Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	0	0	0
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	4	0	4
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	0	48	48
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 12 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 15 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 52 sockpuppet investigations
• 17 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 22 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 54 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 14 requested closures
• 131 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 26 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (37 out of 8615 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Klea Pineda 2024-10-19 08:30 2024-10-26 08:30 move Subject to inappropriate page moves Liz Talk:Klea Pineda 2024-10-19 08:29 2024-10-26 08:29 move Subject to inappropriate page moves Liz User:Caulde/u 2024-10-19 02:16 indefinite edit,move User is inactive, page is inactive, no reason for full protection Anachronist Kalhora 2024-10-18 23:07 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Template:Non-admin comment 2024-10-18 22:33 indefinite edit,move Has neither sufficient transclusions nor sufficiently complex to need TE protection. Izno Football League 2025 2024-10-18 19:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Art 2024-10-18 19:05 indefinite edit,move legacy redirect El C MIM-104 Patriot 2024-10-18 18:19 indefinite edit,move RUSUKR community sanctions enforcement Swatjester Talk:Zionism 2024-10-18 13:51 indefinite move Probably only needs semi Valereee Chalukya (disambiguation) 2024-10-18 09:13 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement Johnuniq Ratta dynasty 2024-10-18 09:13 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement Johnuniq Salunkhe 2024-10-18 09:08 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement Johnuniq VIBGYOR Group of Schools 2024-10-18 09:05 2025-10-18 09:05 edit Persistent disruptive editing: no reason to think undue pro and con edits from autoconfirmed users will cease Johnuniq Benjamin W. Szerlip 2024-10-18 05:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case Talk:Rubber Man of India 2024-10-17 22:58 2025-10-17 22:58 create Repeatedly recreated: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VRAJESH SHAH RoySmith List of leaders of Hamas 2024-10-17 21:06 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Yahya Sinwar 2024-10-17 17:19 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Talk:Yahya Sinwar 2024-10-17 17:14 indefinite move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Talk:Lechman Dynasty 2024-10-17 16:21 2024-10-20 16:21 create Liz Masnaa Border Crossing 2024-10-17 16:20 2025-10-17 16:20 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Killing of Yahya Sinwar 2024-10-17 16:00 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:CT/A-I Chetsford S. Paramesh 2024-10-17 10:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jauerback Kabza 2024-10-17 03:07 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection after creating a redirect upon editor request Liz Three Ds of antisemitism 2024-10-17 02:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Attack on Nabatieh municipal council 2024-10-17 02:19 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of Kurubas 2024-10-17 01:48 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case New Jersey Turnpike 2024-10-17 00:56 2024-11-17 00:56 edit Persistent sock puppetry Izno Kamala Harris's tenure as Attorney General of California 2024-10-16 07:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/AP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Dhangar 2024-10-16 03:01 indefinite edit,move OK, meant this Daniel Case User:Magnolia677 2024-10-15 23:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent block evasion Acroterion October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel 2024-10-15 23:22 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Elli: Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I Protection Helper Bot Marhatta (region) 2024-10-15 22:57 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Religious anti-Zionism 2024-10-15 22:16 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq One Jerusalem 2024-10-15 22:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq October 2024 Friday Prayer in Tehran 2024-10-15 22:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq October 2024 Aitou airstrike 2024-10-15 22:06 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq 155th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade 2024-10-15 21:02 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter

Proposal to modify WP:GS/AA scope

After some discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan, there seems to be a consensus among myself and several admins who've enforced those sanctions (implemented in January) that they are de jure too broad and, in how they are de facto enforced, ambiguous as to scope.

• De jure too broad: GS/AA is the only extendedconfirmed restriction (out of 4 in effect + 1 repealed) that applies to an entire country or region. That is to say, there are sanctions for the Arab-Israeli conflict but not all aspects of Israeli and Arab life, for the Russo-Ukrainian War but not all aspects of Russian and Ukrainian life, etc. The fact that GS/AA applies to, say, the guy who played Chris-R in The Room or arguably even Kim Kardashian is unprecedented and unparalleled. On an admin level, this mostly hasn't mattered, because admins have declined to enforce these sanctions on non-conflict-related pages. But an ECR also applies to non-admins, particularly in its exemption from Wikipedia:Edit warring, which makes it ambiguous whether 3RR violations are in fact violations. (Consider someone who makes 4 reverts of an IP's valid copy-edit to Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023.)
• De facto ambiguous: As noted, admins have effectively treated this as a sanction for conflicts in the region. However, that is ill-defined. Some users have thought the sanctions only apply if both Armenia and Azerbaijan are involved. And what about matters, such as the Armenian genocide, that are primarily associated with another state? Furthermore, much of the misconduct plays out on articles about ethnic groups' past ties to particular settlements or regions.

Note also that the entire AA area is under ArbCom sanctions, so admins already have discretionary authority here. This is just a question of when that authority should be imposed by default.

Based on discussion with topic-area admins Courcelles, Rosguill, Firefangledfeathers, El_C, Callanecc, and Daniel Case, I propose the following reframing of the sanctions:^{ed. 20:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)}

• Political, ethnic, and military conflicts Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction.
• In the rest of the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic area, the community endorses administrators making liberal use of extended confirmed protection as an arbitration enforcement action.

The one objection voiced in preliminary discussion, by Rosguill, was about the history of ethnic land claims. I think that this falls solidly under the "ethnic conflicts ... broadly construed", but if that's a hang-up for people, we could that to the "explicitly including" bit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I would write it down as politics (not political conflicts), history (added), ethnic relations (not ethnic conflicts), and conflicts (of any kind) of or involving (for example Azerbaijan–Turkey relations)...—Alalch E. 19:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

"History" was discussed in the preliminary discussion. The problem is, what's history? Or, rather, what isn't? Dan Janjigian appearing in The Room is a historical event (happened before quite a few of our editors were born), but I don't think is what you intend. I think Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts would address your concerns, and am fine with that with basically equal preference to what I said above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you may be right about "history" after all.—Alalch E. 19:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that new editors will misunderstand the new wording as only narrowly affecting the ongoing NK conflict if we adopt the propose wording, and I think the inclusion of history would aid in their understanding. Then again, the status quo is that many (most?) new editors in the area simply ignore GS/AA or otherwise fail to understand it until they are blocked for repeated violations past warnings, so I'm not opposed to the rewording more generally. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts ... broadly construed should be enough, but perhaps inserting something like "past or present" – eg broadly construed, past or present, and explicitly including the Armenian genocide – would save the occasional back-and-forth. NebY (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• As an idea, maybe confine it to the Armenian and Azerbaijani nations, people and ethnicities? As written, the sanction includes the geography and the languages. My view would be that the early history of Zoroastrianism, Alexander the Great's early conquests, and the Armenian tongues and alphabets shouldn't be in scope and aren't what the drafters intended.—S Marshall T/C 11:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I suggest as the community considers these changes, that it also consider whether to match the contentious topics procedure and whether designate that AE can be used for enforcement per contentious topic procedure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Great idea. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Tamzin has suggested creating a subproposal for this. I thought about doing so and then realized I'm not sure what benefits this would bring. Since any GS/AA topic, especially so if we adopt this narrowing proposal, would fall under the broader WP:ARBAA, I reason that AE is available already. Are there other potential benefits? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No but that leads me to ask: what's the point of the GS if it's already covered under ARBAA? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The GS is really just here to frame the extended-confirmed restriction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• I support Tamzin's proposal. The tweaks help match the topic with its current interpretation by admins, and there's reason to be cautious about over-broadness. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Isn't involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both – the same as involving Armenia, or Azerbaijan –? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It is. The idea was just to be explicit about it, since apparently some users have been confused. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANDOR is probably a good link to review. Izno (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Restored from archive; !votes appreciated

I've restored this thread from the archive. I've also modified the proposal above to account for the feedback regarding "Political, military, and ethnic conflicts". As to Barkeep49's suggestion, if he or someone else would like to open a subthread to propose putting GS/AA under WP:AE jurisdiction, they're welcome to, but otherwise I think we should focus on the core proposal here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Closing admin, please note support by Firefangledfeathers above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support, as I trust the judgement of the enforcing administrators: if they believe it is needed, I think the adjustment should be made. Also, as a general principle blanket protection should be used in as narrow an area as is reasonable. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support the narrowing and the wording proposed by Tamzin. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'd really like for this to not get archived a second time without action. @HistoryofIran, Nythar, Levivich, Kansas Bear, Hemiauchenia, Magnatyrannus, Khirurg, LouisAragon, AirshipJungleman29, Demetrios1993, The Night Watch, LilianaUwU, Abrvagl, LaundryPizza03, Olympian, Guerillero, ProcrastinatingReader, Lol1VNIO, BilledMammal, Red-tailed hawk, Oaktree b, Aza24, Ermenrich, EvergreenFir, Buffs, Semsûrî, InvadingInvader, SilentResident, and TonyBallioni: This is everyone who made a boldfaced comment in the previous discussion and is able to comment here, plus the closer. Do any of you have thoughts on this proposal?
  One person who won't be able to comment here, tragically, is Nosebagbear (Z''L), so I'll copy what he said then, a characteristically wise comment that foresaw the exact problem we've run into:

  I am reticent to support an automatic major restriction on such a scale as the entire (amended as of 2013) AA2 scope. I'm aware, of course, of the gaming risk, but I don't think we'd ever endorse such an action were there (say) a dispute nexus between the US and UK. I would support this restriction on the conflict between the two countries (broadly construed, by all means), but opppose a restriction on the individual countries and their topics.

  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I opposed the previous proposal because the scope was too broad, per the statistics I presented. While I haven't run the statistics for this narrower scope, I believe that narrowing the scope generally would be beneficial. BilledMammal (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Support I'm fine with the proposal. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Support This narrower proposal is much better than the last one. I am ever so slightly concerned about the endorsement of "liberal use" of ECP because that has a small potential of sparking an increase of frivolous protection requests in the A-A topic area, but I don't think that most pages that are applied protection will be outside of political, military or ethnic conflicts. The Night Watch (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Support. ECP is a beyond necessary tool when dealing with the most contentious topics. I trust that admins will do the right thing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Nosebagbear. firefly ( t · c ) 20:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. It's a reasonable idea of making the ECP restriction more narrow, because no other contentious topic area is this broad AFAIK. Otherwise, I'll echo Nosebagbear's statement: restrictions on the conflicts, not the countries as a whole. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• I support the reframing proposed by Tamzin. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support – much proved as necessary by now. Thanks to Tamzin for taking the initiative here. – Aza24 (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support the narrower application, this will be more effective and clear, focusing on the core of the contentious A-A topic area. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 05:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support Last time I specifically objected to the overbreadth of the proposal. I agree that ECP is needed only for topics directly related to conflicts in Armenia and Azerbaijan, as opposed to, say, the Sevan trout (a fish found only in Armenia). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Just making sure I understand this correctly. The proposal is to go from "A community discussion at the administrators' noticeboard has placed all pages with content related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, under the extended confirmed restriction" to "Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction."? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, though there's the added bullet point about "liberal use" of ECP elsewhere in the AA topic area. I assume we'll keep the info about the community decision and as-of date in a later sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The problem with these disputes pertaining to Central Asia and the regions surrounding Iran is that they do frequently creep into matters that may not, at first glance, seem to strictly relate to the direct locii of those respective disputes. On this particular topic, I vaguely remember seeing a thread at ANI relating to the article Caucasus Albania, and I'm sure that anything relating to Iranian, Georgian, etc. cultural history within the geographical confines of what is currently Azerbaijan has the potential of flaring up into conflict. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI the AIV/TB2 bot appears to have taken the day off

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

---

Not sure who handles the techy stuff there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The AIV bot is maintained by @JamesR, who has only 6 edits this year, all in April, and only one edit in 2022. Not sure he is still active but maybe someone who knows him better should email him? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

In general, if you want to complain about a bot (including for inaction, or for a period of inactivity), and the bot's user page doesn't give alternative instructions, the first place to go is the bot account's talk page (if this is a redirect, then the redirect target). If the bot's talk page isn't a redirect to its operater's talk page, this is the second place. A bot operater can check out these pages without leaving any trace visible to other users - or get email notifications for changes on these pages. Animal lover |666| 15:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

One is User:HBC AIV helperbot5, what's the TB2 one? Secretlondon (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It's back and happy now. Secretlondon (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

CCI opened, autopatrolled revoked for admin

I believe I need to inform the community that I have revoked Autopatrolled from User:Pbsouthwood due to close paraphrasing copyright issues highlighted as part of a contributor copyright investigation request. I've opened an investigation into their edits at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20230831 (dated due to real name), which hasn't been filled out with their edits yet. It will be a lengthy one, as Pbsouthwood has over 100k edits to mainspace. A lot of the content will be rather complicated and will involve searching through books and journals for violations. I don't want people to jump on it right away after it's been filled out though-- throwing ourselves at CCIs like this one is unproductive in the long run and will inspire burnout. We need to figure out a way to make the process more productive, less stressful, and more sustainable. I do not think a block is warranted in this situation due to only two previous notices and that some of the violations here involve technical material that is difficult to sufficiently reword. But for the given reasons I do think and autopatrolled revoke is warranted. Otherwise, I'm not completely sure what, if anything, should be done further, so I am giving this to the community. Thank you Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

(Non-anyone of importance comment) Thanks for this Moneytrees; I'd just like to emphasise that there is no reason whatsoever to consider desysopping at this stage. This is purely a content issue and, as we all know, content work doesn't need the tools. Everyone calm down, people. SN54129 22:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

{{Non-anyone of importance comment}} should be a bluelink... casualdejekyll 00:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Checking in here to recognise that this is happening and to state for the record that I have never intended copyright infringement and while I have always had the opinion that my contributions have avoided infringement by not repeating creative material, it is possible that I have occasionally missed the mark as the mark is so poorly defined. It is a characteristic of the fields in which I do most of my work that technical terminology and listings of fact or data will often happen, which are things that as I have been led to understand, are not copyrightable. On the rare occasions where someone has complained that my paraphrasing has been too close in a specific instance, I have generally discussed and rewritten, but there have been occasions where the complaints have been apparently unfounded on demonstrable fact and apparently consisted of the opinion of persons with no apparent expertise in the fields of copyright or technical writing, which I have been unable to deal with to their satisfaction because they have not expressed the problem in an actionable format. Revoking autopatrolled seems a reasonable and responsible response by Moneytrees under the circumstances of an open investigation, and I thank them for the personal notification on my talk page. While it is likely that there will be instances found where someone will hold the personal opinion that copyright may have been infringed I hold the hope and reasonable expectation that the situation will be judged based on actual legal requirements by editors who have a sufficient understanding of those requirements. Wikipedian expectations that exceed legal requirements can be managed by any one of us by simply editing the disputed material until they are happy with the results. I am available to answer reasonable and relevant questions, and hope this does not waste too much of everyone's time. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, the above post doesn't really match reality. An edit from two days ago[1]

• "SANParks is the designated management authority of the MPA, and is responsible for the administrative, monitoring and educational activities and coastal law enforcement. The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Marine Resources Management is responsible for issuing fishing permits, allocating fishing quotas and law enforcement. Scientific services from SANParks and DFFE are responsible for conducting research and monitoring. In principle, the South African Police Service, City of Cape Town law enforcement, environmental officers, and fisheries authorities (DFFE) either collaborate with SANParks or independently operate along the coast to ensure law enforcement and compliance."

Source[2]:

• "South African National Parks (SANParks) is the designated management authority of the TMNP MPA. However, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) Marine Resources Management, is responsible for issuing fishing permits, allocating fishing quotas and law enforcement, while SANParks (TMNP) undertakes the administrative and coastal law enforcement, monitoring and educational activities. Scientific services from SANParks and DFFE conduct research and monitoring. In addition, the South African Police Service, City of Cape Town law enforcement, environmental officers, and fisheries authorities (DFFE) either collaborate with SANParks or independently operate along the coast to ensure law enforcement and compliance"

Contrary to what is said above, I do believe this should be cause for a desysop, as it is rather hard to trust someone to uphold our policies when they violate them this blatantly and then try to minimize it (and apparently only care about legal rules, not the Wikipedia copyvio rules). Fram (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fram, can you rewrite that paragraph in a way that does not violate Wikipedia's rules, or is it impossible to describe what SANParks is without violating the rules, in which case the entire paragraph should just be removed? wbm1058 (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Better probably to remove the whole article, as it contains numerous copyvios and examples of close paraphrasing, and just rewriting one section doesn't help much (and it has been almost completely written by Pbsouthwood). Another example is e.g.

• "Threatened and protected species supported within the MPA include white sharks, abalone, African penguins and several over-exploited line fish species, such as red steenbras."

Source[3]:

• "Threatened and protected species supported within the MPA include white sharks, abalone, African penguins and several over-exploited line fish species, such as poenskop and red steenbras."

Many of the sources are not or not easily available to me, so I can't check them for further copyvios. Better to let the CCI do its work than correct minimal bits here and there. Fram (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Why not summarize those paragraphs by saying something like Responsibility for the MPA is shared by South African National Parks (SANParks) and the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), with additional x support from the South African Police Service, City of Cape Town? I didn't check the technical correctness of this statement, but the general idea — summarize at 20,000 feet and skip the minutiae about which stakeholder provides which niche administrative service — seems clear to me. /wiae /tlk 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I presume that is a question directed at Pbsouthwood? I have no idea why they didn't do this. Fram (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I tend to find this is one way Wikipedia tends to shoot itself in the foot. Close paraphrasing of factual works tends to not be subject to copyright in the US. IMO, in a situation like this, we are probably at the "Merger doctrine" point where any attempts to express the facts differently enough to not look like what Wikipedia considers close paraphrasing would lose information. As a note, South African copyright law does allow for the copyright of governmental works and most certainly has a notion of "fair dealing" which is similar to fair use in the US and allows for reproduction in newspapers, magazines, etc. Basic takeaway: I agree that text is in violation of our standards wrt close paraphrasing. I don't agree those should be our standards. They are far too restrictive and an active detriment to the improvement of Wikipedia. Not only because it makes it harder to write factual articles, but because we have a cadre of users who tend to try to drive off editors who violate those standards rather than work with them to improve. And yes, this is a very difficult line to walk and sometimes requires a skillset very few people have. Hobit (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair use at the very least requires that one openly and permanently acknowledges that someone else's text is used, not copying text without indicating that it is copied. Fram (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that what the citation at the end of the content does... acknowledge whose text you "used"? wbm1058 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That would not indicate that the text is copied. ~UN6892 ^t_c 13:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Threatened and protected species supported within the MPA include white sharks, abalone, African penguins and several over-exploited line fish species, such as poenskop and red steenbras.

— MPA Forum

It's impossible to state that fact without closely paraphrasing it, so our only option is to quote the source? Not quite the same as quoting the Gettysburg Address, but, whatever. wbm1058 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"The Protected Area offers support for many protected and threatened species, including fish like white sharks and red steenbras, but also snails (abalone) and birds (Africa penguins)". Not really impossible... Fram (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"but"? Are they primarily concerned with fish conservation, and secondarily concerned with snails and birds? That's what your version implies, but that wasn't my takeaway from the original. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Then replace it with "and". Really... Fram (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

So it is impossible for Wikipedia to list the threatened and protected species supported within the MPA, because the list of species is a copyrighted fact? wbm1058 (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at this situation, my thinking tends to align with Hobit and SN54129. I don't believe that this represents the sort of "black and white" violations and failure of good faith or competence that Fram seems to have assigned to it. I don't see the need to desysop here, I have no evidence that Pbsouthwood has misused their admin tools or anything like that.--Jayron32 13:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• I do think that this was a black-and-white copyvio, but I also don't think we're close to needing to consider a desysop. I am hopeful Pbsouthwood will respond well to the feedback given here. I do think they need to step beyond "expectations that exceed legal requirements can be managed by any one of us by simply editing the disputed material". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Still from Table Mountain National Park Marine Protected Area:

"MPAs can be beneficial for biodiversity conservation and fisheries management. The primary function of MPAs is biodiversity and heritage conservation, but these objectives are not always incompatible with resource use activities, even fishing, if the extractive activities are sustainable and have a low ecological impact. This requires good planning, design and governance, which follow from effective management."

vs.

"MPAs have become widely regarded as beneficial for biodiversity conservation and fisheries management. While the primary focus of MPAs is biodiversity and heritage conservation, its objectives are not necessarily incompatible with fishing and other resource use activities, provided these activities are sustainable and have a low ecological impact. Following the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) guidelines, MPAs should demonstrate sound planning, design, and good governance (Day et al., 2019). Thus, a vital determinant of a MPAs success is effective management."

This isn't even text about this specific MPA, but general background, where just enough has been done to fool automatic copyvio tools. But I guess this is "fair use" and "impossible to write in your own words" as well. I wonder why so many editors make any effort to actually "write" articles when they can simply follow these examples instead. Fram (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You've made your point. --Jayron32 13:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sufficiently to sway you apparently. You support Hobits comments, which boil down to "bad policy, no need to follow it, and bad editors who enforce it", or literally "we have a cadre of users who tend to try to drive off editors who violate those standards rather than work with them to improve." From the talk page archives, I see that User:Diannaa has for years tried to help Pbsouthwood, but that e.g. in May 2023 we had User talk:Pbsouthwood/Archive 25#Copyright problem on Marine construction, where it was apparently impossible for Pbsouthwood to find their own copyvios, and which ended in the page being partially rewritten by another editor and all old revisions, right from the creation by Pbsouthwood, being revdelled[4]. It doesn't look as if this changed anything at all in their approach. So now more editors will spend a lot of time cleaning up their mess, without any indication that the problem won't simply continue. Fram (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I understand your point perfectly well. I just don't agree with it. Repeating it won't change that. --Jayron32 14:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

My point is that "their mess" is something we have chosen to define as a mess. There is no legal issue here. It's easily inside of fair use (or "fair dealing" as I think a similar principle is defined in SA), probably fine by the Merger Doctrine, and generally not a problem other than we have chosen to make it so. I agree with being conservative wrt fair use. I don't think we should be this conservative. We certainly should acknowledge that rewriting this stuff to be clear, correct, and in the form Wikipedia wants is quite difficult. It's one reason I don't contribute a lot on our content side--I worry too much about being (likely correctly) accused of things like this. I think we've just created another editor who will probably make the same choice. Maybe more than one. Hobit (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

If we're "voting" here, I'm leaning with Hobit and Jayron32. Not that I'm a lawyer. I checked out a book from my local library once to learn more about copyright, but my mind glazed over at how complicated it all is, and how subjective, and how lawyers argue points similarly as we are to try to settle on or move that fuzzy line that divides copyright violation from !copyright violation. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No one is voting, no idea where you get that, and changes to policy are usually not decided suddenly to protect a fellow admin, but at VPP or somewhere similar. Many of our policies go beyond what is legally required, the legal angle seems to be a red herring raised by Pbsouthwood and picked up by his defenders as if that is somehow relevant. Your nitpicking about the "impossible" rewrite above doesn't give the impression that you are open to reasonable discussion about this though. Fram (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, there's two discussions to be had here; which are fairly orthogonal. The first is "What is to be done with this text". Rewriting it to be compliant with policy is quite reasonable. The second is "What is to be done with Pbsouthwood", which, despite your absolutely uncalled for WP:ASPERSIONS in this discussion, can still be "nothing". If you feel differently, feel free to express that, but you can express that without casting aspersions against people who think differently than you do. Different is not evil; and merely because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you have to insinuate that they think like they do for the "wrong reasons", like "protecting a fellow admin". You can just state your position, dispassionately, once, and let other people think differently than you. I'm fine with you expressing that Pbsouthwood should be sanctioned. It is not ok that you insinuate that people who think that they shouldn't be sanctioned must be doing so because it's some kind of "admins protecting admins" kind of bullshit. You can stop that right now. --Jayron32 16:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue with people disagreeing that any sanction is needed. I have an issue with people writing all kind of nonsense to protect fellow admins, like how it is "impossible" to rewrite this or that sentence in a policy-compliant manner. If people feel that the issues don't rise to sanctionable levels, fine, that's a difference of opinion, and I haven't argued against that (just stated my position once). But I won't stop pointing out the nonsense, strawmen or far-fetched angles some people write to support their opinion. Fram (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I notice that you have no issue with, no, even agree with Hobit, when they state "we have a cadre of users who tend to try to drive off editors who violate those standards rather than work with them to improve.". Apparently it is perfectly allright to not just "insinuate" but outright state that apparently the CCI people have as their actual aim driving off these editors, and not upholding our policies and improving affected articles? If you want people to take your "you can stop that right now" stance serious, perhaps first apply your standards to the people you agree with before trying to intimidate someone you disagree with? Fram (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. --Jayron32 17:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fram, I do think you have a good point here. I was certainly talking about you (though not just you) and perhaps I shouldn't have been (or maybe I should have been more transparent). I do think you drive off good editors. I don't think you do it to harm Wikipedia--quite the opposite. I think you have a really high bar for this stuff. And I think that has driven off editors in the past. And I feel I'm seeing it again. I fully believe you are doing it to improve Wikipedia, I just think you're actually causing more harm than good. I don't think that's a personal attack--I'm not questioning your good faith. But I do think that A) our policies are too strict, certainly more strict than needed B) we tend to take people to the woodshed rather than helping them improve C) A & B hurt us more than it helps us by driving away good (or potentially good) editors. I believe the percent of native English speakers who could successfully rephrase the above while A) not changing the meaning and B) not being "too close" is very small. Maybe 5%, maybe 20%. And I think limiting Wikipedia editors to that percent isn't ideal. Finally, I'm not an admin and this isn't a case of me defending someone because they are an admin. It's because, like you, I see something I view as harmful to the encyclopedia playing out again and I think it needs to stop. We just disagree what that something harmful *is*. Hobit (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to sympathize with Fram's position that it is, at a minimum, not a good look when an admin is noted as potentially in violation of policy, and multiple other admins show up to say, eh, maybe that policy isn't so important to begin with, or really, how could they have avoided violating the policy? Both of which are fairly silly things to say and I think would be laughed out of the room if said by a non-admin in defense of a non-admin. Consider: "Sure, this user has violated 3RR, but what were they supposed to do? Not revert the edit?" Or, "Maybe BLP is a bad policy. The edits calling a living person a 'creep' are not defamatory as a matter of U.S. law." Et cetera. We dismiss arguments like these all the time at AN(/I).

All that said, I'm not saying sanctions are necessarily needed for Pbsouthwood. But I don't think the idea should be so bluntly dismissed, as it has been here, and I definitely don't think Fram should be chastised for giving an entire three examples. If sanctions are to be considered, I think the main question is WP:ADMINACCT. Pbsouthwood's dismissive response to experienced copyright clerk Sennecaster at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 May 30 strikes me as significantly suboptimal for any user, let alone an admin. The related aforementioned response to Diannaa, our most experienced copyright admin, is also not great. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Dunno if sanctions are needed or not, at the CCI there are things that might fall under WP:LIMITED rather than copyvio but also things that look like not-short copypastes that probably aren't OK. The sanction I'd consider would be a topic ban on content creation (i.e on adding text to articles, perhaps also to drafts) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

To the general point, I do think close paraphrasing is a tough policy area, because, unlike straight-up copyvio, it's a lot easier to stumble into accidentally. Particularly for short passages, it's just one of those things that I accept most users do occasionally. I'm sure every experienced editor does it to some degree by accident, if only because of the law of large numbers. (If you heard someone close-paraphrased 1 in 1,000 sentences, that wouldn't sound like that big a deal, but that's 1 every 10 to 20 articles.) I've dinged people for close paraphrasing at DYK or GAN, experienced users who I'm confident have no systematic issues with close paraphrasing, but just made a mistake. This is all distinct from outright copyvio, where people do it because they either have a fundamental (often unfixable) misunderstanding of how copyright works, are willfully violating policy (nice way to get barnstars without doing the work), or lack the competence to make sure they're not copying word for word.

So to me it's less about whether someone close-paraphrases, since there's not a lot of editors for whom the answer is "never", and more about how much they do it, how they respond when they're called on it, and whether they learn from that feedback. With the most experienced user I've called on close paraphrasing, it was a single sentence and they responded with simply "{{done|Rephrased}}" and that was that. That was a non-admin; I'd expect an admin, called out for a considerably larger amount of close paraphrasing, to do as well or better than that, not worse. Even AGFing that this was accidental, I know that if I found out I'd accidentally close-paraphrased multiple paragraphs [admin link; -4kB], it would make me completely reconsider my approach to article-writing. This is why I am unimpressed with Pbsouthwood's responses in May. But I will reserve judgment for now. My main point is we shouldn't foreclose discussion of the topic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Part of why I didn't fully process Marine construction was because of how some of the responses were. I symphasize with having your work scrutinized like that, and how awful it must feel, but I still was discouraged from attempting cleanup when my explanation of LIMITED and how I was testing it was basically ignored. I hope it was said out of stress, and that this isn't a pattern, and I personally don't need anything more than an apology. I also want to note discussion under the CCI itself, in the information section of the case. discussion not pertaining to the case that might be better at this AN thread should go there, so we can keep notes about cleanup for other volunteers easy to find. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• The examples given by Fram go beyond close paraphrasing and, in my opinion, are red line copyright violations. It also appears they are recent and numerous, since multiple recent examples have been given. It is good that the person in question is responding here, but it is not good that they are only giving half apologies such as While it is likely that there will be instances found where someone will hold the personal opinion that copyright may have been infringed I hold the hope and reasonable expectation that the situation will be judged based on actual legal requirements by editors who have a sufficient understanding of those requirements. A full apology that shows they understand exactly what they did wrong and that this will not be repeated is the minimum required here. Do folks realize how much work a CCI is? It is one of the most labor intensive processes on Wikipedia. Subjecting one's fellow editors to this kind of cleanup work is an awful thing to do to them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Y'all might want to check with WMF Legal about whether these are "red line" or "black and white" or any other color of copyright violations, or licensing violations, or any kind of violation, before this goes any further. The answer may surprise you. Levivich (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  • <ec with Levivich who I think asked the same thing with less words...> Question, do you believe there is a legal issue here or a Wikipedia policy issue? You say these are redline copyright violations. Do you mean legal ones? If so, could you address fair use and perhaps the Merger Doctrine? I'm not seeing anything that makes me think there is an actual legal issue here (IANAL). And if it's only a Wikipedia issue, doesn't that hint at the notion we might be too strict and the CCI here might be work we are just making for ourselves? Hobit (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    (Replying to both of you.) What we have here, supported by recent diffs, seems to boil down to copy pasting from copyrighted sources without the use of quotations. Is this an activity that's ever been acceptable around here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not seeing cut-and-paste issues, I'm seeing close phrasing issues. They are quite different. But maybe I'm missing something? Hobit (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    +1. --JBL (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    Same here. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    The examples above with SANParks are identical save for conjunctions in between identical text. That is a cut-and-paste issue. Beyond that, I'm amazed that editors are defending such clear plagiarism and refusal to account for it or amend their behavior one iota, instead going for wikilawyering defenses. (That's not a good look for any editor, it's an incredibly poor one from an admin. If they somehow after 120000 edits can't figure this out, it's a basic competence issue.) Frankly WBM, Hobit, Jayron et al if you cannot look at that paragraph and figure out how to rephrase it, you should not be editing Wikipedia content, either. And if you want to start a discussion about allowing blatant plagiarism, VPP is thataway. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    If I write, "The inner planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars," am I plagiarizing? Lots of people have written that sentence before me. Is there anything wrong with me writing that sentence in an article?

    There's a difference between copyvio, license vio, WP policy vio, and plagiarism. There's a difference between "plagiarizing" a sentence and plagiarizing a whole page. There's a difference between plagiarizing fiction and "plagiarizing" nonfiction.

    When Pb and others ask, "what is the creative expression?" or "how would you rewrite that to avoid close paraphrasing but not lose meaning?", they are asking the right questions.

    Those of you who think you can't write a sentence if the same sentence is written in a source... are misinformed. Don't take my word for it, ask WMF Legal or some other lawyer. Levivich (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    This is clearly not an issue of "I can't write a single simple sentence any other way". It's a repeating pattern of large passages being fundamentally the same. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    Lev, everything in your first two paragraphs is completely true, and completely irrelevant. Your example is covered by WP:LIMITED. I'm quite confident that Moneytrees, Diannaa, and Sennecaster are all familiar with that de facto policy. Pbsouthwood is not here because he copied a single sentence of objective facts. He is here because he, among other things, closely paraphrased over four kilobytes of copyrighted material at Marine construction. David is right: If someone doesn't know how to paraphrase multiple paragraphs of text without using very similar verbiage, they should not be editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    I would be very interested to hear Diannaa's thoughts. The way she described the issue in 2019 was Like a case I reported to you a couple years ago, the bot is picking up technical material that is difficult or impossible to summarise or paraphrase. Apparently Marine construction was more problematic -- but one problematic example plus a lot of instances that satisfy WP:LIMITED would amount to one problematic example. --JBL (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    Hi Hobit all, to be clear I would say there's a mix of both here, most of the more obvious copy and pastes have been revision deleted. Here's a series of edits to Marine construction that were flagged as issues; click "iThenticate report" to see the overlap highlighted in them (iirc there's some more blatant pastes in Pb's earlier edits but don't quote me on it) For what it's worth, close paraphrasing is still considered a copyright violation/plagiarism (wiki speak wise at least), if not a harder to avoid example of one. Personally I don't think it's worth getting into the whole "legal issue" angle or which stripe of the rainbow a copyvio is. There'll be some cases that there are limited ways something can be said-- plain facts are not copyrightable (ex. "So and so is an x y z who went to B University and graduated with a C in D...", "so and so is a village in X, Y and has Z population count...", "X Y Z are listed as endangered/ at risk" etc") and that's ok and that's not what I opened the investigation on. Honestly if that was it I would have happily declined it because that means less work for me and less contentious discussions. I think there is simultaneously more and less nuance to this situation than what is immediately apparent.

    I won't comment on the further admin element here, as the person who in effect is expected to deal with difficult cases like this I'm more interested in preventing issues going forward and what can be done to cleanup issues. When the CCI is filled out, one of the issues here will be accessing the sources used-- if we could run some mass Turnitin job once the article listing is filled out, that could be helpful. If there was also something that would recommend quick rewordings that would be helpful. Hopefully this case can be used as something to make CCI less of a timesink in the future. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you, that certainly is more of an issue (larger if nothing else) than the examples given previously. I think revoking autopatrolled makes good sense if this type of thing was common. I still don't see a case for a desysop and I'm not at all sure there is a legal issue here. But it is outside of Wikipedia's standards for this and this example is outside of what I consider acceptable. Hobit (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• These COPYVIOs seem incredibly blatant and numerous. I don't see how they're defensible, especially not without a very explicit and contrite statement of action of fixing them all. The responses above are bizarre and seem to be coming from admins? I presume the response here to a massive CCI being opened would be different if the person responsible wasn't an established editor/admin? Copyright violations are one of the more major violations to make on Wikipedia and deserve more than a minor slap on the wrist and mildly shook finger. At minimum, I think a content creation/editing restriction is needed for a massive copyvio issue like this, at the very least until the person responsible has helped complete the entire CCI. Silverseren^C 22:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  +1. I'm actually baffled here, that text has been copied pretty much verbatim from a Copyrighted source (as shown above by Fram) and people are here saying it's not even necessarily close paraphrasing. There's one extra word added or something, that's closer than just paraphrasing! Like Tamzin I wouldn't necessarily say an automatic desysop is warranted, and I'm sure the editor in question is a good and committed Wikipedian but for heaven's sake this is still apparently a serious issue, and one which is going to be costly to deal with.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  people are here saying it's not even necessarily close paraphrasing I don't think this is true (?) -- WP:LIMITED points to a section of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, after all. --JBL (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, seriously, are other editors really just copy-pasting whole paragraphs with maybe some light rearranging and calling it good? So that means I don't actually have to spend 2 hours agonizing over how to write five sentences that adequately distill a full page of technical concepts while avoiding all phrasing, conceptual ordering, points of emphasis, etc. that remotely resemble the source content? JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am back editing under a new account. Sorry if my (literal) insanity caused anyone to worry about me. As someone who is active in CCI, these are unambiguous copyright violations. The whole "there is no way to reword without close paraphrasing" doesn't hold up for a number of reasons. If your inserted text is as long as the sourced material, it probably is a copyright violation. In 2020, I was told this edit of mine was a copyvio even though Earwig said it wasn't. I reworded the text, but I am still not fully happy with my edit. An administrator adding closely paraphrased content to articles IS a cause for concern. If the close paraphrasing continues, we might have to take this to ARMCOM. Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup

Alright, like Moneytrees has said more eloquently than me on the case itself and above, this is going to be a pain in the ass to assess either way. Let's see if there's any way we can make this easier for people. Money suggested a TurnItIn dump; how would we best facilitate that? Can someone help supply accessible sources, especially if they're paywalled? Anyt ideas to make this CCI easier, would be highly appreciated. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

If someone can make a list of the sources I can see what I've got access to. This is probably best done at the CCI page, though. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

An iThenticate/Turnitin dump would certainly identify a lot of the issues but considering the volume of offline sources used (I cleaned the Marine construction article and had to use dubious sources to obtain the relevant book), it will probably miss a bit. In my opinion the lightly sourced content is pretty noticeable.

Thankfully a lot of these are on the IA (for however long that lasts) or... other sources, though an occasional trip to REX may be necessary. Honestly, the content can be rewritten but it's incredibly frustrating as a non-expert. Perhaps we could mark articles to be rewritten by others, etc.

I recently opened phab:T345087, which may be of interest. – Isochrone (T) 09:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• The CCI has now been filled out and isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be-- a substantial amount of the articles listed are non-copyrightable lists. I'll try to remove those all before we any sort of mass job is run. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Checkuser team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permission of ferret (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the Checkuser team

Request for your attention at vandalism by user : truebotbhil

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

---

respected sir , There is a user @Truebotbhil, he has placed bot in his name and caused a serious vandalism related a sensitive page:-( Tadvi Bhil) , he is making multiple edits and deleting facts with references .He has not have any conversation on talkpage but he is doing vandalism. I request you to look forward towards this. 116.75.183.176 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm unsure what's going on here, but Truebotbhil is misusing maintenance tags and suchlike, though they're quite right that there's a lot of unsourced material. I've done a major copyedit on it so that it's actually understandable English now and has the right tags, and will keep an eye on it. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• I've blocked User3355‎ and Samuel0Avery‎, who are almost certainly the OP-IP here, as socks, and I've blocked Truebotbhil indefinitely for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• And I've stuck a month's semi on it in case any of them are tempted to start anything again. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Declared shared use

This comment about "transferring rights" to an account makes it look a lot like there are three individuals who used, or planned to use, the account User:Claudia Romina Fernández De Santacruz. I'm not sure where to report it, so I'm doing so here. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That account hasn't been used since March 2021. Am I missing something? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Bri, where did you even find this? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The breadcrumbs seem to lead to Miss Universe Australia 2023 via User talk:TOBIAS2009. I have notified that user of this thread. FWIW, the Claudia Romina Fernández De Santacruz account has made 7 contributions, and holds no advanced permissions on this project. They have made a few more contribs on eswiki, but none since 2021. The TOBIAS2009 account has made a couple of hundreds of contribs to this project, and also holds no advanced permissions here, but they are very active at eswiki. All of their contribs at eswiki post-date the final contribution of Claudia Romina Fernández De Santacruz. I am guessing that 'transferring rights' statement is some kind of poorly worded (mistranslated?) declaration that the accounts are connected (which is recommended for valid alt accounts at WP:SOCK). Absent any evidence that these accounts are being abused, I don't see that any action is needed here. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Edits in Article: Vistara about fleet

Greetings! I have added an update to the Vistara airline's fleet as it received their new delivery of the 787 aircraft and a user @Jetstreamer proceeded to revert it multiple times even though citations were added. Later I added one more reliable citation for the confidence of the information reliability, another user @LeoFrank reverted the edits and placed multiple warning on my talk page which are a misuse of warnings which can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThewikizoomer&diff=1173553821&oldid=1173019903.

Literally the airline on their X.com page have posted the update and I added that too, yet the above user reverted. Also their warnings and the text seemed like attacks rather than a polite discussion if you can see like how they did on my talk page.

I understand that their involvement in improving and protecting airline pages from vandalism or any disruptive edits but reverting an edit multiple times even though reliable citations show the update clearly amount to harassment. Requesting administrator to review the situation and prevent/warn the users related to reverting the edits MULTIPLE times even though the edits are constructive. Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Also note that I added every tail number of the aircraft and added citations to that too on their respective talk pages, The user @LeoFrank calling that the edits were without original research feels like an attack and disrespectful. Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Simply, your sources weren't good enough previously (i.e. a source saying a fourth plane was delivered, a flight tracker for another plane, and the Boeing order book - this is WP:SYNTH). I'd say they're just about OK now, but Twitter is a primary source and the others are plane enthusiast sites. I'd definitely refrain from calling other people's edits "vandalism" when they clearly aren't. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  My first citation may not have been reliable which I realized later and added more reliable citations (the airline's post on x.com) and then @LeoFrank removed that too. That's the issue. Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, It's not "vandalism", I now understand. Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It is quite clear that this user does not have skills in citing sources. They could have approached me at my talk regarding the matter, but they rather chose to start a discussion here and, even worse, calling my or LeoFrank's edits vandalism. I strongly suggest this user to carefully read WP:V if they intend to continue contributing to this project. I won't comment further on this matter.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The OP opened a retaliatory SPI against these two users at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LeoFrank, which I have now closed. Spicy (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Cabayi and Wugapodes. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process. This year's timeline is as follows:

• 4 September to 16 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org.
• 17 September to 21 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 21 September to 24 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
• 25 September to 4 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
• By 15 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cabayi (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

Range block

User:Venezia Friulano is (so far) the last confirmed sock of User:JamesOredan, a permanently blocked user who basically violated every rule of wikipedia (vandalism, agenda pushing, insulting other users, edit warring, introducing wrong infos on purpose etc. etc.) and has never stopped to do so thanks to his infinite network of socks (see here for those catched: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JamesOredan/Archive) and also many IP addresses. Now there are other IPs and accounts (both old and new) that evidently appear to be Venezia. Basically this permanently blocked user never really stopped editing and poisoning wikipedia: a sock gets blocked and he just creates another one the next day, and proceeds as nothing happened.

I have reported three IPs the other day, but now I may have other two accounts to report, one old and one brand-new. I'll never surrender to this network of socks but it's getting frustrating and I need help. Since it's draining lots of energies to report one by one each case and since the level of disruption has been so high and so persistent I believe a significant range block is needed. Can it be done?Barjimoa (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Extra Eyes Requested on AIV

A racist troll has been running amok tonight. I have already blocked several of their IPs and revdeled a large number of edits. Unfortunately, I doubt they are finished, and I don't currently have time to go through all of their edits. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I think I've now zapped all of their edits that I could find. But they may not be finished and I have to get some sleep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm keeping a tab open and an eye on it for at least a while. - Aoidh (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have just blocked several more of their IPs and revdeled all their edits. I'm guessing they are using some kind of proxy. I also note they seem to be making the same edits, typically one of two, on their target pages. Maybe someone familiar with an edit filter could have a look. See the message on the bottom of my talk page for the most recent three IPs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

login Access delete

Admin request please my login access delete AShiv1212 (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to your account, it is not possible to delete an account. If you don't wish to use it, just stop using it. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)