declarations by Rula herself, for instance in this one on the French Channel Public Sénat. If the writer’s target of is to hide the fact that she is an Israeli (of the Arab part of the population), it is a stalinian-type conception of history, an offence against Rula Jebreal’s personality and against the reputation of Wikipedia.’’. 4) The article has for a long time treated her as Israeli-Arab, and that’s its status quo version. 5) Also, the user making accusations against me doesn’t want to discuss and reach consensus (even when i asked him to), he wants to enforce his opinion by brute-force. That’s it. Thank you. Daveout (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, obviously many Arabs with Israeli citizenship consider themselves "Palestinian," and consider "Palestinian" to be their true nationality. The lede previously handled this in a very even manner: it said she was Palestinian and that she has Israeli citizenship. You removed the word "Palestinian."

As to your point #2: why did you cut off the quote there? If you read further, you'll see that she calls herself "Palestinian." If you read her NYT Op-Ed, you'll see that the entire thrust of the article is her experience as a Palestinian in Israel. She clearly considers herself a Palestinian.

As to your last point, Also, the user making accusations against me doesn’t want to discuss and reach consensus (even when i asked him to), he wants to enforce his opinion by brute-force. That’s it. You've reverted three times. You're trying to change the long-standing text. I came to your talk page to alert you about DS, and I explained my position to you. You reverted anyways. Your edit messages have been extremely insulting: Facts dont care about your feelings. I've tried to talk with you, but you've made it clear that you believe what you believe, and are going to revert to push it into the article.

You've continued to revert, despite knowing that this article is under DS. Your disregard for DS restrictions on edit warring and your insistence that a person born in Israel cannot be "Palestinian" make it clear that you're just going to cause more disruption in this topic area. The Palestinian-Israeli articles are a perennial battleground, and if you want to edit them, you have to be willing to show a bit of understanding for positions you might not personally agree with. You might not think that someone born in Israel should be described as a "Palestinian," yet many (most, I think) Arabs in Israel consider themselves exactly that, and consider "Palestinian" to be their nationality. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Just look at how this user thinks that someone can simply pick-and-choose their nationality. It’s like saying: ‘’I was born in Germany, but I identify as Italian because I like it better’’. I know that many Arabs do not recognize Israel, but Israel exists and Rula was born there (like it or not). Yes, I do think that we, as encyclopedians, should be more attached to facts than feelings or political opinions. I wouldn´t consider ‘’Israeli’’ a Jew who were born, today, in the west-bank either (because that´s Palestine, It´s a fact). As someone who is trying to change the status quo, the burden is on YOU to stop edit-warring and reach consensus. Daveout (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Thucydides411 I ECP’d the article indefinitely as a BLP discretionary sanction. That should address the immediate problem. Sorry for the delayed response here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There's more

...see my log for more of that "delete Kingshowman" bullshit. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• And here's another. Pretty sad. User talk:67 silicenrt. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  It's pretty sad that you guys have been acting like bully trolls and edit warring with us instead of talking about it. Although you're likely going to revert this comment you are more then welcome to email me wpcheckuser@gmail.com and we can talk there because I know I am not KSM and would definitely like to get this resolved and be able to edit without being targeted by the real trolls. 96.234.54.76 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh we're bully trolls booohoooohoooo. There is not "this" that can be resolved. Hey you should stop messing with indentation. I'm feeling bullied. And my dad can beat up your dad. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah. I’m out of the house now, but I’ll try to do a few cleanup sweeps later today. If you’re curious about the history this is 100% the “SPI troll”. Kingshowman has been protesting that they’re different and that he’s a smarter nicer LTA, but that’d take a lot of coincidences... the SPI troll appears in the logs exactly when Kingshowman disappears and then recently started doing a few of the Kingshowman tells. That the “not Kingshowman” accounts have suddenly started aggressively pushing the “Kingshowman is innocent” agenda after he’s been pushing it is a bit much on top of all the other stuff. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not wanting to be left out of this exclusive club: Special:Undelete/User:Favneian. Favonian (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

WooPlus

Hi Tony. You have deleted the WooPlus page. Did you considered my remarks on the talk page? I think that it meets the WP:GNG, considering the sources I have used. Throwawiki (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I did. It was substantially the same as the article previously deleted at AfD, so it meets WP:G4. You're free to contest this at WP:DRV. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've done that. Throwawiki (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"Album - Blueprints ( Wage War )" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Album - Blueprints ( Wage War ). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7#Album - Blueprints ( Wage War ) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Tony, hope you're well. Someone gave me rollback a few months ago (I didn't ask for it) and I'd like it taken away. It turns out there are some rules around its use, which someone has tried to pontificate to me about over on my talk page (since squashed). I'm unfamiliar with these rules and I frankly have better things to do with my time than to be bothered to read them. Can you get rid of these rights please? Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 20:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Hope you’re safe and well. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Rethinking the revert tag

Back in March you misclicked the block button. After some discussion and a suggestion by Xeno, you added the revert tag. The software says there are two uses of that tag, but that's the only use of the tag. What do you think about it now? I don't think it's unwarranted, but it's obviously not the only such mistake so for now it's a special, unique note for just one user. The devs plan to add a "reverted" tag (phab:T254074), so I think this would likely cause confusion when that happens. I don't think it'd be a huge issue to remove altogether, but at the very least I think something like xeno's original suggestion "Mistaken block" or "Mistaken action" would be better, since it'd be clearer how it could be used. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You know these things are beyond me :) I'm fine with whatever makes the most sense. I agree with you it could cause some confusion. I'd be fine changing it to whatever works best. If that's a new tag and its easy to do, go for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, if it were entirely up to me, I'd just delete it and not replace it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Dwaro

Hopefully asking this isn't against the policy, but if it is, please let me know. I am wondering if what happened in these suppression is of relevance to the sock investigation that is happening? I thought people couldn't have undisclosed alts anyways, or can they? I wanted to ask questions in the talk page, but it seems like that section was reserved for admins/CUs only. Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

lipservice

That's the word I was looking for. Trying to think of a polite way to tell them to try back in 6 months --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)