Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive366

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_444#RFC:_The_Telegraph_on_trans_issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reliable sources (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

Notified: 1

Reasoning: The RfC was closed via vote counting instead of an assessment of arguments. Cortador (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Closer

I refer to my comments at User talk:Sandstein#Telegraph RFC (permalink). In addition, I note that the editor requesting review does not explain how the RFC should in their view have been closed instead, and why. Sandstein 19:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-participants (Telegraph RFC review 2)

• Speedy close this RFC review #2 as no action. Too many RFC reviews, RFC review reverts, etc. in too short a period. This is taking up too much community time. Sometimes you just need to take the L and re-RFC the whole issue in a couple months. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Participants (Telegraph RFC review 2)

• I have stated so above as well as in the closure request: the RfC should be closed by assessment of arguments, no by counting votes. Cortador (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse close (involved in original RfC). Given the circumstances of the RfC, the subsequent initial close and closure review and then this reclose. The outcome of this re-close being a no-consensus was the appropriate outcome based on reading the consensus as happened in the initial close, or counting of the results as happened in the reclose. It appeared clear that the community simply has no consensus for either GREL or GUNREL, so a no-consensus close, which is a valid outcome at RSP, was the correct close. I don't think we really need to spend more energy on this yet again than has already spent in the countless (probably hundreds) community hours on this. Raladic (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse: Vote counting is a way to assess arguments. The closer's job is not to assess the arguments in the sense of which ones they personally think are stronger, that would be a WP:SUPERVOTE. They assess the arguments in the sense of which ones achieved consensus in the discussion. In that context, it's basically necessary to count votes. And if all of the arguments are reasonably policy based then counting votes might be enough to assess consensus by itself. In fact the vast majority of closures rely heavily on vote counting. Loki (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved in the first close review, and the discussion of the RFC). The only reasonable close was 'no consensus', the only issue with the first close was it's contentious wording. How the RFC is record at the perennial sources list is a matter for WT:RSP not an issue with the close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• I don't entirely agree with Sandstein's logic about strictly counting votes, but I agree with his general reasoning that source reliability analysis is fairly subjective, leaving a closer with significantly less wiggle room than in a discussion entirely about applying well-established policy. More to the point, if someone wanted to close this RfC with a detailed point-by-point analysis of the arguments raised, they had several months to do so. Let's be done with this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Explain to me how the project benefits from having an experienced closer (who are stretched thin as it is!) spend at least a day reading through that novel-length beast of a discussion again only to reclose it with the same conclusion the previous two?? three??? (I lost count) closers came to. Actually don't, it's a rethorical question, nobody benefits from that. We all lose. Someone please put us out of our misery and SNOW-close this --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Telegraph RFC review 2)

Can't we just put this to rest? Is this really that important? (I have avoided this discussion entirely.) C F A 💬 19:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I've posted a notification of this review at WP:RSN#Closure review of Telegraph on trans issues RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Haven't we all had enough of this? Sandstein's close seems fine enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oh noooooooo. Silverseren^C 20:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Not this again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• I'm sure that if this RFC gets re-re-reviewed and closed again, then that decision will be contested, too. Can involved editors just let this one go and do another RFC in 12 months if you are not satisfied with the results? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Additionally, the reasoning statement is meager. If you are seriously asking any future discussion closer to wade back into these contentious waters, you have to provide a more compelling and evidence-backed rationale than the one provided here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• This is such a tragic moment for Wikipedia. I hope someone has the boldness to speedily close this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assistance Desired

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

I am a participant in this article, which seems to have been subject to intermittent vandalism – involving unjustified mass deletions of well-sourced content – especially by a registered user (113 edits) who exhibits continuous WP:NPA and WP:HA violations across several pages, to show but a few: I, II, III and IV.

In one of those messages, I was dehumanised by the user as an “entity” and “[not being able to talk as] a mature Wikipedian [human being]”.

So far, I have been extremely polite and restraint in dealing with all the aggressive correspondence from the user, alongside my willingness to remove a tremendous number of entries undesired by the user – against my will – which hasn’t apparently appeased the user. Rather, I’ve sensed considerable intimidation from the user’s persistent refusal to be respectful.

I do not want to deem this an urgent matter, but the user doesn’t seem to be interested in good-faith participation. May I ask what would be the best course of action?

I wasn’t active on Wikipedia until recent months and ain’t familiar with the handling of such situations.

Steven1991 (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991: report their vandalism at the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard; that usually gets a pretty swift response (but check WP:VAN to make sure their edits are "blatant vandalism"). If they attack you or make egregious policy violations in other ways (as they seem to have done here), then that warrants a report to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (but note that's for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems). If you want to make a career oput of it, get a few weeks decent vandal hunting under your belt and then apply for the WP:ROLLBACK permission. The Counter-vandalism unit is a good training ground. You should probably be extended confirmed by now? Refresh yourself on contentious topics, designated by the arbitration commitee, and be aware of the restrictions on edit warring. Hope this helps! ((Non-administrator comment)) SerialNumber54129 17:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am an extended confirmed user. Steven1991 (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Those edits aren't vandalism; this is a routine content dispute over inclusion, where WP:ONUS applies, especially given that there are WP:BLP concerns. If anything, repeatedly re-adding contested material without consensus is the most problematic behavior here. Anyone reviewing this should also be aware of OP's recent history. [1][2] Grandpallama (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, right... That'll teach me to AGF. D'oh! Guess I haven't had the brutal upbringing required to post an ANI  :)

@Steven1991: On consideration, I suggest that you find other, less controversial topocs to edit. You will find it easier. So will others, I imagine. SerialNumber54129 17:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. Steven1991 (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to note that, while trying to mediate between @Wikipedious1 & @Steven1991, Steven had opened a sockpuppet investigation against Wikipedious & 2 other editors who had disagreed with them in the past. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The CheckUser staff concluded that there’s nothing wrong and closed the case. I feel that it’s not relevant to the current issue. Steven1991 (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those mistakes were made by me before and I already apologised for them. I don’t see the purpose of casting aspersions on me over here and selectively considering facts when I presented evidence of the user’s repeated aggression which constitutes a totally different case?

Regarding some of the reverts, the primary instance was a result of the user’s vandalism in which the user engaged in mass deletions without reason (either blank or Lol in several editing summaries) for which the user was blocked for 48 hours, so those reversals were justified as per Wikipedia guidelines on vandalism. I don’t see how it can be trivialised as “content dispute” ? Steven1991 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC

In looking at the article talkpage, there are numerous editors expressing concerns about content you are pushing to include. And you are repeatedly personalizing the dispute and casting plenty of aspersions of your own--to an unwise degree given your own recent block history (three in the past month), and made doubly so by your decision to call admin attention to this dispute. My best advice to you is to withdraw this filing, show more good faith at the talkpage, and make sure you understand WP:ONUS, WP:BLP, and WP:BLPCRIME; your hands are far from clean here. Grandpallama (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I already accepted the highly subjective judgment of certain users including the one repeatedly using charged words, and removed most of the poorly sourced or allegedly irrelevant content from the list within that article as per the Talk page discussion. What am I further expected to do when significant compromise has already been made? Throughout those discussions, I have been extremely polite, patient and humble regardless of the tone of that user. And as explained, some of the reverts were made pursuant to guidelines concerning mass deletions of well-sourced content without reason, i.e. vandalism. It is nowhere “personalizing” to point out offensive word usage or manner, including being referred to as an “entity” rather than a human with a username. I don’t see how you can paint me as an aggressor, based on some past wrongdoings I have already taken responsibility for or issues I cannot agree with as a matter of principle, when I have been at the receiving end of all those apparent personal attacks as shown by the evidence (if not more)? You appear to have ignored or misinterpreted all the evidence and fixated on my “personality”, which I find unfair. Just because an editor made mistakes in the past, it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve basic respect as a human being or aren’t entitled to raise concern on this noticeboard when necessary. I would appreciate if you can show some basic respect to me.Steven1991 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have ignored or misinterpreted all the evidence but fixated on your perception of my personality, which I find unfair. Just because an editor made mistakes in the past, it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve basic respect as a human being. I am afraid that your judgment is wrong. Casting more aspersions isn't going to end well, but by all means, keep digging; you asked what should be done, and you've gotten the answer--withdraw the filing and drop this. I also note that you didn't inform Wikipedious1 that you opened a discussion about them, which is required, as explained by the giant yellow banner at the top of the page displayed when you edit. Grandpallama (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not “casting aspersions” to express disagreement with wordings that are not an accurate representation of what happened. I would appreciate if you can assume good faith when you expect me to, and stop defending the apparent instances of WP:NPA violations by the user as discussed in my #1 post. Steven1991 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Since you still haven't notified Wikipedious1, I have now done so. At this stage, based upon the responses here that mirror the battleground nature of those that you provided in the previous discussions about your behavior, I suspect a TBAN may be necessary. Grandpallama (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t added further content to that article for days while complying with other users’ demands to remove content they consider as irrelevant, so I don’t see how I am “uncooperative”. I have been listening, engaging and following when appropriate. I would appreciate if you refrain from classifying someone’s self-defense as “battleground” when they are trying their best to explain to you how they perceive what have happened to them and why they find it difficult coming to terms with it. Steven1991 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have stated all my points and will return to the article to continue the discussion with relevant users on the content. Have a good day. Steven1991 (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991: what makes you think that WP:ARBECR applies to this revert? M.Bitton (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You have already asked the same question on an uninvolved admin’s Talk page. Please avoid WP:SHOPPING forum shopping. However Nevertheless, for convenience, I’d state my points again:

The edit you linked may not be directly related, but the article itself is tangentially related to the A/I conflict given that many of the incidents are associated with events thereof to varying extent. In that article, “Israel” is mentioned 48 times, “Palestine” 6 times and “Gaza” 3 times, almost all in the context of A/I conflict-associated issues, not mentioning over a dozen of edits was made by another non-EC user in which the Gaza War was discussed directly, which shouldn’t have been done in the first place until that user has become an EC member. Just because it hasn’t been noticed by an admin, it doesn’t prevent EC users from making discrete reverts of non-EC users’ entries on the stated ground as per the protection under WP:ARBECR’s clause C and D.

Steven1991 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from casting aspersions. 1) I'm not involved in the dispute. 2) I did ask you for clarification, but you refused to answer and said This is the personal Talk page of an uninvolved admin. We need to respect their space., so here we are.

The edit you linked may not be directly related it's not related at all (unless proven otherwise). Which begs the question, why did you invoke ARBECR as a justification for your revert? M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Two editors reverted that, so it's just edit warring, the ARBECR justification is just wrong because assuming Arbpia restrictions apply on that page, they only apply to related content. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It was only a single revert within 24 hours. It’s not edit warring. Steven1991 (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the ECR, an uninvolved admin ruled to another non-EC user that this example (from this page), despite not mentioning the war directly, also constituted an ECR violation. It’s not “my definition” but how they perceive it:

You [another non-EC user] cannot engage with this topic on the talk page, and this is another ECR violation. I suggest you stay well away from anything that is even tangentially related to the Arab/Israel conflict until you are extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991 (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

How is it not related? How do you decide it? How are you so sure? Please see the example I quoted from an uninvolved admin who passed by the thread of the article – the admin considered it as related and asked one of the non-EC users to stay away from it. Steven1991 (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not “casting aspersion” to describe what you are doing on this thread. It’s rather I am being subject to it throughout the correspondence, including the aggressive ones in violation of the WP:NPA by the non-EC user concerned for which the user issued me an “Apology” on my Talk page. Steven1991 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That article is not covered by ARBECR, and that edit certainly isn't. You edit warred it right back in over the objection of other editors, despite being told on this noticeboard to review WP:ONUS. Grandpallama (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not “edit warring” to revert a specific edit that hasn’t been asked by other extended confirmed editors to remove. The specific non-EC user, who shouldn’t have been engaging in those activities tangentially associated with the A/I conflict in the first place, is the ONLY person who unilaterally removed it without having received prior input from other participants beforehand. There has NEVER been a consensus to take that specific case off from the list. It had not apparently been discussed fully. You CANNOT make up one when there is none. That edit reversal was a single edit I made within 24 hours in that article. It has neither hit the 1RR nor 3RR bar, so I don’t see how it’s such a serious matter. Is it only “edit warring” when the reversal involves the removal of something not aligned with your personal view? I don’t want to guess, but I have the impression that it’s been mischaracterised by you and/or another account who has never participated in that article’s editing activities, i.e. disinterested parties. Steven1991 (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The ARBECR doesn’t consider such issues on the basis of an article as a whole but related content. Clause C and D authorise an extended confirmed user to revert an non-EC edit if the content of that edit is tangentially related to the restricted topic(s). Steven1991 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please note that another editor has already pointed that out to them (see [1][2]). M.Bitton (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The user’s judgment is not accurate, unfortunately. Steven1991 (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Is that some kind of joke? M.Bitton (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are going after me over this? The user you quoted doesn’t appear to be an EC user themself? May I know how is it an issue to you? Have you ever been involved in that article’s editing activities? Steven1991 (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t want to argue with you. I will be away once I’ve made my points clear. Steven1991 (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

 Note: as if harassing other editors wasn't enough,[1][2] the OP decided to template me (for no reason whatsoever). M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not “harassing” to give multiple reminders when the non-EC user engaged in personal attacks on me repeatedly. The purpose of the reminders is to save the time from getting specialised admins involved. Steven1991 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to know how you would perceive if a stranger online repeatedly refers to you as an “entity” and uses insulting language in most of their correspondence associated with a discussion in which you are involved? Steven1991 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Steven1991 (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

My last reply to you. Feel free to have a look at the following quote guideline:

Accusing others of harassment

Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of harassment on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle. At the same time, claims of harassment should be taken seriously and not be summarily dismissed unless it becomes clear the accusations are not well-founded.

I’d appreciate if you stop tagging me as well – have a good day. Steven1991 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Steven1991 (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. There is now another thread about this at WP:ANI, because Steven1991 decided to WP:FORUMSHOP their arguments to WP:RFPP. Their longwinded bludgeoning there resulted in the entire thread being declared unsuited for RFPP (of course) and being moved to ANI. Steven1991 needs either a broadly construed TBAN from the topic of antisemitism, or (in light of their numerous recent blocks), an indef until they are able to demonstrate an understanding about editing collaboratively. Enough is enough. Grandpallama (talk)

And in response for my calling for sanctions, Steven1991 dropped a NPA template on my talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps don’t do it if you don’t want one? Steven1991 (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this thread has (thankfully) subsided as a result of the ANI one, but for the record, I have never leveled a single PA against you. Grandpallama (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP talk page with extensive history of warnings hijacked for a draft

212.219.59.241 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

I'm not sure what the appropriate procedure would be here. If the content of User talk:212.219.59.241 appeared in an article I would probably tag it for G3 (I don't think this person is real), but the history shows warnings being issued from 2005 to 2022. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the content and advised the user to request an account. If they try to write a hoax, we can deal with it then. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that this Barry Winston chap exists, but even if he does the achievements (such as "wildly successful") are exaggerated and he is almost certainly not notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the history, and it seems to be AI Generated Content as well as completely made up, just in case anyone was wondering about it. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree, it was ringing my AI alarm too. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg

Hi, Please undelete the first version so that it can be moved to Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The uploader, who is an administrator (@Holly Cheng:) had labeled that version as non-free. Has that changed? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but it is currently labelled as public domain with {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Yann (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done WP:REFUND is the normal noticeboard for this type of request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The public domain notice on the file says it was first published in 1942. But Adams modified the negative over the years, in particular making the moon brighter. Our image comes from a gallery listing that says in was printed by Adams in the 1970s, so that analysis does not apply. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Yann, @Graeme Bartlett, our image was printed by Adams in the 1970s so it is not PD-US-not renewed. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly brightening is not a copyrightable modification. But probably an older image as published with unrenewed copyright should be used instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The high res photo we now have gives its source as a MOMA 1964 print, but the source link goes to a lower res image. Whether the 1942 publication was renewed probably doesn't matter. Adams was not satisfied with the image because it didn't reproduce the scene as he thought he saw it. One would have to look at publication of the image in the form we have it now, and see if that copyright was renewed. The 1961 print at the Minneapolis Institute of Art has a prominent copyright notice and says "Because of © restrictions, we can only show you a small image of this artwork." Wikipedia is probably in the same situation. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I have asked on Commons: c:COM:VPC#File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Wipe user edits

Is it possible to fully delete a vandal's edit history, such that their spammed replies don't show up in my notices (or potentially a way to hide certain notices)? Tule-hog (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like that user has been blocked, their ability to edit their talk page has been removed, and the edits/edit summaries have been removed. Are you still seeing anything that needs to be taken care of? Joyous! Noise! 16:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Very minor thing (not effecting readers), but the actual content of their reply (this one) is still shown in my Special:Notifications; I was wondering if there might be a way to remove/hide that. Tule-hog (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

*poof* DMacks (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The situation on the List of Nobel Laureates page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are numerous disruptive edits going on, anonymous IP accounts en masse revert changes and promote nationalist agenda, the page is unsorted and the users refuse to discuss this issue on the Talk page. I've requested protection, but was refused, yet this keeps going on and on. What should I do? Athoremmes (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Athoremmes: I'm not seeing any problems at List of Nobel laureates (only 24 edits this calendar year...none seem especially controversial or inaccurate). I assume you mean List of Nobel laureates by country? Buffs (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I have meant List of Nobel Laureates by country Athoremmes (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

RFPP request posted for you. Expect it will be handled within about 3-6 hours (if not sooner). Don't fret :-) Buffs (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Athoremmes (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2000editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2000editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor was indefinitely blocked a little less than 24 hours ago by User:Star Mississippi for disruptive editing, consisting mostly of tendentiously trying to move a draft of Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18 from draft space into article space before it is ready. It appears that other editors want to work in a more deliberate fashion on the season, but that 2000editor was getting in their way with misguided enthusiasm. My first, unimportant comment is that I think that the block was in order. This editor has then made four unblock requests which say only that they want to be unblocked. Three of them have been declined by three administrators, and the fourth is open. I agree with the declines of the unblock requests that they didn't address the reasons for the block, but we already knew that.

I think that this editor has a competency problem, probably linguistic, and it is time to disable their user talk page. Can someone advise them, in Hindi that they might be better off editing the Hindi Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support removing TPA, which I will not do as original blocker. But there's nothing in any of the requests that makes me think 2000 will be a productive editor if unblocked. Star Mississippi 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• I’ve left them a couple of sentences about the Hindi Wikipedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

As with the many attempts to previously guide them, it does not seem to have worked. I think removal of TPA at this point would be appropriate. Their unblock requests (six of them) continue to demonstrate the amount of time editors have wasted. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. They flat out ignored good advice and kept repeating the same. Daniel (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Nableezy has a (Personal attack removed) userbox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nableezy, on their user page, has a userbox showing support for Hezbollah, which is not allowed, as per this discussion. The user in question has also just been generally mean-spirited and extremely biased, especially to matters about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thank you, Pyramids09 (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

While I am in general agreement with criticism of the userbox, I don't think is going to go anywhere. The userbox itself (by design) doesn't directly express support for Hezbollah, and when I discussed this with Nableezy they stated the purpose of the UBX was to highlight a hypocrisy in Wikipedia's policies. (I am unconvinced by that, but that's just me.) Nonetheless, I believe this is a debate that has taken place many times in the past and, sadly, goes nowhere. — Czello ^(music) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That stuff about "mean-spirited and extremely biased" is an incredible WP:ASPERSION. You might want to avoid that in the future to avoid a block. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Asking the question "could I be wrong?" is a good habit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It's news to me that any and every act of 'violently resisting' aggression is classifiable as terrorism. If that is so, then we shall have to rewrite the history books from the Battle of Thermopylae and the Jewish–Roman wars down through the Indian resistance during the frontier wars to things like the Spanish Maquis, and the French and >Italian resiatance movements. The Greeks should have bowed to Xerxes and Darius, the Jews succumbed eirenically to Titus and Vespasian. the Sioux consigned their bowsnarrows to General Custard, the Spanish government should have capitulated en bloc with the people after Franco's coup d'état, de Gaulle should have chummed up with Pétain, and the leaders of post-war Italy should have been gaoled as terrorists for opposing the Republic of salauds, etc. Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Not as if core site policy has changed, but it's odd to point to a 2008 discussion the same way one would point to a contemporaneous one. Nableezy's work here seems equal parts political and rhetorical. I am personally unmoved by OP's outrage over it, though. What is unacceptable is calling them pro-terrorist—let's not mince words here, that's the intent of the language you chose. Remsense ‥ 论 10:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I quite like the immediate sabotage of any point you may have had by throwing in "mean-spirited and extremely biased" as if it was going to make your argument stronger. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Think we’ve gone through this already. nableezy - 11:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It's become an annual holiday tradition. Levivich (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request

Hello, I recently moved the Imphal Airport Wikipedia page to Bir Tirkendrajit International Airport, but I accidentally used the incorrect spelling. The correct title should be Bir Tikendrajit International Airport, which reflects the official name of the airport. Unfortunately, I am unable to correct the move myself due to system restrictions. Could you kindly move the page to the correct title: Bir Tikendrajit International Airport? Thank you very much for your help and time! Best regards, AstuteFlicker (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done, in the future you can go to WP:RMTR for things like this. nableezy - 14:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Masada_myth Procedural RfC Closure

The RfC on Talk:Masada_myth#RfC_on_the_article_lede appeared to me to be malformed and unanswerable so I proposed a procedural close. There is no dispute properly demonstrated at the RfC and the editor who began the process has not clarified the situation at all. The RfC asks editors to answer Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes? without making any mention of what the basis for the question is, what the disputed nature of the content is, and seemingly without having actually undertaken any attempt to WP:FIXIT themselves as they haven't edited the article at all except to revert the edit of another editor after they began the RfC Special:Diff/1251948920. The discussions the editor who started the RfC refer editors to read for context in regards to the RfC are long, meandering, and full of sarcasm and mostly seem to center on fixing a DYK Hook that has since passed. Is the lead "OK" or "Not OK" is an overly broad question due to WP:NOTDONE, and this opinion has been shared by other editors on the RfC itself. The creator of the RfC has insisted twice now that I take my motion for a Procedural Close of the RfC to the Admin Noticeboard Special:Diff/1251937669, so, here I am. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Involved, but as far as I know the ship sails for a procedural close once this many people have responded substantively to the RFC question. Andre🚐 02:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The RfC does not satisfy the requirement of having a clear-cut well-posed question. Since no specific issue is raised in the RfC, nobody knows what things are actually relevant to it and the discussion is wandering all over the place. Basically it says "I don't like the lead, do you agree?" An uninvolved administrator should close this RfC (whether as procedural or "no consensus" doesn't matter), with the understanding that a properly posed replacement can be opened. While I'm at it, someone should examine the behavior of the RfC poser User:Herostratus who asserts that the editors of the page are clever antisemites. Zero^talk 03:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't find the word antisemites in that diff, did you mean a different one? And as far as the RFC question, "Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes?" Seems clear enough to me, it's not specific about article text changes but it appears to be a question to which you can answer one way or another and then as a result, will determine to either change or not, the lead. Andre🚐 03:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The word is not there, but the implication is. "Myths like this omit any mention of African-American may demonstrate an African-American resistance to modernization which may have contributed to a culture of backwardness and poverty among African-Americans in the South" and whatnot. Can probably find a historian who said that if we dig enough. Want to go edit that article? Won't get far will you. The hypothetical the editor is presenting here implies bigotry in response to the other editor saying all the bolded words you mentioned (and all the issues you raise elsewhere) appear basically verbatim in the sources - fully quoted in the citations - in the references section. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, but that is different thread. We are talking about the RfC. Maybe I'm an asshole. Maybe my motives for starting the RfC were bad. I don't think that that matters enough to close down the RfC if it is otherwise OK. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyway... I didn't insist on anything, but I did say "step up or pipe down". The editor decided to step up, xir perfect right, so here we are. I tend long-winded, so here goes. Skip it if you want.

So... at least three editors at least asked for a procedural close as malformed -- a nonsensical question, a question from which no actual benefit could come, and so on. That's enough that you have to pay attention, yes. I opened a separate thread to discuss it, at Talk:Masada myth#Procedural close of above RfC? and there's more material there.

I wrote the RfC. It is:

Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes?

In all this, I haven't yet seen any suggestions for what should be written there instead. I have asked.

My reasoning for starting the RfC was this:

• The article lede is very poor -- POV, and way overly negative in my opinion. I can back that up with good evidence (doesn't prove I'm right, granted). Ofc that is the personal opinion of one person, yes.
• The matter involves Israel, and the Jewish people generally. People are having really really really strong feelings these days about Israel and Palestine, both ways. Let's not pretend this isn't so. It's a data point.
• In the local discussion, there were some editors -- two or three -- who were defending this (bad IMO) lede super strongly. I wasn't going to get anywhere (I believe that, on grounds of being required to assume good faith and to be civil, I'm not allowed to say if I think that this was because of emotional and political factors rather than ice-cold NPOV scholarship, let everyone decide for themselves.
• Yup, I did get sarcastic in an earlier thread. Within bounds I think, but definitely not my best moment. (I have strong feelings too! But mainly that this is the sort of thing that is going to lose us Michigan). But anyway that's a different thread. In the RfC itself I haven't been too involved and have not yet "voted".
• So the reason I started the RfC was to get more eyes on the matter. Eyes backing me up? Hope so -- I'm human. But whatever happens, it is what it is. IMO the RfC itself is neutral and I did not canvass.
• I offered a general big-picture RfC because it's a very fraught, emotional question, we want to go step by step. If the consensus is "OK", we're done. If it is "Not OK", we can move on to another discussion on how to fix it. I did not want to start off with "Should we have the current, or this version I have provided?" cos I thought that would bog down into "Neither. say such-and-so" "No, say so-and-such" etc. If I'm wrong, may I please have some suggestions of what the RfC should say, instead and we can start a new one I guess.

I think that some these requests for procedural close are political. That is my personal opinion. You decide. In fairness, the first person to request a procedural close was summoned by bot, and thought the RfC was terrible and was mad about it. So there is that.

But still... a number of editors are engaged in the RfC discussion to possible useful effect, so I think a shutdown is too late and would be not excellent. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't insist on anything

I am unsure how I am supposed to take essentially telling me to shut up or take it to the admin noticeboard in response to proposing a procedural close as anything but insisting I take it to the admin noticeboard. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You are not my puppet, colleague. I mean I offered the option to pipe down (I did not say shut up). and of course you always have the option to roll your eyes and mutter "what a jerk" or whatever and move on. God knows I do that often enough. Herostratus (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Two editors seem to have missed it so I'll quote from the Herostratus' diff to show that the accusation of antisemitism is there explicitly.
"The editors we are dealing with here are clever. They are not going to use material that is not well sourced. That would be stupid. So they are clever, so what? Have you not heard of cherry picking. Have you not heard of spin, of propaganda. The Devil can quote scripture. [followed a few sentences later by:] So, the material is not anti-Israeli, itn is anti-Semetic." So, once the subject has been established as the editors of the article, and they are described as engaging in spin and propaganda, it is said that the material they wrote is antisemitic. In my opinion, a charge of antisemitism against other editors (except on a behavioral noticeboard with strong supporting evidence) should merit an immediate indef. Zero^talk 04:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

An accusation of antisemitism combined with comparing editors to The Devil? Yeah, a pretty clear case of a personal attack in the form of serious accusations lacking evidence. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Herostratus opened an RfC while showing with long and tortuous personal harangues that they have not troubled themselves with reading the sources. It was also clear that the quip about editors being 'clever' was a disingenuous shot at the putative ulterior motives driving those who actually have read the sources and aided in the composition of the article, a point unambiguously underlined later by the crack:' the material is not anti-Israeli, it is anti-Semetic.' That misspelling always puts me on my guard, since it crops up frequently as, for me, an index of quarrelsomeness uninformed by any serious reading. No fuss was made, but I will note that when I tweaked the lead to remove 'by Jews', - precisely because of my own sensitivities about generalizing about Jews (a premise of antisemitism that all Jews are involved whenever one or another does this or that) - Herostratus reverted to restore it, after waiting 5 days, just as this report opened. That is deeply ironical. In context, Herostratus is insinuating those who support the article are motivated by antisemitic feelings, and, with his restoring the usage 'by Jews' I considered potentially coloured by the kind of imprecision that plays to antisemitic feelings, telling me he thinks editors like me are perhaps both anti-semetic and 'philosemitic'. This is on a par with the vexatious incoherence of most of the things written on that talk page.Nishidani (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

None. Of. This. Has. Anything. To. Do. With. The. Question. At. Hand. Which quashing the RfC or not. If you want to want to have a conversation at WP:ANI on grounds that I have made false accusations of anti-semitism, OK, do that. That's a different conversation.. Herostratus (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

<- So much inane timewasting trolling. The malformed RfC should be shut down regardless of how many patient people participated. The editor should be made to go away. It would be an act of kindness. WP:DNFT Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Procedurally closed or not, this RFC is going absolutely nowhere, an unfocused mess.Selfstudier (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone is as confused as I was: the African-American bit is comparing this article to John Henry (folklore). Nobody's suggesting that African Americans need to be mentioned in Masada myth. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly just shoot me, maybe

It's too late to procedurally close the RfC now. It'll age out on soon enough. Yeah it was badly written, but too many people have engaged anyway.

BUT

I don't know if topic bans are imposed her as they are are WP:ANI, but really there is maybe some editor behavior to consider, I don't know, just raising the question. Maybe just my behavior, fine, I hereby turn myself in.

If I should be topic banned, fine, if that's the decision (I never engage in this subject anyway, I don't care much about it per se, it's stressful and people feel really strongly about it and its hard work, I just came to that article because of a hook, and honestly if you want to put me out of my misery it'd be a kindness). If other editors should be topic banned, I don't know, that'd be up to you. I am not suggesting it as that is not my remit. Maybe nobody here should be topic banned, or maybe everybody here and their dog should be topic banned on the principle of "you made me get up and come down there".

So IMO what happened is this:

A lot of these editors are really really mad at me because of my behavior in the immediately preceding threads, Talk:Masada myth#C'mon people and Talk:Masada myth#Hook. Then I made an RfC. Yeah the RfC was poor, but still, asking for a procedural close so vociferously was just a proxy for being mad at me generally. That is my personal view of what is going on here.

Hey, people get emotional, its a emotional subject, it's understandable. And I was not at my best in those threads. No wonder they're mad at me! And it is entirely in the purview of the admin corps to consider larger factors like this, up to an including behavior going back to the Eisenhower Administration, and fine.

My defense -- we are talking about Talk:Masada myth#C'mon people and Talk:Masada myth#Hook now -- is basically

1. Yup I lost my head and was sarcastic and didactic and maybe prolix and (if you say) disruptive in places, my bad.
2. I pride myself on at least trying to be an ice-cold NPOV editor. I make a point of occasionally looking at articles of people I despise and who are not generally popular here (Jim Jordan etc.) and trying to make them more fair if they're not. I do feel kind of strongly any POV. But I keep my head.
3. But not here. I think that the POV I saw here was just really red flag egregious and [can't say]. I'm not sure if any people agree all that strongly. But believe I am right anyway. I formed my own opinion about various other things, which I will now keep to myself. So yeh I lost my head a bit.
4. Some of the statements and implications I made I can demonstrate to some level of satisfaction, some relate to other editors' internal feelings and motives etc. and can't be proven. Doesn't mean I don't regret making some of them. I do. Doesn't mean some of them weren't prolix, inflammatory and counterproductive. They were. Doesn't mean some of them were unkind. They were. As to whether or not I thought they were nevertheless correct or still do... I'd best keep that to myself I guess. I'm not going to lie to you.Herostratus (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

WDBZ

User:Welcome to Dragon Ball Z was made on 24.09. Today 24.10 they made 500 edits to their talk page like this this one. They then got the "extendedconfirmed" user group because they were created 30 days ago and made 500 edits. Could an admin remove this group please? Fulmard (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

They are now attacking User:Magnolia677 and it looks like a "MidAtlanticBaby" puppet. They should be blocked. Fulmard (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Nthep (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Nthep Could you block BossedUpWithACheck? This account was created on the same date and is doing the same thing now of ramping up edits. Fulmard (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 got there before me. Any CU around who can do a sweep for sleepers? Nthep (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I've had a look. Those familiar with the matter will know that that might not portend much. Informed by my magic goggles, I've also preemptively removed TPA from the 2nd account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German

The name of the suspect at Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German needs to be suppressed once again. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe a new RfC needs to be held on the issue? Taking a quick look at the article, the trial is now underway, so it's going to be attracting fresh attention from casual editors. The circumstances of a year and a half ago regarding the individual are different (beyond just arrested and charged), so it might be worth revisiting, even if just to reaffirm there is no consensus to include. Grandpallama (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is really a disconnect of WP:BLP that I haven't known how to even begin addressing until now. For this case, we have the following in the article: and on October 31, was charged with two counts of murder. - properly sourced to a reliable source that names the suspect. It is absolutely absurd that we must avoid naming the suspect on Wikipedia even when it's named in a source that we link to in the same sentence. BLP is a very necessary policy. However, it should not prevent naming someone as a suspect when they are named in reliable sources. Currently, BLP states the following: editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. This should be changed to "not including material - in any article - that suggests the person has committed a crime". Reporting on accusations should not be subject to BLP so long as those accusations are sourced. The fact someone was charged with a crime is almost always due, even if they were not convicted of that crime. Being charged with a crime does not imply guilt.

In other words, I agree with Grandpallama above - if there is a prior consensus that the name of the suspect is inappropriate... there needs ot be serious reconsideration of that issue and of whether it's a BLP issue to begin with. This is a high profile crime and the suspect's name is linked to from the citation at the end of the sentence. Surpressing it here does fuck all for preventing it when it's literally one link click away (or are we claiming we don't encourage readers to use our citations to verify the information we present?). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The rationale behind BLPCRIME is that we shouldn't name non-public figures, particularly criminal defendants, who did not choose their status. Reliable sources naming someone is one thing, but I believe that we have an ethical duty to avoid creating a permanent record—one that affects how search engines, AI chatbots, etc. present information—for someone who might be innocent. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a perfectly reasonable take, and I don't know that I have a position on inclusion vs. exclusion. But I do question relying on RfC results for a situation that is different now than it was in April 2023. Separately, I see the RfC resulted in no consensus for inclusion, but I'm not sure how that leapt to "edits must be suppressed". Grandpallama (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

See, I'd support that... but the problem is that no other source has this sort of policy. When charges are first announced, sure, they will wait for an actual indictment before they report a name. But I cannot think of a source that has a similar policy.

The concern over presenting an indicted/charged person as a criminal is real. That is solved through requiring the prose be accurate. It is not our problem if an AI chat bot uses Wikipedia to hallucinate that someone was a criminal. It's not the fault of the news organization for reporting that someone was charged with a crime and that information is misused. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If editors want a wider RfC on BLP policy perhaps at WT:BLP there could be merit for that I guess. I don't see what purpose an RfC on naming the suspect will serve at this time. The trial is set to end by November 15th. With an existing RfC even if it was no consensus, and considering the BLP importance it seems to me ending any RfC early with a new consensus is questionable no matter how clear any initial consensus seems to be. Meaning the RfC should run for at least a full 30 days before we can name the suspect. And this is a jury trial meaning that barring very very long jury deliberations we should have a result within 1-2 weeks of the trial ending. So at best starting an RfC now, we might be naming the person 1 week before the situation is likely to change significantly with either an acquittal or conviction. While it's always possible there will be a hung jury or some other kind of mistrial, I think better to just wait those 6 weeks or so and see what the situation is then and then do an RfC. Further if things have significantly changed, there will be much more reason why it might be reasonable to end the RfC early if consensus seems clear. Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

For now, we should suppress the edits, then repost the name only if there is a conviction. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC would be worthless at this point due to the time constraints and with the majority of the points above (aside from the need to supress a name that is covered in the majority of reliable sources and citations in the article. Seems rather drastic to leap to the need to supress when the name is widely published).

And at this point, is the guy even a 'low profile person' anymore, where BLPCRIME is concerned? Looking over the old edits of some of the people who had a hand in actually making that policy, Bbb23, SlimVirgin, and even though he didn't have a hand in making the policy Jimmy all seemed to think that a high profile crime could make someone a high profile person.

There is also the fact that the subjects attorneys pushed for his name to be released a while back 'in the hopes it would bring tips [3]' or similar. A press conference followed by a press release, and later a fundraiser to get his name out there.

Are we not supposed to take into account what a subject wants in terms of inclusion/exclusion? Jimmy said yes years ago [4] [5], ARBCOM said to consider the legal and ethical implications of our edits for BLPs, WMF stated we should be Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest.

I could understand waiting for a resolution to the trial to follow a strict following of the letter of BLPCRIME, but if the subject/his attorneys wanted his name out prior to the trial to help him, it seems like waiting for a conviction before considering what they want goes against the above paragraph. It is essentially saying a policy put in place to protect someones reputation from false accusations holds more power than what the subject wants, which seems wrong on so many levels.

Awshort (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that there may be cases where defendants who have not been convicted yet may want to publicize their names—such as in cases of civil disobedience, public ransoms, or acts of terror—I do not believe that this is one of those cases. The comments at the pressers were pretty bare bones and the press release expressly states: "We do not want to try this case in the media and we intend to adhere to the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct that provide guidance on pretrial publicity." The spirit of BLP is that we shouldn't publicize the name of a a person who hasn't inserted themselves into the press, and a limited press conference, press release telling journalists to buzz off, and a fundraiser page do not, in my view, meet that threshold. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The original edit that sparked this discussion I believe was by me; I added the name to the 'trial' infobox parameter and added the name of the trial further down with just the last name of the defendant since I thought MOS/LAW was the guideline to follow when legal things were being discussed. It was pointed out to me later that this is incorrect, and it's only relevant for legal articles. That is what Jax ran across and I believe wants supressed for whatever reason.

My intention was to try to update the article a bit and add a subsection later about the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that involved the suspect in this case, which is under a different case name and ended with the Judges issuing a new ruling about when a suspects court appointed counsel can be removed, since it was notable and widely covered at the time (and essentially set a new case law for them, I think [6]). Are we not allowed to list trial names now because it can be seen as a BLPCRIME violation?

Awshort (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

These decisions are very fact-specific. This case is in the States but we write policy for the globe; I don't think we ought to publish the names of the accused in cases that geolocate to Russia or China, for example. I think we have the right rules and wouldn't encourage an attempt to change them. We have a presumption against publishing the names of unconvicted people. Talk page consensus could overrule that presumption in individual cases and I wouldn't object if that happened here. Even though the name is published in reliable sources, this is at heart an ethical judgement we're making, so a reliable source is a minimum threshold to start a discussion, but not a mandate to publish the name.—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike

The article 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike has a move request at Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike#Requested move 27 September 2024. It has started on September 27 and should have been open for just a week; we're almost in a full month. The last vote was made on October 7. I know that this is a controversial topic, even reached with arbitration remedies, but someone should close it (although non-admin closures may be valid, it may be better if an admin closes it, considering the controversial nature of the topic). Cambalachero (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done, closed as no consensus. Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Fake news websites

• zaobaodaily.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singaporeinfomap.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singaporeera.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singdaotimes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• todayinsg.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• lioncitylife.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singapuranow.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• voasg.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singdaopr.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• alamak.io: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Singapore government just had this ten websites blocked for "potential hostile information campaign", stating that these websites are using domains either resembles legitimate news websites (i.e. zaobao.sg vs zaobaodaily.com) or gives an appearance that they have a connection to Singapore; content are AI-generated; gives an appearance that certain sentiments are an reflection of Singapore's public and/or government.

• News: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/mha-imda-websites-hostile-information-campaign-foreign-interference-fica-4692746
• Press release: https://www.imda.gov.sg/resources/press-releases-factsheets-and-speeches/press-releases/2024/ten-inauthentic-websites-blocked
• Annex containing the ten websites: https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/imda/files/news-and-events/media-room/media-releases/2024/10/ten-inauthentic-websites-blocked/annex-b-list-of-websites.pdf

While my first instinct is to put these sites onto the spam blacklist, given that Singapore does engage in censorship practices that include blocking websites for not following POFMA orders/directives (among other reasons/laws), I would like second opinions before doing so. Out of the ten, one (alamak.io) has been used as a source for two articles on English Wikipedia. – robertsky (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• We generally only put websites onto the spam blacklist if they are actually being used for spamming. If the issue is unreliability (and frankly I wouldn't trust the Singaporean government on "internet reliability"), then you probably want WP:RSN. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't trust the Singaporean government on "internet reliability" heh. indeed. RSN does seem to be the right direction. – robertsky (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Concur that the spam blacklist is not the right place -- but don't we have a hoax noticeboard or something like that? Or had at one point? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think there is a hoax noticeboard (but I could be wrong about that!) – RSN does discuss hoax websites of various kinds, though. Discussions there sometimes lead to blacklisting (though usually only if a site has already been used as a source), but more importantly, a lot of editors experienced in evaluating hoaxes frequent that board. --bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:FTN is probably the closest we have to a hoax noticeboard, but it's more for dealing with content from pseudoscience/crank sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration committee 2024 election: nominations to start on November 3

The nomination period for the 2024 arbitration committee election will start on November 3. If there is someone you'd like to see run, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to talk to them now, well in advance of the election. For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

24.43.82.89

This user has made many unconstructive edits, which seem very immature. I'm going to presume that they're a school IP, but either way, they should get hit with a ban hammer Maximalistic Editor (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

See also the edit filter. Blocked for a week. Thank you for reporting, Maximalistic Editor, but for another time, it's better to take such cases to WP:AIV. Bishonen | tålk 12:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC).

Internal Error when opening Special:Notifications

Is anyone else having issues with the notifications? I'm getting:

2024-10-25 05:06:40: Fatal exception of type "InvalidArgumentException"

when I try to go to Special:Notifications and if I open the top notification window it just shows "no notifications"? Raladic (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Try WP:VPT if nobody here has an answer maybe :3 -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 06:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems to have resolved itself overnight. Thanks. Raladic (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

One month block by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs) for repeated ECR violations

Administrator imposing the sanction

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by IdanST

I believe my ban is unjustified for the following reasons: 1.This one is clearly an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1. - pointing out that Maariv (newspaper) "source" is a LIE. Maariv NEVER reported on this lie, the source is in fact Al Jazeera which has been proven to have lied in this instance, as shown HERE. 2. This is not an incivility nor breaking the rules, it's allowed under WP:BARN. 3. This is a warning before taking actions, like reporting, for blatant violations of WP:POINTy and WP:WAR. I understand now that I should have reported the user instead of leaving a notice on their talk page, as it seems that discussing and warning is discouraged, and direct reporting and banning are preferred.

IdanST (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I appealed the first block.

I didn't appeal the second block yet because I am not aware of the alleged violations for which I was banned for one month. IdanST (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC) {{{1}}}

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish (IdanST appeal)

First block for a week was based on [7], [8], and [9] which are all clear ECR violations. Their talk page access was pulled by Doug Weller. When the block expired their first edits were [10], [11], and [12], which are also clear ECR violations. They continued with personal attacks on their talk page and again had their talk page access removed. Oh, and the Simple English Wikipedia page on barnstars doesn't have much weight on en.wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller (IdanST appeal)

IdanST says that [13] was an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1. which it clearly is not, just a statement that something is a lie. this is a personal attack on ScottishFinnishRadish. Yet more attacks here Doug Weller talk 15:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by IdanST

• I may be a simple Wikipedian farmer of minor corrections and !votes, but a few things confuse me.
  1. Why aren't these pages under ECR protection? It seems that this is a simple solution to the problem
  2. Some of these cited by SFR and Doug seem to fall under WP:NPA, not "clear ECR violations". We need to be a little more precise if we're going to ban/block people. Those alone are worthy of a block given previous interactions.

Buffs (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-EC editors are allowed to make edit requests on the talk pages. Generally, article talk pages aren't ECP unless there is enough disruption to necessitate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

These do not appear to be edit requests, but personal attacks. That they were on an ARBPIA talk page seems immaterial. Buffs (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

A personal attack explicitly and particularly related to an ECR topic area, such as Your Constant Lies ...regarding Israel and Arab–Israeli conflict,[14] is surely a clear two-fer. NebY (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

YMMV, I suppose. NPA seems to be reason enough for a block without additional justification. If anything, such behavior there should be grounds for ADDITIONAL measures Buffs (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing about this appeal gives me confidence that this editor will be a net positive with respect to ARBPIA content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• This edit[15] is clearly note an edit request and the editor had been previously warned, I would oppose the appeal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• IdanST chooses to defend only three of their edits, and their very first defence demonstrates the appropriateness of the current block. This disruptive post was clearly not a request, let alone an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1, and that IdanST claims that it was, and makes no attempt to suggest their editing will improve, shows that this block and maybe more will be needed until they understand and accept the various limitations and restrictions on their editing. NebY (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• The appeal should be declined for the reasons set out by ScottishFinnishRadish. Additionally, the polemical style of the appeal and the appellant's personal attacks and their mischaracterization of their edits indicate that the appellant should be topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict as unsuited to collaborative work. Sandstein 19:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think a topic ban would be effective as the existing extended-confirmed restriction is being ignored. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ThecentreCZ unblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Copied from their user talk page:

Hello, I would like to ask administrator to put forward my request to the Administrators' noticeboard for unblock, according to WP:Standard offer. I have been contributing to other Wikimedia projects meanwhile as is recommended for users at unblock requests.

I would like to acknowledge my misconducts and mistakes like of inproper citations, especially that I did considered List of banned political parties and also other instances of lists as Stand-alone list, because I didn't take in consideration that there is also column which contains ideologies and year of occurance and I did not given proper citation in my first edits. I then reverted the edit more than once which let to the editor to report it as an incident there. Sadly, I didn't get a chance to properly repond to the most of the instances discussed and apologize again in the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, because I was blocked for a period of month on the same day that the incidents were raised, on 15 March 2024, and I couldn't respond anymore. Factically it was somehow connected to the instance of incident of other blocked user, who probably used his account for singe-issue editing, but he also did other benefitial contributions to Wikipedia so I just presented my concerns there. In the case of disruptive editing and and insults, I would like to say that I will no longer edit contentious topics and use such language I used. I would like to apologize for about 3 vulgar words in the last 5 years I used, which could have been rightfully taken as insults and about 8 edit disputes, where I wrongly accused someone of something they have not ment. I agree that vulgar-insulting words are unacceptable and it was proper reason for blocking. It was very bad of me, but as of my editing I many times got into situation that people removed sourced information and it is not always easy to keep cool thinking and distuinguish proper and inproper editing, as I did many sourced corrections in about 10,000 edits I've made. In the matter of what I will be participating in the future, as I created about 80 articles in the past on English Wikipedia, I will continue to create only sourced articles with proper information and I will not participate in any disputes and in disagreements in such disproportionate language I did in the past. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Final comment from ANI thread prior to block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• That is a pretty messed up discussion, and past. Still, I'm inclined to accept this with the understanding that there will be a short WP:rope for future incivility, and a low threshold for refusing to source content. For me, the saving grace is you also have a history of creating worthwhile articles. I don't care if your mind is "politically incorrect", however, I do mind when it comes out in your interactions with others here, which is disruptive. Honestly, that is why you got the indef block; not the sourcing; it was the comments re: autism/retard, and by community standards, it was a perfectly valid block. Editors here have a very low tolerance for that stuff, even when it is said in jest/hyperbole/as slang. If you can restrain yourself, then I'm fine with an unblock. My guess is that not everyone would agree, but we aren't here to punish "wrongthink" (as a lot of people use terms in RL that wouldn't be acceptable in this public forum). We do need to enforce a reasonable level of civility which this clearly breached, in order to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• It's fine to unblock TCCZ, but certain restrictions might apply. Insulting other editors is a huge mistake, TCCZ. I consider weak support for the unblocking. I hope TCCZ will not repeat the same mistake he did before. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblocking as editor seems to understand why they were blocked and that what they did was wrong. It must be understood that such unblock is on pain of swift redoing should further offences occur, but let's at least give a chance here. Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I'll leave an opinion on this soon but just want to point out the AN/I thread that got them indeffed. It's important to understand what this user had actually done that resulted in them getting blocked. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure why the user is mentioning the amount of uncivil comments they've left over the years. They certainly deserved an indefinite block for their actions but considering that they seemed to have apologised for that and have promised to not do it anymore, I agree with Dennis Brown on giving them another chance to see if they have improved their behavior. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Rosguill had already posted this above, so I'm assuming everyone opining had already read through. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak Support: If this is admins-only, then delete this and notify me on my talk page. If not, then I'll input my opinion.

The user seems like he's apologized for what he's done, and I think WP:ROPE applies. I say that we give him a second chance, but if he makes any edits in bad faith, he gets hit with a block. Maximalistic Editor (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support I'm fine with the arguments per Dennis Brown. Short rope...make the best of it. Buffs (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT consultations, October 2024

The Arbitration Committee has received applications for CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT queue access and has reviewed them in consultation with the functionaries team. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacies and comment at the CheckUser and COI VRT consultations until the end of 1 November 2024 (UTC).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT consultations, October 2024

Need help to open page with contentious name *igger rock - historic cemetery in Quebec

Hello, I have been directed here after trying to create an article with horrible name, but is necessary to use as this is what the place is referred to as. The current populations are rewriting the history of this place. It needs to be entered into Wikipedia to protect many people's research and work and also chronicle the Black lives lived here as well as hold space for the 300 free Black ppl that were dispersed and disappeared:

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/201610/01/01-5026419-la-reconnaissance-de-nigger-rock-comme-site-historique-demandee.php

thank you

I&I22 (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I created Nigger Rock. DMacks (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Problem moving a page

Hello, I would like to request moving the page Dinapur Cantonment to it’s official name Danapur Cantonment. Due to system restrictions I am unable to do it myself. AstuteFlicker (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:RM/TR would be the right venue for this. – robertsky (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I moved it. Seems like there is a history of it moving from Danapur to Dinapur, though. Might warrant a full RM? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Vile racism allowed to remain for 12 hours

Really awful racism allowed to remain in place for 12 hours. Suggest revdel. AusLondonder (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done - any future instances can be requested via WP:REVDELREQUEST, to avoid links of offensive material being inadvertently seen more widely. GiantSnowman 13:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I did want to make the point though how concerning it is that such material remained in place for 12 hours. Surprised as well it wasn't picked up by an edit filter or tagged as potential vandalism. AusLondonder (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It's always going to be difficult for an automated tool to pick up stuff like that when the article already contains racism, slurs and other fruity language. That is, it's easy to pick up but hard to distinguish everything else. That's why we have humans. Thanks for your vigilance. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

IBAN appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to request an appeal of the two-way involuntary interaction ban between myself and MaranoFan. It was imposed by the community a year ago in October 2023. The conflict originated in the context of nomination pages like FAC. I wouldn't interact with them at those types of venues in the future anyways, and I don't see why replying to one another in a WikiProject discussion or something similarly low-stakes would lead to further conflict. To my knowledge there have been no violations of the IBAN in the year since it was active. I genuinely believe it has served its purpose; let's move on. Heartfox (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support - As long as those two people are moving on for a long, it is not useful to let IBAN in place. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - The IBAN discussion was reopened and reinstated after being closed once, because some thought it was also necessary to prevent drama on noticeboards and stop the wastage of community time. The fact that this has not been acknowledged in the opening statement looks to me like dodging blame and does not instill me with confidence that that behavior would be avoided. I would have appreciated being reached out to through email or something else but, alas, ANI has been taken as the venue directly without reaching out to me or any individual admin to waste less community time. IBAN remains necessary.--NØ 07:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Since my participation on the Carey article has been brought up, it is related to efforts to save it from losing FA status (I stumbled upon the FARC since Carey came up while I was doing research for another article). I started helping there because the comments there were not being engaged with. Authorship is looked at to determine major contributors, and Heartfox's shows up as 2.8% which doesn't really qualify (even I have 1.1%). Anyways, on the topic of the IBAN itself, since there is no admission of wrongdoing and they feel the necessity to assert that their original escalation to ANI was "valid", it is absolutely still necessary.--NØ 01:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I said above that "I genuinely believe it has served its purpose". This was me saying I am acknowledging my responsibility; ie the IBAN had a purpose. The second ANI was unquestionably valid as it led to the exact thing I suggested and this was later affirmed at AN, so it was not a waste of time even though I understand your point of view. MaranoFan, you are one of the rare people on Wikipedia who actually improve the project by writing quality articles. I respect you more than 99% of other editors and wish we could move past this era. Sincerely, Heartfox (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• I would have appreciated being reached out to through email or something else but, alas, ANI has been taken as the venue directly without reaching out to me I don't think this is a reasonable expectation (without comment on the merits of your other thoughts), because it would be a de facto breach of the IBAN. We don't expect IBAN appeals to be preceded by an IBAN violation. Grandpallama (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't know all the history of this, but it doesn't seem wise to lift an IBAN if one of the parties objects. We've got 6,898,024 articles; surely there's enough room for both parties to find stuff they're interested in without having to be editing the same pages. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well right now anytime I edit Mariah Carey in the future, which is an article to which I am one of the top-ten authors and is one of my top-ten most-edited articles, I have to go back to the 30 edits MaranoFan made yesterday every time and ensure I don't change anything that they happened to add or get potentially blocked for IBAN violations. This is very discouraging to my activity on Wikipedia. Heartfox (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  So it seems like the solution there is to p-block both of you from that article. RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  There's no history of edit warring or content disputes so that seems completely excessive. Both users are members at WP:MIMI, so "We've got 6,898,024 articles" doesn't apply here. The IBAN is preventing improvements to articles when both editors have to tread over eggshells when editing even though the IBAN had nothing to do with content. MaranoFan should be able to fix a typo or a misplaced link in an article I wrote so articles can be improved, and vice versa. To continue an IBAN in part because I opened a valid ANI thread over a year ago and because I am appealing the IBAN to the community instead of an individual admin (which is not even the process?) is unjustified. Heartfox (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  What would that accomplish? McYeee (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Let's give such interactions a chance. It's been a year and he seems to have learned his lesson. We can always re-enable the iban. Buffs (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to see recent evidence where either of the two users have violated the IBAN, otherwise I support this request. >>> Extorc.talk 16:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Come on, guys. Heartfox said he would "be certain to avoid [me] in the future" in November 2022 and ended up starting two ANI threads about me after that. They also called me "someone so insecure in real life or online, it is low-key scary. Due to their insecurity they see everything I do as a form of competition against them and go to FAC coordinator and Did You Know talk pages to spew nonsense about how I am trying to 'take them out'", which they were just allowed to get away with even though I had been blocked at the time. After the IBAN had formally been enacted, they joined an RfC I had started, a mere 15 minutes after I was having a heated argument there and took the opposite side. They have also gone to an FAC a mere few days after I reviewed it, to "agree" with two of my comments ("I would agree that People's Daily does not seem to be a high-quality source", "I would agree that claiming "crisper and warmer" to be a paraphrase when it also happens to be verbatim from one of the citations attributed to the consensus is problematic") but making sure to indicate that they did not agree the work had to be done outside the FAC process. Anyways, this is my last comment here. All I am saying is, they have some trouble staying away from me and it is well documented.--NØ 18:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per MaranoFan's diffs. When the person on the other side of the ban opposes it because of violations, and the best evidence is (1) several diffs before the ban was imposed, and (2) one diff afterward, which doesn't show signs of "interaction", then (3) I suspect that there's no violation, or otherwise actual diffs probably would have been found. After a year without violations, WP:ROPE I suppose; as Buffs says, we can always reimpose it if needed. Nyttend (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I can understand from where these concerns of MaranoFan are coming from. Unfortunately, MaranoFan has faced a lot of harrassment and it was really difficult for Wikipedia community to provide her with a pleasant environment where she could edit productively. However, this appeal is sincere and should be accepted. Capitals00 (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support accepting appeal request, with the additional statement that it can be reimposed with a quick consensus should issues reoccur. I second Nyttend's comments immediately above me. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An accusation that I'm not quite sure what to do about

2001:B07:6461:80A1:E15F:7BB3:50B5:FA8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. This is my first time posting to these boards, so I hope I'm doing it properly. I considered putting this at ANI, but it didn't seem like it fit the descriptor of urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem.

So, about a week ago, I posted a lengthy comment at Talk:Elsagate, questioning how the information specifically concerning post-2017 events was being presented. I would then go on to edit the article per my analysis.

Some time later, the IP linked above left this reply. Now I'm not quite sure of the context they're referring to, and so I'm not sure exactly who they lobbed this accusation at, but I originally interpreted it, as I don't think is unreasonable to do, as directed towards me. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and so asked them, both on the article's talk page as well as on theirs, to clarify.

Given they didn't clarify, I think it's a very inappropriate comment to leave. However, since it's technically not necessarily directed towards me, I'm not sure if I can cite NPA or the like. So that's why I'd like to ask administrators' opinions on this, and whether their comment should be struck (since, after a full week, they have not done so themselves). I wouldn't normally care this much about personal attacks, real or hypothetical, but an implication such as the one they left there is a serious one, and I will not tolerate it when it is baselessly targeted at me.

Thank you. LaughingManiac (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the admin noticeboards. I've proper-removed it from the history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated! LaughingManiac (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of my user account AKS.9955

Dear Admin, I have been an active user of Wikipedia since past several years. I do not wish to continue being on this site, and owing to personal attacks and privacy concerns, I request that my user account be deleted / made indivisible (you decide best way). I wish you all the very best. Thanks and have a good day. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:AKS.9955 and regional airline articles in India and Kyrgyzstan. Sincerely, James Bond GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, if any administrators reading this wish to read the thread and make a decision concerning ARK.9955's autopatrolled and NPR rights, that would be most appreciated. But for a TL;DR version - AKS.9955 has had a financial stake in the airlines TezJet and IndiaOne Air, created those articles, and failed to disclose that they had a COI regarding them during creation/deletion discussions. The sourcing in the TezJet article is likely poor enough for autopatrolled to be pulled on that basis alone (the article is cited almost entirely to Planespotter's and the company(AKS.9955)'s own website.) Glancing through their Xtools reveals a host of similarly-sourced articles, such as Sky FRU, Taftan Airlines, Hongkong Jet. Which isn't the end of the world- and AKS.9955, this doesn't need to be the end of your time on Wikipedia. You're clearly passionate about the project - you just need to be whole lot more forthcoming when it comes to declaring when you have a connection to an article subject, and you can't personally attack editors when they bring that up.

For the sake of anybody watching, the some of the personal attacks I'm referring to can be read below:

All these James Bonds getting a high after pointing out a COI [...] I think Wikipedia has reached a point where it is no longer possible to contribute constructively without some sore losers sitting in their basements and preaching the world how things work. (emphasis original)

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:VANISH. It is not possible to have an account deleted and vanish is only partially effective. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, courtesy vanishing would be clearly rejected in this case because this user is being scrutinized for sanctions. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've removed all advanced rights/tools. See log for details. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue if they want to WP:Vanish, although they need to point to the two discussions when doing so, so the Steward may make a determination as to the fitness. I don't see any other sanction that is likely. My removal of rights wasn't a sanction as much as it was because he wants to vanish, combined with the fact that they don't seem to have the skills to use the tools properly. As for avoiding scrutiny, that would be more of an issue if they come back. Some may see it differently, but ultimately, it is up to the Steward (or Global Renamer, per policy) to decide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser access for administrator election scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has been informed that, following a request from an English Wikipedia editor, Stewards Johannnes89 (talk · contribs), EPIC (talk · contribs), and Yahya (talk · contribs) have volunteered to serve as scrutineers for the administrator elections being held this month using SecurePoll. The Committee notes that SecurePoll election scrutineers often use local CheckUser permissions in order to fully perform their functions.

The Arbitration Committee has been unable to locate community discussions that establish consensus for appointing Stewards from outside the English Wikipedia to serve as CheckUsers for this purpose, which would bypass the Committee's established procedures for functionary appointments in ordinary circumstances.

Nonetheless, the Committee has decided to appoint the three Steward volunteers as English Wikipedia CheckUsers for the duration of the election in order to facilitate the election process. In future cases, the Committee will request a showing of affirmative community consensus for selecting scrutineers from among Stewards outside the English Wikipedia before granting such access outside of the ordinary procedure.

Accordingly, the Arbitration Committee grants temporary English Wikipedia CheckUser permissions to Stewards Johannnes89, EPIC, and Yahya, solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the ongoing administrator elections.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CheckUser access for administrator election scrutineers

(possible, but not assured) Hoaxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At the risk of getting recalled, I've raised attention of this matter at WP:AFC (see: Battles in the Pontic-Caspian steppe), however, this may benefit from someone with more experience addressing WP:HOAXs than me. (I'm not even entirely certain these are hoaxes and want to tread carefully out of concern for making a new editor's first experience at WP an extremely negative one. However, I just get the gut sense this is one of those occasional attempts to make a demonstration about WP. More likely than not, I'm mistaken and have done a shoddy job at source verification.) Thanks, in advance. Chetsford (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, disregard the above. I've gone ahead and blocked this editor. On further examination, I'm satisfied this is an extremely elaborate hoax. Chetsford (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editor via multiple ip addresses (I think)

For the last few days I’ve had to deal with an anonymous user, possibly the same person across multiple ip addresses. Here’s the most recent ip address: Special:Contributions/77.65.93.205. Here are the other ip addresses that I suspect are the same person: Special:Contributions/109.173.147.66, Special:Contributions/109.173.147.194.

This user keeps making repeated disruptive edits on the same pages, plus similar disruptive edit on other pages.

I’m hoping that something can be done about this user and their disruptive editing. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The chances that this is the same user are very high. All IPs come from a small town in Poland. Block them. Full support from me Maximalistic Editor (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The anonymous user, under the ip address Special:Contributions/77.65.93.205, is still making disruptive edits. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The anonymous user, under the ip address Special:Contributions/77.65.93.205, is still making disruptive edits despite having a huge warning against them. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of their being a pest, please. Not everyone is going to dig through the entire contribs history of multiple IPs. The easier you make a mop’s job, the more likely one swings the banhammer. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Can an administrator please block the IP address 71.172.48.193; has been repeatedly adding false information to the articles of different animated series, seems to be mostly targeting Monsters at Work, adding a fake season 3 and characters and guest stars who have not appeared at all. HotDogsforDays (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That's 71.172.48.193 (talk · contribs). I don't see any discussion on the issue. Please try to engage with the IP (and see "you must leave a notice on their talk page" above). An admin such as myself has no knowledge of the topic and the IP has to have an opportunity to explain their edits. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Query re possible clean start for a blocked user who hasn't edited in 14 years

Hi admins and friends, once again, I don't know if this is the best forum for this question so redirect me if it isn't. I came across a {{helpme}} request from @TheAmazingCoffeeMan who wanted to appeal a block on his old account @GageCSayre, which he can't log in to because he's lost the password and email address. Given that the block was imposed 14 years ago and he apparently hasn't tried to edit in the interim, would he be a candidate for a clean start? If so, would it be enough to declare this on both user pages? Or does the 14-year-old block prevent a clean start? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, technically it wouldn't be a clean start because those don't apply to people who have active sanctions (including blocks), but this is a fairly normal place for an unblock request, and if they were literally only blocked because of one day of vandalism 14 years ago I wouldn't expect there would be any issue with one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:QUIETRETURN. If he returns and start editing in new areas, there's no need for a helpme request. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That would be sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I can only speak as one member of the community, but I have no issue whatsoever with this user participating with the new account, and I certainly don't think TheAmazingCoffeeMan should be forced to jump through too many hoops simply for trying to do this properly instead of quietly editing. If we have to WP:BURO this, then I suppose they can just post a quick unblock request wherever an admin sees fit? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree, although it would've been better if they'd just not said anything about the old account, it looks a fairly ruitine block and would likely merit a WP:ROPE unblock, which I will just go aherad and do so as to put the matter to rest. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I will, as I do every time one of these threads pops up, plug my user essay User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice.I appreciate an essay that is blunt and honest about the sausage factory. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud, Taz, is it worth linking WP:LTA in second bullet point If there is a history of sockpuppetry, it is not particularly extensive or disruptive? Excessive SPIs on the same menace tend to equal LTAs, in my experience, but hey, you’ve been Wikipedia-ing a lot more than I have, so I can be wrong. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that would narrow my meaning more than I intend. There's lots of socking that falls short of LTA but would definitely disqualify someone from the benefits of this unwritten rule. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

More input?

• It was brought up on my talk page that when this user filed an unblock request, they admitted to a few other socks, and one of them was blocked as a sock of a long-gone vandal with a large sockfarm. It's a fair concern and I asked TheAmazingCoffeeMan to address it. Here is their response:

I looked through the sock puppet investigations archive for Alexcas11, and I read some about the editing patterns of the sock puppet accounts alongside the IP addresses used, and I can say those accounts (besides RoyalRumble24) don't belong to me. I also looked at the IP addresses used, and I can safely say none of them track to my location (I live in the United States, but that's as specific as I'll get). Moreover, the account Alexcas11 and its sock puppets appear to have been active and subsequently blocked before I even started vandalizing Wikipedia and got blocked for it. Additionally, the way I went about vandalizing articles mostly involved falsifying dates, and the only article about a made-up topic I ever created was an imagined 2011 remake of Home Alone. All the other articles deemed inappropriate for inclusion I wrote as RoyalRumble24 were about people deemed ineligible for Wikipedia's notability criteria.

I would take this as a "no" to the question of if they were the person operating the account, and it is still my inclination to just hand out some rope and see what happens, but thought I'd run it by this board in case others feel differently. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If there are no other issues, I'd go for it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Unmerge my enwiki account from global

Please switch all of my rights (extended confirmed, reviewer, comfirmed user) into the account TienMinh-mun6xnChing, I'm no longer use this main account for contributing, thanks. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This will not "unmerge" anything (we don't do that), but sure I've moved your account flags. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

An administrator recall petition for Graham87 has been initiated

There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87 for Graham87 to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for him to maintain his toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy.

I request that anyone wanting to comment keeps discussion on the petition and its talk. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Noting that this petition has been withdrawn/closed. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I've reopened, since there were more signatures than the OP. Besides, we need to let the procedure run, so we know if we need to fix it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

As much as I dislike the ugliness going on there, and totally apreciate the OP trying to acknowledge the obvious, the close was out of process.

There's clearly some issues with this process that need fixing, or at least clarification, I think we can all see that. The thirty-days-to-certify aspect in particular needs adressing, but also the fact that a petition to open a recall process was being treated like the process itself, and there's really nobody with any clear authority to address issues as they arise. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I do wonder if we should even have Discussion sections in these petitions. Since it just causes a lot of fighting and arguing. When the whole point of the petition is are there 25 established editors that indicate lack of confidence in the person as an admin. It's basically just a binary question in that regard. Silverseren^C 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

After about a day, I have several takeaways about the recall process in general based on the discussion so far:

• There should be a process to snow close petitions. It's clear that barring some major bombshell, nothing will come of this one. Withdrawal was likely the correct response, but it's WP:BURO'd back into existence.
• Several people didn't comment on the actual issue at hand. Graham87 spent years blocking newbie accounts that had made only minor mistakes and frequently told them some variation of "you are not welcome here". This was written off as being kind of mean every once in a while. It seems several participants didn't bother to read the ANI discussions.
• A huge swelling of admins immediately came out to oppose. Almost all of the early opposition that built up inertia against the petition was from admins. I can't help but think there's a perverse incentive here from several admins who expect to see themselves at the other end of this.
• Some people used the petition as a place to express general displeasure with the process. Several people failed to participate in multiple widely advertised discussions and then took out their frustration with WP:POINT behavior.
• It would help if there were a baseline "arguments to avoid". A few examples:
  • Appealing to due process implies that being an administrator is a right or an entitlement. Someone should only be an admin if they maintain the trust of the community, so arguments about whether it's fair to the admin aren't helpful. The admin serves the community, not the other way around.
  • Since the point of recall is for long-term patterns where no individual problem rises to Arbcom, it's not reasonable to argue that "if this was serious it would be taken to Arbcom".
  • Similarly, "this was discussed at ANI" should be a prerequisite to recall, not an argument against it.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that RFA2024 was meant to make the admin process less toxic. It seems odd, then, that we've introduced a process that makes de-adminship more toxic. Some people don't seem to understand there's a human being on the other end of this shambles. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• I'm completely confused on the whole process. What is it? People just have a place to voice support for the petition and others can provide feedback. What's the result supposed to be? A !vote if enough people sign on (like many petitions)? Are they de-admined immediately? Who decides? What's the threshold? Seems pretty vague to me. Buffs (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Administrator recall holds the answers to all of your questions. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, it doesn't.

  A petition is closed after thirty days. If it gains at least twenty-five valid signatures within that period, the administrator is required to make a re-request for adminship or be a candidate in an administrator election.

  It doesn't state that the WPian is desysoped, it just says that they are required to make a re-request for adminship. If it fails, are they desysoped? While it's ongoing, do they retain the tools. It also doesn't define what the options are for an outcome. Can they just be suspended for a while? Etc. Buffs (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The page says that if they do not start the re-request for adminship within a reasonable timeframe, [a bureaucrat] may remove the administrator privileges at their discretion. Implicitly, then, the recalled admin retains the bit until either they choose not to RRfA or have their RRfA rejected. It also says that if the admin passes the RRfA they retain the bit; therefore if they do not pass they do not retain the bit.

  Given the page says nothing about suspensions then no, this process does not allow for a suspension of the rights. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Anyone interested in this process more generally should probably watchlist Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

unblock request

I made an edit request that conformed to the WP template and guidelines. Multiple users vandalized my edit request by deleting it. I was blocked for reverting that vandalism.

I know the rules of edit requests and I understand and respect why they are what they are. Mikewem (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This matter is being dealt with at the editor's talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A question from a very active editor

What should I do if I just-so-happen to be someone who is mildly-to-very famous, and/or is siblings with someone like that? Like, ultra-famous?

I've helped with plenty of stuff on WP:COIN before, but I have no idea how to proceed in this scenario. I trust that people will know that I am telling the truth about this, as I have over 15,000 edits on this site.

Can my publicist make disclosed COI edits on my behalf (using their own account- not mine)?

How do I verify to administrators that I am who I say I am? I don't really want this username to become publicly tied to me, for the sole and only reason that legions of fans might descend upon my talk page, wreaking havok.

Again, I'm not going to say who I am.

Not asking on anyone else's behalf, by the way.

Live long and prosper. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Your editing and the editing of someone you hire relating to you as a person outside of Wikipedia are two separate things, in my view. As long as the two never cross paths, there's no reason you need to dox yourself to anyone. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The easiest approach is for you to simply not perform any edits in your conflict of interest. Then, there's no need for you to disclose. Your publicist, on their own account, could disclose (WP:DISCLOSE) their own conflict and simply not mention your account. For example, let's say you are Liv Tyler (for example, you obviously aren't). Don't edit Liv Tyler, don't edit about your family or your movies or anything else for which you have a conflict. Your publicist discloses that they are Liv Tyler's publicist, without mentioning TheAwesomeHwyh at all. They are then free to edit within the normal bounds (which, frankly, means they probably should only be suggesting edits on article talk pages, making clear it's a COI edit request). If you want to be extra careful, ensure you and your publicist don't communicate over Wikipedia (and... why on earth would you) and don't connect from the same IP address (WP:CHECKUSER). You may wish to privately disclose your own conflict to WP:ARBCOM (others will correct me if I'm pointing you in the wrong direction there), noting your publicist's account too and indicating you'll avoid COI edits. Now, you can validate that you are Liv Tyler (for example). We sometimes require that when people pick a username of a famous person. But, I don't think that's something you want or need to do here. Far better to keep this account anonymous and simply avoid the whole mess, yes? --Yamla (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are precisely my thoughts, stated much more thoroughly. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't even mention this account to my publicist. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Liv, can you get me tickets to the Captain America:Brave New World premiere? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

TheAwesomeHwyh, a potential pitfall of your plan is Meatpuppetry. You can orient your publicist to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and let them know that you would like the Wikipedia article about you to be improved. You need to emphasize to the publicist that they must make the Paid contributionsdisclosure. But if you give them a specific list of things you want added, removed or changed, then that would be a policy violation, so be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

if you give them a specific list of things you want added, removed or changed, then that would be a policy violation, so be cautious. Meatpuppetry is defined as having another editor make the same arguments as you in a content debate; it is unrelated to hiring a paid editor. Generally, when you hire someone to write for you, you tell them what you want and they try to do it. For example, MrBeast could decide to hire a paid editor and instruct that editor to propose a much shorter version of the controversies section that downplays all allegations. That paid editor could then draft a new section and attempt to argue that it's actually more due and balanced than the current article version. Meatpuppetry would be if MrBeast proposes those changes himself and then secretly persuades 100 established editors to support him in an RfC. The former follows our COI policy, the latter does not. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree. If there's no deceptive or disruptive use, I don't think it should be considered an issue. To be honest, as long as their main account avoids the same topic area or any projectspace discussions (except those that directly affect the account), my reading of the socking policy (not that I have any particular expertise in this regard) is that they are even permitted (even if it's not necessarily recommended) to create a separate account under their real name (though, the policy comes at it from the opposite direction, where the main account is under the real name and the alternate is a pseudonym). The security of said alternate accounts of course, is the editor's individual responsibility. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"don't connect from the same IP address" -- I thought checkusers can only access data from actual edits made through an account? Not from just logging in. Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nythar: Not any more. For better or worse, this whole situation will remind too many people of the Lourdes saga. At least, compared to that account's first edit, we know for a fact that the OP is not a blue-and-yellow macaw. :-) Graham87 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing at all similar to Lourdes and any comparisons should be dismissed out of hand. Hwyh did the right thing asking and there's literally no policy that prohibits an existing editor from hiring a paid editor to do things that they can't because they have a COI. That's the whole point of the COI policy. If a famous person wants to edit Wikipedia unrelated to their own life, they should be allowed to do so without creating a real name alt and making their own COI edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Due to the fact that there seems to be a bit of controversy as to how to proceed with this, I decided that I will disclose that this is my account, eventually. I'm waiting for something important to happen in real life (which still might not happen) before I disclose this.

I also have a separate, slight conflict of interest with basically everything to do with the LISP programming language. I actually recently acquired one of the companies that used to make Common Lisp software so I felt like I should disclose that. That's a separate WP:COI, though.

I will also disclose that I used to edit under User:TraderCharlotte as I had briefly forgotten the password to TheAwesomeHwyh. I no longer go by "Charlotte", though.

Second star to the right, and straight on 'till morning! TheAwesomeHwyh 18:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I probably won't post any more comments on this thread as I actually haven't asked my publicist if they're okay with me posting this stuff on this public noticeboard. Whoops...

Ad astra per aspera. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, there is an established system of verification of famous people mentioned under the real names section of the username policy. Verification in this case is done by sending an email to the volunteer response team (VRT) and quoting the resulting ticket number if needed. Graham87 (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Hi. There's a heavy backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 07:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Authenticity regarding citation needed spam.

Hello there.

I've discovered IP User 50.102.149.14 seems to have a knack for contributing on many articles (such as this) where instead of contributing constructively or providing sources, the user finds any paragraph that contains a statement without a source, and marks it as {cn}. That'd be constructive and helpful, were it not done to the extent the user is doing it. There's a balanced argument of 'is this constructive editing' that, judging on their talk page, I am not the only one questioning.

This is a sticky situation that peaks my interest. Does this classify as disruptive editing, or is {cn} working as intended to bother people into providing sources for their statements? Synorem (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

In this case talking to the IP editor appears to be working. In the general case, I believe indiscriminately adding cn's can easily be disruptive, even for completely unreferenced material. The tag is only helpful if applied sparingly to indicate an absolute requirement for an inline source to comply with referencing policy, ie "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations". Espresso Addict (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Conversely, the most constructive way to object to a {{cn}} tag is to add a source. That way everybody wins. – Joe (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Counter-conversely, it's far better to add a source than a cn tag. Cn is for where the contested statement is doubtful or controversial and the disputing editor has made a good faith effort to source it, can't, but also can't justify removing the contested statement. Those should be rare circumstances. Adding cn tags indiscriminately is a low-effort way to contribute and it's a smash-and-grab raid on our volunteer time because it fills already-unmanageably-large queues with low-priority tasks.—S Marshall T/C 11:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Synorem, thanks so much for bringing this up and asking, rather than just dumping some warning templates on their talk page and leaving! It looks like you've found a motivated new editor who loves Wikipedia and wanted to do whatever they could to help. The best kind! Now we just need to do what we can to keep them. :) -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

There's a major backlog over at RFPP. Could someone look into that? - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Article name change request

Recently the name of Abdul Malek Ukil Medical College has been changed to Noakhali Medical College. So transfer it to the new name. 09:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC) ~ Nahian ^Talk 09:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. If you think that is the most commonly used name to refer to this college, please go to requested moves. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for a general look-in on Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe

Posting here to suggest an admin take a look at Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe. Looks to be spiralling into various policy infractions and misuse of the page as a forum. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I collapsed an unconstructive thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler any particular things you want to highlight? There's a lot to read there EvergreenFir (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir to me skimming through it I got a general sense it was devolving into Not A Forum discussions more about their views on the comedian and cancel culture rather than actually discussing the article proper. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir if asked to be more specific I'd say the dispute over the neutrality of the lead seems to have in particular descended into people's views on the comedian and their brand of humour rather than the actual neutrality of the lead. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is what we've experienced on the talk pages of Trump and RFK Jr. for long beyond my recollection. It will likely continue for Hinchcliffe until his 15 minutes from the MSG rally are up. We can observe and interject when things get too far FORUM-y. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden has also come close to derailing with a number of editors who definitely have never participated in AfD, but this seems to be status quo for any American politics article or discussion lately (those of you moderating and closing these discussions right now; you're doing good work). Nate • (chatter) 23:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The AFD is now closed with keep. Frankly, even the talk pages aren't quite as bad as they were before and the activity level isn't that high on them although it does also seem there are some inexperienced editors and few experienced ones. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Reporting Dhwani221

The user uploaded a bulk of copyright violations on Commons yesterday which I deleted there in two batches. Others, I filed a DR at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dhwani221. They have returned to en-wiki, and re-uploaded some of the copy-vios here such as File:Sunayanafozdar.jpg despite their claims like "Can uunblock me? I was unaware of the copyright claim" and "I can't chat with you over there (Commons). I can txt here only. As said earlier, was unaware of the copyright issue." This message of their came a several minutes before their recent two copyvio uploads. It doesn't appear they are here to build. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 06:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

JJMC89: This might interest you. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 06:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have p-blocked the editor from the file space. It's quite clear they do not understand copyright policy. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Whpq! _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 14:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Whpq: Edits like this suggest that the user is seriously obsessed with their behavior and not in a mood to rectify. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 17:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

User:NormalTADC

They are working towards making a long list of articles on non-notable topics to do with characters from mini-games in Roblox They have already moved their first rejected draft into the main space at Looky (Rainbow Friends) and have another rejected draft draft at Draft:Talking Shark where they are currently warring over the rejection notice. I think they may just need a 24 block until they have some time to read the policies and guidelines. I would have tagged the first article as A7 but unfortunately I don't think it actually fits into that criteria and felt an AFD is a waste of time on such a obvious throw away. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I just ran across this a few minutes ago. I would support the words of McMatter above, as both these articles are problematic to say the least. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mcmatter, I've given them a 24-hour timeout, but please note that you were also edit-warring. It is inappropriate to put a WP:PROD tag back on after it has been removed, even if it was the article creator who removed it. -- asilvering (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yea I did over step a bit, I apologize I was more undoing it to also restore the maintenance templates they kept removing I should have just restored them but we would still be at the same place as we are now. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries, and sorry, my message came out a little colder than I intended it to. Next time this happens to you (and it will, that's AfC for you), you can go to WP:ANEW with it. -- asilvering (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI once a PROD tag is removed – for any (or no) reason – it has to go through AfD. Repeatedly readding it isn't helping. C F A 💬 02:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

They just submitted Draft:Jax_(The_Amazing_Digital_Circus) which is an unsourced character article. Qcne (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what they're doing now...

@NormalTADC please explain? Qcne (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

They have been blocked. Suggest extension if the poor behavior continues when unblocked. Star Mississippi 18:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC regarding recall

I have started an RfC about how long a recall petition should take here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:RMTR backlog

At WP:RMTR there are unresolved requests from two days ago. The oldest uncontested request is for RSM-56 Bulava, for which a new user attempted a unilateral cut-and-paste move. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

AI generated "Proposal For Greater Vellore City Municipal Corporation"

Noticed this on the page Melvisharam, pasted in from a 50 edit user Venki12sta.Today, an IP attempted to copy paste this on to multiple other pages such as here [16]. Is there any shred of truth to this? A quick search provides nothing about such a project .
Posting it here because I'm not exactly sure where this belongs. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup is a good place if you encounter future situations like this one. Whether there is a shred of truth behind this addition, the WP:ONUS is on the person copy-pasting the text to provide (non-hallucinated) sources, and, in the meantime, it can be safely removed (and a {{uw-ai2}} given to the user). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Disruption, edit warring, OR

I'd like for an admin to have a look at the work of an IP editor, 77.44.48.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is edit warring and righting wrongs, it seems to me, in Masoretic Text and other articles. I'm particularly bothered by this, "I firmly suspect that the administration of Wikipedia has been infiltrated by bad actors at a very high level, who are able to surreptitiously block IP addresses from editing articles and talk pages, editing articles under the guise of supposed "bots", and manipulating the timestamping of such edits." I reverted the editor once or twice, here but particularly here, and so perhaps someone from outside my cabal of "bad actors at a very high level" (User:Ohnoitsjamie, I don't know if you're in that cabal--haven't updated the membership list) can assess their understanding of Wikipedia. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I also reverted at Masoretic Text. This IP insists on describing this primary source of Judaism as "unreliable" in wikivoice in the first sentence, and shows no sign of giving up this quest. This shows ignorance or disdain for the need to attribute opinions, ignorance of the purpose of the lead, and profound ignorance of the subject. If this was the only problem, semi-protection would solve it, but as Drmies says a poke around its other contributions might indicate a different solution. Zero^talk 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Any editor who insists that Wikipedia denounce any specific ancient biblical text such as the Masoretic text as "unreliable" (or endorse it as reliable) in Wikipedia's voice has a deeply ingrained point of view incompatible with editing a neutrally written encyclopedia. Wikipedia must be rigorously neutral in all such disputes among serious scholars of comparative religion, while rejecting the multitude of fringe and crank sources that are based on original research which is simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Our articles reflect and summarize the range of mainstream reliable sources and we do not apologize for that. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Daniel Quinlan blocked for 24 hours and semi-protected for a week but whether this will stop someone who has now added the same unacceptable material 6 times over 10 days remains to be seen. Can you please at least remove that material from the article? It is embarrassing as it is now but I'm reluctant to revert again. After the semi-prot expires, I'll monitor the article to see if the IP gives up. Zero^talk 00:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Restored the version without the description in question. Andre🚐 00:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Sorry guys i did a horrible mistake in Wikipedia for misuse my power as an editor and I truly regret what happened , I know my mistake and i sincerely feel sorry for my wrongdoing , hope you all may give me a second chance in Wikipedia. Thanks a lot. Mat Rempit (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You should follow the advice that Yamla gave you in the unblock request on your talk page as that is the approach that may give you another chance at editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You have the luck of only being blocked from the article space. This allows you to actually prove yourself to know what's an appropriate edit by making edit requests on articles' talk pages, and allowing the community to see what percentage are actually approved and how bad the rejected edits actually are. This should make it easier than users who get fully blocked from the site. Animal lover |666| 04:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for attention regarding Disruptive Editor

This entry is to request for administrative attention regarding User:WaterMirror17.

They have been observed making edits to several pages such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Malvar-class_frigate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Navy_HDP-2200_Future_Offshore_Patrol_Vessel

...which I believe qualify under the disruptive editing criteria.

Specifically they keep adding 'original research' and commentary that is unverifiable and uncited.

Furthermore, they constantly add these in the form of extensive notes in info boxes which break the rule of conciseness and put pages out of line with common formatting practice as seen in other similar pages.

I have tried to talk them out of this on both their user page and the talk pages on the articles, citing the way in which their edits have been in violation of Wikipedia rules and practices, but they just seem to either not understand or are intentionally not acknowledging the issues with their edits. It is like talking to a brick wall.

They had already previously been warned by other users against edit warring in other pages, but they persist in trying to get their way with regard to putting their edits on pages. It is getting tiring trying to clean up after them. Girder2139 (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Provision of Rev-Deleted content

I cant find a policy that addresses it so figured would come here to gather consensus.

There's a set of edits that Ive been contacted through email from the Wikipedia email function requesting that a copy of an edit to a user talk page that was deleted be provided to the user. I cant find anything in the policies regarding revision deletion about provision of deleted content. If the content had been deleted under a page deletion then there's probably flexibility in the policy for deletion to provide a copy of it but this is a single edit rather than a page so its not clear enough for me to be making that decision on my own.

Thoughts, suggestions, precedent that I've overlooked. Amortias (T)(C) 00:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The closest thing my naive search finds is Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion (April 2024), which seems to indicate that the RD criterion is an important factor, but admin discretion heavily applies. Folly Mox (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you can apply the same good judgement as you'd apply to regular 'email-a-copy' undeletion, but context is everything. Rather than consider the criterion I'd be looking at the content. So here I'm going to speculate.. Being user talk it's probably RD2/3 (offensive or abusive). If it's too harmful or too offensive then I might be tempted to provide a summary or excerpts instead, as an initial response, depending on both the user and the content. Sometimes however, we remove content not to protect the target users, but to clean up the general editing atmosphere for others, where an email copy of the content will not cause any problems. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Lifting my limited topic ban and my mentorship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I, Davidbena (talk · contribs · WHOIS), after successfully appealing my AE Topic ban on 16 May 2023, was appointed a mentor to counsel and assist me in my edits in the ARBPIA area (see here). After editing under this capacity for more than a year, I wish now to appeal my long-standing limited topic ban that was made some years earlier (which you can see here). Having the liimited ban lifted will enable me to return to editing in the ARBPIA area without limitations.

For a record of my past offenses, here is a list of former discussions which ended in either a block or a topic-ban:

1. 2 August 2018 "frivolous ANI report"
2. 13 August 2018 (topic ban)
3. 23 February 2019: topic ban lifted
4. 6 May 2019 (new topic ban).
5. 21 November 2019: appeal to rescind the ban was unsuccessful
6. 18 August 2020 (placed under narrow topic ban)
7. 2 September 2021 (one-month block for canvassing)
8. 29 January 2022 (broad topic ban), which ban was lifted on 16 May 2023 (as shown here) when I was assigned a mentor in the ARBPIA area, but leaving in place my narrow topic ban.

I am fully aware that my history of punitive measures taken against me by the community was started by my own short-sightedness in being quick to jump to judgment against my fellow co-editors in the ARBPIA area, whom I accused at first of "stalking". These accusations, as they later came to show, were proven inaccurate. I have since worked with the same editors on improving a number of articles in the ARBPIA area. Moreover, I am now fully aware that all edits made by the general consensus of all editors, especially of those holding different political views and who belong to different political spectrums, contribute to the overall uncensored preservation of history and of general knowledge. This is my honest view. I have worked in the past year with Wikipedia editor Nableezy who has opened my eyes to this realization, even though we hold different political views. I assure my fellow Wikipedia editors and those here arbitrating this case that I will continue to consult the views of others before posting a controversial edit in the ARBPIA area.

For the record, my statement to the Wikipedia editor, Huldra (see diff), who has borne with me patiently throughout all my shortcomings and my personal attacks has been this: "I have since learned that every person who contributes anything in this world, especially on Wikipedia, is on a special mission sent by God. It doesn't matter who we are, or what religion or ethnicity we belong to. In Israeli/Palestinian issues, it is all one continuous history, interlocked. That is my honest view. I appreciate your work in the Palestinian issues, just as I appreciate my own work in Israeli history, both old and new. Everything has its place. I have learnt on Wikipedia to appreciate other views and to be more open to them, even when I disagree. I will not force my own view upon others. That much I can assure you" (End Quote). The same assurances I give to those who arbitrate my case. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per David and this discussion on Nableezy's talk. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Andre🚐 02:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Support A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 08:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Support: Nableezy’s cool with it, as per the linked from Voorts. was started by my own short-sightedness in being quick to jump to judgment against my fellow co-editors in the ARBPIA area gives me a “is he a hothead?” pause for thought. (Not saying I think he is. I haven’t run into Bena outside of this ANI Report), but that’s all it gave. Pause. No actual concern that can be pieced together. If Aspersions are the worst worry, but not even a worry, then that’s easy for the Arbs to reinstate if my pause turns out justified. WP:ROPE should be given. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 09:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Support - per my talk page. nableezy - 10:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Support if Nableezy is good with this, then I don't see why not. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Support -- as one of the admins who applied a topic ban, no concerns at all in it being lifted. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per RickinBaltimore. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Support OK following mentorship. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Support appears to be an example of how a productive return to editing should go. Nableezy's support as an involved (real world, not wiki sense) party makes it a firmer yes for me. Star Mississippi 17:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Support This the right thing to do for the right reasons at the right point in time. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My involvement with ARBPIA

Nableezy recently requested that I not close any more discussions relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, citing my engagement with the content. The only example he provided was my starting this discussion, although I'm sure we can both think of a handful of others. (I know I've participated in one other discussion involving Al-Jazeera's reliability, made this edit to 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, and made a handful of prose edits to Israel-Hamas war; I've probably made a few other edits in the area, but I don't remember any.) I don't think this constitutes a reasonable basis to assert involvement with the whole topic area and said as much; Nableezy responded simply that he would raise the issue here (or somewhere similar) when I next close a discussion in the area. I'd rather not have that threat hanging over my head, so I'll ask for wider community input now. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Have to say I am not impressed about that thread at RSN. Nor was I terribly enthused about your deciding to open yourself, this follow up RM.

There are plenty of discussions elsewhere, perhaps best to pass on the AI related ones. Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not generally a big fan of broadly construing involvement across entire topic areas, at least for RfC closers. WP:INVOLVED itself speaks of disputes and not of topic areas. I'm also generally of the opinion that closures should be evaluated on their merits and not factors concerning the closer's person. As long as you don't close discussions on questions on which you have commented before, I don't think there is a problem. Otherwise, we'd be disqualifying closers for some unreasonably vague feeling they may be biased more than anything else. Speaking from experience, I've closed a few PIA RfCs with no complaints so far, even though looking at my user page it should not be difficult to infer what general opinions I hold on that topic. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s not a threat, but until it’s an issue I don’t plan on engaging in this here. But if there are future closes by an involved editor I’ll try to demonstrate that their closes have historically shown a propensity for taking a certain consistent position in favor of one bias that aligns with the arguments they’ve made in content related discussions. nableezy - 18:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

taking a certain consistent position in favor of one bias that aligns with the arguments they’ve made in content related discussions – Is there any way to determine whether this applies that isn't just casting aspersions? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

By going through the closes and the content related edits? That is a general statement about any involved editor, so I don’t know how that could possibly be "casting aspersions". nableezy - 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like you're withholding evidence against Compassionate727 until such time that it suits you, while simultaneously attempting to pressure them into behaving how you'd like them to. Please just lay it out now like they've asked; how is Compassionate727 WP:INVOLVED? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Nableezy has indicated that they do not presently think there is an issue, and that they therefore prefer not to engage with this question. So why are you actively trying to stir up conflict? If you have input on Compassionate's query, by all means give it, but don't stir shit for the sake of shit-stirring. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw what I felt like to be the latest example of Compassionate727 showing that they have both contributed to content, and have a position in that content, and to closing discussions in the topic. I have previously asked editors that I have varying feelings about, including ones I think highly of, to not close discussions in the topic area when I feel they have crossed the threshold into "editor". So I politely asked that they no longer close discussions. They declined. As there presently isn’t an issue, and I didn’t intend to spend my Sunday afternoon digging up the diffs from past closes and positions that I think disqualifies them from playing the closer role, that’s the end of it as far as I’m concerned. If and when there is an issue then I’ll spend that time. But right now I’m going back to the game I’d rather focus on. Bear Down. nableezy - 21:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Editors closing discussions they haven't been involved in should be fine, it's difficult enough finding editors who will close RFCs. If an editor has made, or makes, bad closes that show their bias then it should be brought up here. But I'm against discouraging editors from making closes simply because they may have a bias, as there is no editor without bias. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

agree with maddy and activelydisinterested that until more evidence shows up, we should not consider every editor automatically involved because they had some prior engagement with the topic.

also think we have ways to deal with bad closures anyways. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

"Editors closing discussions they haven't been involved in should be fine" is much too weak and allows for easy abuse. At a minimum, it should be "Editors closing discussions unrelated to topics they have been involved in should be fine". Zero^talk 02:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This presupposes that the close will be bad or biased, and that an editor with bias can never make a neutral close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct, it presupposes that some things might happen that for sure will actually happen. Under your proposal, someone with a strong POV about an RfC could just refrain from participating and instead close it to their preference. This would subvert the whole idea of an RfC. Zero^talk 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It supposes that editors with a bias (all of them) would only ever make closes in favour of their biases. Past events do not back this up. There have absolutely been instances were editors sat out RFC and then closed them as per their preference, they were overturned using the pre-existing procedures for doing so. Acting in that way isn't just a bias or POV but deliberate and malicious. So you point is correct if you expect editors with a bias or POV to behave maliciously. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Most bad closes are not overturned. In contentious topics there are always lots of socks, off-wiki coordination, and other stuff going on. We can't stop it, but we can try to mitigate the damage by adopting policies that reduce it. One example is to have a strict policy on involvement, for both administrators and ordinary editors. Zero^talk 12:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If closes are not overturned how are you judging that they are bad closes? WP:SPI is one way and WP:ARB is another. Assuming good faith, even from those we disagree with, is generally the best way. The idea that INVOLVED is as broad as you interpret it isn't universally accepted. If you have a proposal for definitely making it that broad you should make it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Most socks are not detected and hardly any off-wiki coordination is suppressed. It's nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. If everybody behaved properly all the time, we wouldn't need rules. But they don't. You are also incorrect that editors with bias would only apply that bias to a close if they were being deliberately malicious. Bias doesn't work that way. People with bias believe they are being even-handed when they aren't. Zero^talk 13:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

And the rules are what they are, if you have a proposal to change them you should make it. Separately as I said all editors have bias, the believe that bias alone would always make a close bad would therefore mean that no editor could make a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, my view is that AGF is not generally the best way, it is generally the worst way, maybe one of Wikipedia's most counterproductive policies when applied to the PIA topic area. And the notion that "universally accepted" things will be optimal solutions for PIA is going to be wrong in most cases. I think starting this discussion should constitute a reasonable basis to assert involvement with the whole topic area. I think this is probably the kind of simple strictness that a test for 'involvement' in the topic area should have. In my view, efforts should be made to minimize or eliminate faith-based assumptions about anything or anyone in the topic area. Good or bad faith-based assumptions about any account that does anything in the topic are equally bad, especially when it comes to things that people are very bad at doing in an environment like PIA like modeling intent or trying to predict future behavior. Regardless, any system used in PIA, even a very strict involvement test, will be gamed by someone at some point. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You can decide to not follow WP:AGF it is only a guideline, I think that is a mistake that only adds to mistrust of Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Can't disagree more with this anti-wiki sentiment. AGF is a key pillar. Andre🚐 20:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Come on man, it's not an anti-wiki sentiment. It is a pro-wiki sentiment. It is an anti-overconfidence, pro-rationality sentiment. I already use an assume nothing approach because the error rate is lower than an assume something approach when interacting with actors in the topic area. It works fine, it reduces the chance of conflict with both familiar and unfamiliar accounts. It means I don't have to think about intent, pro-this or anti-that categorization or pay any attention to the biased voice in my brain feeding me disinformation and pattern matching nonsense. It keeps my eye on the ball, what people actually say and do, not what the stack of unreliable heuristics in my dopey primate brain make up to model a person. The fact is that there is already mistrust. Denying that is just silly and will result in errors. AGF is largely inauthentic theater in PIA, one more thing that is exploited and weaponized by partisan actors. I think AGF can work well and be useful when editors already have a lot of information about each other and become overconfident about their theory of mind abilities, after they have had many, many interactions, as a reminder that while you may think you know this person, and you think they are up to no good, you should think about the counterfactuals and consider that there is a decent chance that you are wrong because you are not as smart as you think. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not what AGF is. AGF is the idea that when you meet an unknown editor you should try to charitably interpret their actions to put them in the best light. It doesn't mean discard rationality or ignore evidence. It means that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, you should not jump to negative conclusions. I really shouldn't have to explain AGF to an editor with over 30k edits since 2007. AGF is largely inauthentic theater in PIA If true, explains a lot of the problem. Andre🚐 04:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This might be an example of overconfidence and the errors we make when modeling other people. Of course, I know what AGF says, including that its scope is not limited to unknown actors. And obviously as an editor with over 30k edits since 2007, I've had the opportunity to observe thousands of instances of the actual features and effects of rule as it is deployed in the field by editors and admins in a very diverse set of contexts. There is misalignment, as usual. I prefer an empirical approach when it comes to understanding what Wikipedia's rules mean to people and how they work in practice. The inauthentic theater feature is just one of several inauthenticity related features of the PIA system. Inauthentic civility is another (something I support by the way, not because I care about civility, but because it increases the signal to noise ratio of discussions). Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Signal to noise ratio of discussions is a good heuristic. But AGF is more than inauthentic theater. And yes, it's not limited to unknown actors, but there are limits of good faith. Ironically, the example you gave of modelling a person you know well is when I think it's hardest to AGF. If you already understand where someone is coming from it will heavily color your expectations because you do have a model of that person. You do also need to AGF someone you know, but there will necessarily be a conflict in situations of dispute with someone you already know or, especially, when you have people who have made mistakes known to you or disagreements that are on a low burn. Regardless, though, the purpose of AGF as a ceremonial aspect of communication is related to the concept of steelmanning and there is a rational reason for this. Now, we don't have thoughtcrimes. You can privately suspect that every new motivated account that seems somewhat good at doing stuff is a sock even though you might rationally know that Wikipedia is a website used by thousands of people and is frequently visited by entirely new users. Just don't say it in public when you're forming that suspicion because it's a violation of good faith and once that cracks and we allow bad faith in, it poisons the discourse. You can still collect evidence and find a sock and maybe be right a lot of the time, or maybe the system isn't giving you good feedback about whether you are right or wrong. Still, AGF means you should default to assuming good faith at least in public because to do otherwise is insulting due to its insinuation of low expectation and making a negative conclusion about someone based on where they seem to be coming from before they've even done anything wrong. Andre🚐 04:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• If small edits make an editor involved, we should follow that. If they don't, they don't. This standard has been unevenly applied. I previously accused someone of being involved based on small edits, and there was not a consensus that they were involved. I'm not sure what the precedent should be, but we should apply it consistently and not haphazardly. Andre🚐 20:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think these sorts of edits have made you broadly WP:INVOLVED in the area. Your closures seem fine. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Fastily

There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Fastily for Fastily to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for them to maintain their toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Odd behaviour at AfD

Not sure what exactly is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYXX-TV (3rd nomination) but I think it could use an admins attention. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The close on the AFD has been undone by @Donald Albury. DYXX-TV has been deleted several times and, to me, this latest AFD looks like an attempt by two newish accounts to ensure the latest incarnation is not deleted. The opening statement is a rationale to keep, not to delete. I've haven't had time to look at previous versions to see if this is a G4 case or not, but I think that is what they are trying to sidestep by starting (and closing) an AFD. Nthep (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Any time Smileyface143 and Smileyface143 II take part in the same discussion, and Smikelyface 143 says Like DZBB-TV, this article has been restoring as per Smileyface143 II's summary. it probably needs a quick gander by a CU. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYSS-TV (3rd nomination). They either have no clue how WP works, or they are trying to prevent their new articles from going to AfD. Donald Albury 18:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was in the process of adding User:One at Heart 2002 to the list, but I see they all have been blocked. Donald Albury 18:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's nice to have a refreshingly simple CU case for a change. I've indeffed three accounts and closed the AfD; I considered deleting it but I didn't know if that would mess the bots up in the future. There's still some CU due diligence to be done, which I'll complete when I have a moment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Request to create draft article

Hi, still quite new to creating articles and hope this isn't the wrong page but was told to come here. I'm trying to create a draft page for a Boards of Canada 12" single that was released in 2013, titled "------ / ------ / ------ / XXXXXX / ------ / ------". It was blocked because the title blacklist "Disallows six consecutive characters that are not letters (in any script), numbers, or spaces". While the title of the 12" is long, that's it's name. Would an administrator be able to create a draft of this article for me to start editing? Thanks. Beachweak (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

[[Draft:------ / ------ / ------ / XXXXXX / ------ / ------]] created. Amortias (T)(C) 20:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I spent a couple hours writing the draft, would it be possible for you or another admin to move it to mainspace as well? I'm unable to do so because of the title once again. Beachweak (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done, moved to mainspace. C F A 💬 23:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for Attention to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Pokémon test

There is a deletion discussion in progress at MFD that is becoming unpleasant, and I am asking for an admin to come and issue a caution, warning, or admonition. The essay Wikipedia:Pokémon test, which is already marked as historical, has been nominated for deletion. On the one hand, the nominator, User: Zxcvbnm, is bludgeoning the discussion. That isn't uncommon (although it should be). On the other hand, the nominator is being subjected to personal attacks, including allegations of bad faith. Can someone please remind the editors that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Saying there is bludgeoning occurring from my end is simply not true at all in the slightest. I was accused of bludgeoning without merit by an opposing !voter, but was backed up by multiple other editors that I never did such a thing. I only responded to about half of the participants in the discussion, most of the responses were a couple of sentences, a couple of which was to agree with them and support a potential alternate solution like userfication or moving to a historical archive.

I cannot fathom why an ANI thread is needed in this case, when the admins who are literally participating in the discussion did not see cause for alarm. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Admins who are particpating in a discussion cannot at the same time act as admins, they are just people commenting. I, however, have nothing to do with this and as an uninvlved admin have dropped an admin note reminding everyone that the discussion is supposed to be about the essay and not about the participants. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I've now closed it early as it was obvious it was not going to be deleted. Discussion of other options as put forth in the MFD can continue on the essay's talk page. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrator recall policy adopted

After a request for comments, Wikipedia:Administrator recall is now a policy. The procedure is as adopted by the 2024 RfA review. Some questions remain, which may be discussed at the policy's talk page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-reasoned and diplomatic close of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a surprise to me. How many attempts to do this over the years have failed? This will take some mental readjustment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I had no idea this was going on either, as I don't remember seeing any notices. On paper, it looks interesting, but I haven't examined it close enough to have an opinion yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I had no idea this was going on either, Ditto. Where was this promoted? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It was borne out of one of many proposals at WP:RFA2024. I don't think there was any mention of "recall" on Template:Centralized discussion until after the conclusion of RFA2024 Phase I, by which point it had already been decided that the community wanted a recall process. The Phase II discussion (to hash out specifics) treated the Phase I consensus as immutable – wrongly, in my view, given my point about T:CD. The drive to create WP:AR should have been spun out of RFA2024 at the first stage and linked separately to get broader input, given the far-reaching potential of this process. Had that happened, the Phase I and II consensuses might have been very different. That RFA2024 has succeeded in producing a desysopping-style policy where other attempts failed is due to the fact that the Phase I recall proposal was a rider and inadequately publicised. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I echo the sentiments above - this should have been much more widely advertised. GiantSnowman 11:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The whole RfA 2024 review process, including this aspect of it, was notified to virtually all noticeboards, T:CENT, watchpage notices, discussed in The Signpost, etc. If you missed that there was a discussion about reforming the RfA process and adopting recall, it's not because there was a lack of notice. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The above would suggest otherwise. GiantSnowman 13:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Copying @isaacl's list from the RfC that was just closed:

Regarding notifications about the second phase of discussion: a watchlist message was posted, the centralized discussion notice box was updated, and a link was posted to the Administrators' noticeboard (there was also a link present in the announcement of the closure of phase 1). A mass message was sent to what I believe is a list of participants in phase 1.

Unless by lack of notice you mean that a courier didn't personally deliver a letter to you informing you of these discussions, I'm not sure how much more notice was needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, this very RfC that was just closed was at the very least advertised at T:CENT. So it's frankly flat-out untrue that none of these discussions were advertised. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anyone claiming that "none of these discussions were advertised". What I see, based on the links, is that there was no centralized notification specifically about the new AR process until Phase I of WP:RFA2024 was over and it had already been decided there would be such a process. It seems no one realised its implications during Phase I and acted to make them clear to the wider community. AR is big – right next door to a WP:RFDA process, and arguably the biggest change to administrator policy since WP:INACTIVITY was introduced. The proposal for a whole new policy shouldn't have been packaged in a round of RFA reform ideas, because that will have limited the Phase I discussion to regular RFA reformers and WT:RFA commentators. So in terms of procedure and notifications, there were mistakes. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 16:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's tricky. The RFA 2024 review process was sprawling, with many discussions over many months. People have a limited amount of time to follow all of that. I was aware that such discussions were taking place. I was not aware that there was a specific policy proposal to adopt recall, though in general I'm not opposed to the idea. Whether the policy actually enjoys consensus will be determined the first time it's used. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It does have consensus, with the phase 2 RFC and then this recent RFC confirmed it. Both pretty well advertised and attended. PackMecEng (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I came across this very messy RfC by accident when it was almost over. Only 25 EC names on a petition are needed to force an admin to jump through hoops and they don't have to give reasons. There is no provision for anyone to object to the petition (even if the admin did none of things they are charged with). In particular, the admin cannot formally respond to the petition. So: write some polemic about an admin you don't like and advertise it in a few places. Some of the 25 names will come from people who have been sanctioned by the admin and didn't like it, and the rest from people who never heard of the admin before but are disturbed by the allegations. Then the admin has to go through an onerous re-admission process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing prohibiting an admin from responding. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been aware of this proposal from the beginning, but chose not to participate in the second phase. While I am a bit uneasy about some of the details, I think we need to see how it goes. If the process is used abusively, or turns out to be disruptive for the community, we can take steps to fix it. Donald Albury 14:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Donald. We might learn from early uses of the procedure that changes are required, and that's fine. Being a policy does not mean it's set in stone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This is more or less my thinking as well, if it does turn out to be a vector for abuse I am confident that the community will address that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm for the process, even as I expect it to fail in it's current form. It is open for abuse and I expect that we see petitions for all the usual suspects so disliked by sockpuppets, LTAs, and POV pushers. But what they will show is how to reform the process.

Some form of admin recall has been asked for for years, and each attempt to try and implement something has failed to even make it this far. There comes a point where you just implement something, anything, and see how to make it work as you go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The very limited number of responses to the RfC does appear to suggest it was poorly advertised. Unless I'm missing something, one place it doesn't appear to have been properly advertised is, ironically, here (it does appear as a single line in the Admin Newsletter, but that's easy to miss) which one would have expected to be the first place for notification. Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Zero0000, I agree. Also, if the first attempt at a petition fails, not to worry – the filer just needs to wait six months, then try again. And all it takes to start a petition, leaving Admin X or Y in limbo for the next 30-40 days, is one person deciding that Admin X or Y "has lost the trust of the community". SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Will be interesting to see how it pans out. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• I continue to be surprised 1) that this RFDA-in-all-but-name process originated from attempts to reform RFA, the exact opposite; and 2) why a lot people seem to regard this new process as no big deal. It's a well of negativity that makes Wikipedia as a whole an even more negative place. I pity whichever sysop has to run the gauntlet first, because the specifics at WP:AR look pretty shaky to me. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 16:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long... SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to humbly advise any editors with concerns about the suitability of the process through which this policy was adopted to refer to the RfC linked in my first post, which was dedicated to that matter. It resulted in a consensus that the process was sufficient and no further ratification step is required. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

A petition has been started (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#A_recall_petition_for_Graham87_has_been_initiated). Any minor issues that arise will hopefully be resolved through the course of the next month. To those claiming it didn't have enough advertisement, I'll reiterate what's been said above: the third RFC was posted on CENT and sought to address that question. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• How did this policy sneak into effect with something like 25 votes? That's ridiculous. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

A look at the example WP:Administrator recall/Graham87 shows how we are doing so far. There are 5 "signatures" in favor of recall, some accompanied by to-and-fro with other editors. There are also 15–16 editors (hard to count) who oppose the recall. However, under this policy opposition to the recall doesn't count at all, so those 15–16 editors are wasting their finger muscles. I'm wondering what other formal decision processes we have on Wikipedia for which only opinions in one direction are considered significant. Zero^talk 04:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think it would have been better to do administrator recall as a trial period, with an expiration date of some kind. This is how some of the other big changes in WP:RFA2024 were handled, such as administrator elections and 2 days of no voting at RFA.
  Also, wasn't the goal of RFA2024 to make everything related to adminship less toxic so we could attract more admins? Making admins go through 30 days of drama for incidents that are too minor for arbcom doesn't seem like a great way to reduce toxicity... –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  IMO it's complicated. I think it's well recognised especially by non-admins is that one reason why RfA is such a problem is because adminship is generally a wikilife-long thing with it very very hard for admins to lose the tools. And it's also historically been basically impossible to even sanction an admin the way an ordinary editor would be. While there's some aspect of WP:unblockables involved, the nature of adminship has generally meant admins are protected from any real sanction until and unless they lose their tools.

  So while admins are supposed to demonstrate a higher level of commitment to our policies and guidelines and be less likely to make personal attacks, edit war etc; and many do, there's been a feeling that some don't and yet have never really been properly challenged over it in part because they are admins. I.E. they're getting away with stuff it's really unlikely a regular editor would get away with. And when it comes to questionable use of the tools, it has to be extremely egregious for anything to happen although an ordinary editor similar misusing something (whether tools or just general editing) would long ago have been stopped from doing that.

  Things have changed a bit in recent years with arbcom seeming to be more willing to take cases and perhaps more willing to remove the tools, and even just more willing to take cases has meant some it's been easier to lose the tools since admins have either formally resigned them or effectively done so by leaving Wikipedia rather than participate in the case. Also there's at least one high profile case where an admin was cbanned without regard for the tools.

  Still I think many of us plebs still regard admins as having a special level of protection that normal editors don't and therefore we treat RfAs as a much bigger deal than they arguably need to be. I.E. Yes adminship might just be a few tools, but you pretty much get to get keep those tools unless you misuse them very very badly, and you also get to do stuff few other editors would even putting aside the tools.

  So while making it easier to remove admins does have the unfortunate effect of "increasing toxicity" when we have these recalls, there's a hope it will make adminship less of a big deal and make RfAs less toxic since we don't have to be so worried about the consequences of making a wrong decision. Whether it will be better or worse in the long run with recalls, I don't know. Note I say this as someone who can I think count on one hand or at least two hands the number of RfAs they've participated in but who did support recalls in the first RfC.

  Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  P.S. In fairness, I will also acknowledge that admins generally also have to put up with abuse that isn't so accepted when directed at us plebs. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• As someone who IIRC supported recalls in the first RfC and didn't participate in the second or drafting of the rules and didn't really participate in the final one I do feel that this has been way messier than it should have been. In particular, whatever was said in the first and second, I'm unconvinced it was ever wise to treat this as a policy that could go into effect without a final confirmation RfC especially without a formal trial period. I always expected there would be a final confirmation RfC with a specific developed policy in place.

  And I don't feel the final RfC was really that since at least at the beginning the details still weren't quite sorted and it wasn't even really worded as "This is our policy on recalls, should we go ahead with recalls with this specific policy? As always on Wikipedia changes are always possible, but this should be considered the policy which will be implemented if you support it." or something along those lines. Instead it was IMO fairly unclear that the final RfC was even going to be a final RfC or IMO even what the third RfC was hoping to establish.

  For further clarity, I was aware of that final RfC but I didn't participate in part because I felt it a mess. I expected even with that RfC we'd still have to end up with yet another confirmation RfC once the tinkering finished, and I expressed concern that it was therefore a waste of time early on (to the editor who started it). I did watch it slightly and was aware it seemed to be developing into a final RfC before it closed but I still didn't participate in part because I didn't care but also because I was still unsure if it would really be the final RfC given the messy start and low participation. I can't help thinking there were others who read about it and saw how messy it was at the start and thought, we'll we're never going to get a consensus for recalls from this so not worth my time. I'll wait until the final RfC when everything is clear.

  I'm not saying the closer was wrong, but I do think the whole process was way messier than it should have been and this is probably part of why we're we are now without editors surprised we actually have a policy for recalls now in place.

  And I have to say, it's unclear to me if this is even definitely resolved. The first recall, the admin doesn't seem to be challenging the process. But what happens if an admin does especially when the first recall petition succeeds? Have the bureaucrats even said they will remove adminship since they accept that there has been clear consensus for this? I do think those supporting the first recall have done the process no favours either but that's more of an aside.

  Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  In my opinion, there's just a lot of hiccups coming from way too many sources that have made this process messy. In an ideal world, I'd like the third RFC on Village Pump amended to my wording choice too. But unlike the ideal world, Wikipedia often has "Everyone wants this discussion but nobody wants to start it" happening. While it was not my preferred 3rd RFC, I respect Barkeep for starting the RFC when he did. And for better or worse, nobody else amended it or tried to establish a need for 4th RFC after that.

  A running theme I am noticing in a lot of this thread is people were personally not aware of this process. I don't think consensus can wait for everyone like that. That way, we keep relitigating things over and over in the name of WP:CCC.

  I completely agree that Recall should not be considered unchangably set in stone, and there's been more messiness during the process than any of us would like. I just also believe that the central idea still has value (even if many details differed from my preference). And I hope community members attempt to fix the process in whatever direction they prefer, instead of shuttering the entire process prematurely. Soni (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think many people (myself included) were waiting for the talk page discussions to reach a settled proposed text before starting a clear and final "do you want this?" RfC, but this was cut off by BK's RfC. – Joe (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• So as the person who closed the phase I discussion (that found consensus to develop some form of recall procedure) and followed everything since with increasing exasperation, I will just say that this is a shining example of how not to build consensus for a new process. The discussions were convoluted, bureaucratic and under-advertised at every step of the way. At no point was the community clearly asked "do you want to adopt <specific proposal> as a policy?" and yet, now we apparently have a new policy with a specific procedure. I hope we can draw a line under it and move forward with normal, open, consensus-based improvements to the new process. – Joe (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Under advertised? They were on CENT, in the admin newsletter, at the pump, and on a watchlist notice. And the third RFC was the point at which the community was asked "so you want this as a policy." That third RFC was at the pump, on CENT, and in the admin newsletter. Can we not spread misinformation about "under-advertised"? What more advertisement could we possibly have done? Come on. Levivich (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  And the third RFC was the point at which the community was asked "so you want this as a policy" – it should have been, but the question actually posed was not "do you want this as a policy?" but the utterly bizarre "is there already a consensus for this?". This is to my knowledge the first time we've ever used an RfC to (re)close another RfC and the result was predictably chaotic. Most people did not really understand what was being asked and those that did understandably didn't take time to read the sprawling preceding discussions to understand why the consensus was under question. And now somehow we have a "policy" out of this mess. That by the way is what I mean by under-advertised (not unadvertised): these discussions were mentioned, but the questions were posed in such a weird, orthogonal way that many people did not understand that the result would be a new administrator recall policy. – Joe (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's possible to make any major change to Wikipedia without people complaining that it was underadvertised. Fair enough to call the discussions convoluted and bureaucratic, but they certainly weren't hidden. -- asilvering (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  the third RFC was the point at which the community was asked "so you want this as a policy." Wasn't the third RFC a close challenge type RFC rather than a fresh polling of consensus? I thought it was a close challenge type RFC, so I did not participate in it. I feel like in a close challenge type RFC I am supposed to read the old RFC and make a judgment about whether the closer got it right or not, and there is no opportunity to inject my own opinion about the issues at hand. The exact third RFC question was Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Closer here. The way I viewed it was neither as a "do we want this" RfC or a close challenge RfC, but a "do we need another RfC" RfC. Personally, I would not be surprised if, after choosing to not participate in a "do we need another RfC" RfC in favour of waiting for the next RfC, the noes prevail and we don't have another RfC. RfC RfC RfC RfC RfC. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW as someone who views the third/final RfC in a, I think, similar way to Novem Linguae I can accept that by not participating in the RfC I risked the outcome being what it was and so it's not something I can really complain about although I do feel it's fine to comment on how I feel the process has been a mess.

  My view is undoubtedly affected by the fact I did and do support a recall process so that was also part of the reason I didn't care. Also I had read it again perhaps a week or two before closing so I did recognise that despite my misgivings, it was looking like this could be interpreted as a final RfC resulting in implementation. (I did see the suggestion by the Barkeep it could be closed, but I felt it had been too long for it to be a good idea especially with the level of support.) So I can understand why those for which neither of these apply might be much more unsettled by what happened with the third/final RfC.

  One thing I didn't maybe make clear in my lengthy above statement. My initial and main concern was that we'd actually get a non consensus or even consensus against and then opponents will say well that's it let's end this no point going further, and supporters would say that's not fair the RfC was partly based on an incomplete still be worked on draft.

  While this wasn't what happened part of my concerns IMO still plays out but in a different way. Given how messy this has been, there is a risky it's all going to just fall through and recall will be destined to be something that became 'tried that, never again'. Or alternatively as a I highlighted above, when an admin recalled actually opposes the process it's all going to break apart and either end up at arbcom or with some nasty mess if they aren't de-admined due to uncertainty by bureaucrats.

  However you can also say I'm part of the problem, I supported recalls in the first RfC but didn't care enough to actual helped draft a procedure or anything like that. And while part of the reason is because I don't care that much, I recognise that if we don't have a good procedure it's more likely to fall apart because others especially potentially affected admins will care.

  Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm thinking about proposing some changes in light of what's going down at Graham's petition. First of all, 30 days is just way too long. Should be shortened to 10, maybe 7 or 14 days. Second, maybe there should be some 'crat ability to implement a SNOW close for especially spurious petitions. Anyone have thoughts on that? Probably going to propose those at the village pump later today. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • There is a related thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Avoiding_a_long_month_of_drama. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

    If it's going to be retained - and at this early stage I see no benefit to it at all - then it needs to work significantly better. GiantSnowman 19:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• It passed because of the structure of the discussion – which was "do you want a recall policy" rather than "do you want this recall policy". Discussion of the particulars was then dragged out for months so that only the few most dedicated people stuck the course.
  I predict it'll be revoked in 6-12 months. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Odder behavior at AfD

For those not following AfD closely, a look at the participants the AfD for Peanut (squirrel) would be instructive. Qwirkle (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, this is your third attempt at posting this topic here - in none of them do you link to the AFD in question. I'll do that for you - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peanut (squirrel).

Secondly, you're going to have to help us out her buddy - who is 'odd' and why? What action needs to be taken?

Please answer carefully, lest this topic gets closed down again. GiantSnowman 20:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Are we seeing a lot of people using ChatGPT in AfD lately or something? Simonm223 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I will admit that "a single squirrel getting killed in upstate New York becomes a last minute campaign issue for Trumpers" was not on my utter batshit bingo card, but without specifics as to what admin action is needed, I doubt this will go anywhere, I'm not gonna read all that to try and parse it out. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the... all that... sufficiently it kind of looks like ChatGPT may be being deployed by a bunch of sock / meat puppets or canvassed editors in order to flood AfD and create the artificial perspective of a snow close on what is, honestly, an article of very marginal notability per WP:10YT but a lot of short-term utility for mobilizing weirdos in the upcoming US election. Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The AfD has been closed as Keep. Colbmizer, a four-year old account who posted there (in a way I have no complaint about) is definitely altogether behaving in an... hmmm... unusual way. All their 15 edits except two from 2022 concern Peanut the squirrel. I have reverted their additions to Pine City, New York (all about Peanut) and warned them about (twice) adding, wait for it, Category:People from Chemung County, New York to Peanut (squirrel). Bishonen | tålk 21:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC).

• It shouldn't have been a snow close, the keep arguments are just ridiculous. If we claim AfD is not a vote, how can any weight be given to keep arguments consisting solely of comments such as "Justice for peanut. #SquirrelLivesMatter" and "May well get more write-in votes for president at this point than some third-party candidates." WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT are apparently meaningless now. AusLondonder (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  The ten-year test doesn't apply to standard notability. Notability is explicitly not temporary. There is certainly significant coverage. I suppose one could argue in the spirit of BIO1E, though a squirrel wouldn't usually be considered a "person". A lot of !votes on both sides were very weak. C F A 💬 23:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• The point is that primary sources are irrelevant to notability, and all the news reports are necessarily primary sources: they date from the time of the event that they are reporting. (See [17] for a good explanation.) We need secondary sources, which are written later and rely on the primary sources. This isn't some extraordinary event, such as the September 11 attacks, nor a routine event of a sort that always gets covered in secondary sources, such as today's election. Will this make it into secondary sources? WP:BALL says we mustn't speculate. BIO1E succeeds in deleting articles about individuals who aren't notable because they don't get any secondary-source coverage, since everything dates from a single point in time when the person was active; it wouldn't apply to someone, say, who was the focus of secondary coverage long after his death. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Right. A subject has to be either supported directly by good secondary sources, or so blindingly, obviously momentous that we can safely bet it will be, barring the sun exploding or such.

  Dead squirrel, not so much.

  More importantly here we have an AfD which was almost completely populated by people who literally aren’t here to build an encyclopedia. One can argue the merits of cryptocurrency, and some people argue the merits of Trump, but Wiki isn’t supposed to be a megaphone for fans of either, and that is exactly the point of that AfD. (Well, I suppose there were some squirrophiles and squirrerasts, too, but let’s leave that well enough alone.) If you take out the socks, meat puppets, and canvased newbies, that bloated AfD mess could be buried in a shoebox.

  Instead, we have the damned squirrel up on the Dead o’ the Day, where Quincy Jones should be. Qwirkle (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

CFA, I'm a little confused at your linking of § Notability is not temporary, given that the next section goes over how Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. 10YT is in an essay, so who knows how many people care about what's written in there, but WP:NOTNEWS explicitly applies to all content on Wikipedia (it notes that WP:ROUTINE details its application wrt. events, but routine news coverage is clearly indicated as also applying to announcements, [...] sports, or celebrities. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism prevention of major political candidate BLPs

Kicking off this thread as a question of whether we have policies in place to try to prevent vandalism of major political candidates ahead of a major election?

There was some major vandalism at Tim Walz, the vice presidential candidate for the Democratic party, over the past 4 days and the page is just semi-protected, which wasn't enough to prevent the vandalism that happened, which included page blanking and moving around of the page.

I feel like given the magnitude of some elections, a policy of preventative ECP under WP:AMPOL or the likes for the major candidates BLPs feels warranted to prevent random accounts from being able to disrupt pages like these, especially a day before an election. I feel like this is the kind of vandalism that could make national news.

Might be something for an RfC maybe? Raladic (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like major candidates should've been ECP'd ages ago. Also, trust me, that won't prevent vandalism, just slow it down. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Move protection seems to be a lot less contentious than edit protection, probably since very prominent people almost never need to have their articles moved. I've just move-protected Walz and his opponent Vance; Harris and Trump were already move-protected, or I would have done the same with them. Vance, Harris, and Trump were already at ECP, and apparently ECP requires a demonstration that semiprotection is ineffective (I've literally never imposed ECP before, so I'm not sure), so this incident tells me that it's warranted. I've imposed ECP on this article, but if I shouldn't have, anyone's free to revert to semiprotection. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) My reading of the ECP section of the protection policy (specifically the § Contentious topics subsection) is that for CTOPs, even those without a ECR, ECP may be applied at an admin's individual discretion even without semi having being proven ineffective. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought maybe that was the case, but arbitration enforcement is always a really tricky matter, and I don't want anyone claiming that I've made a huge mistake and starting one of these new admin-recall things against me, just because I was trying to help. Better to claim it as a normal protection and say "anyone can revert this". Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as "major political candidate" and "major candidate", I don't see how an RFC could nail down a definition. It's easy to define "major" for any given country, but how are you going to decide which kinds of positions are "major", or which countries are "major"? Presidential elections in Germany or Ireland probably aren't "major" because the president doesn't have much power, but presidential elections in Brazil probably are. Even if we limit our scope to anglophone countries, I really don't think we ought to impose the same standard on candidates for President of Liberia or Prime Minister of Fiji, simply because the countries aren't large, and their leaders' articles don't get a lot of vandalism because the countries are poorer (and thus have fewer people with Internet access) and have larger percentages of residents who don't speak English. Better to go without a worldwide standard and instead go with case-by-case protection, unless we're in an AMPOL situation, where a single country is so contentious that it gets its own standards for protection. Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Resignation of Firefly; effective Dec 31, 2024

I am resigning from the Arbitration Committee, effective December 31, 2024. I am announcing my resignation now in order to allow the election of someone to complete the second year of my term through the upcoming election process.

It's painfully obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain that I've not had anywhere near the time I need to be an effective contributor (or even an ineffective one...!) in the latter half of this year. Long story short I picked up new responsibilities at work in the middle of the year, and while I thought it wouldn't have much of an impact on free time, it absolutely did on free energy.

I considered standing down before this point, but (a) we were close enough to ACE that I thought it best to align things, and (b) I always had just enough hope that next couple of weeks it'll be better and yet it never was. I apologise unreservedly for not being able to contribute effectively recently, and therefore live up to the expectations the community places on Arbitrators.

As I have said on-list, for the avoidance of doubt when the time comes I shall relinquish both CU and OS as I am unlikely to have the time to meet the activity requirements and don't want to waste ArbCom's time prodding me. I can always pick up CU again if (hopefully when!) I return to meaningful activity. firefly ( t · c ) 21:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Resignation of Firefly; effective Dec 31, 2024

Stop @MrOllie

Hello. Previously, I had a discussion with @MrOllie regarding adding the word "analysis" to the accounting article, but it was inconclusive. Recently, in a new and different effort, I added content about non-financial reports in accounting to the article. However, the mentioned user reverted my edit, claiming that we had already discussed this topic. This is despite the fact that our prior discussion was about the analytical aspect of accounting, which is unrelated to non-financial reports in accounting. It appears that this user, without paying any attention to the depth of the edits, immediately reverts them without considering the substance of the content and seems solely focused on undoing edits. Please take the necessary administrative actions to stop this behavior. It’s worth mentioning that ihat s added to the article of accounting about non-financial side of accounting i supported by Wikipedia, and there are articles on Wikipedia such as "Non-Financial Reporting" or "Social Accounting" that confirm this. Thank you.

Wikinegarr (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wikinegarr, this noticeboard is not for content disputes and MrOllie's behaviour isn't really anything worth acting on in an administrative capacity. Asking for a third opinion or seeking other forms of dispute resolution may be helpful as alternative options. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not merely based on content disagreement; it concerns the erratic and improper behavior of this user. This user claims that the topic has been discussed before, whereas it has not. This indicates that they are reverting edits without reviewing them properly. Wikinegarr (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, technically the noticeboard you'd want is WP:ANI instead of WP:AN, because this one is for matters of general interest to admins. Secondly, please don't call people "erratic" and assume good faith. Thirdly, use diffs to support your accusations. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You said that this issue has already been discussed. Send the discussion link. Wikinegarr (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wikinegarr: Was that comment directed at me? If so, I'm confused about what you meant. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No Wikinegarr (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about the consensus here? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

See the last go-round at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive365#Deletion without reason, as well as Talk:Accounting/Archive_2#Lead_sentence. Despite the summary above, I was not the only user involved that time (nor was the discussion "inconclusive"), nor am I the only person who has taken issue with their edit this time.

Last time around the discussion featured obvious use of LLMs and then very difficult to believe denials of that fact, as well as false claims that I actually supported their edits. When I denied that I did support them, Wikinegarr doubled down and claimed I had changed the talk page, which obviously never happened. No diffs were provided.

Wikinegarr was formerly blocked, but was subsequently unblocked. Their sock account Wikijournalistt (talk · contribs) remains blocked for disruption - other edits on that account may be of interest.

I think a WP:BOOMERANG / WP:CIR block is in order here. MrOllie (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That discussion is completely unrelated to this topi that we are talking about. Wikinegarr (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You said that this issue has already been discussed. Send the discussion link Wikinegarr (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this your old account? M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't change the topic of discussion. If you want to talk about a new topic, talk about it somewhere else. Awnser what i asked. Wikinegarr (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Due to the concerns about the other account and the history of disruptive editing from reading those previous threads, I have decided to block. Please note that indefinite does not mean infinite, you just have to write an unblock request and convince an uninvolved administrator that will you will not repeat such behaviour. But at this point in time, your behaviour is causing a massive time sink. A certain level of competence is required. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If anyone thinks I was too harsh here, feel free to unblock without asking me. I'm going to head out for a bit. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Nah, it's perfectly reasonable considering this is an extremely obvious sock. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Creation of redirect

Hello, please make a redirect for the following Unicode characters:

Redirect 🔴🧦 to Boston Red Sox

This would be a useful redirect, which can include, in its category shell:

#REDIRECT [[Boston Red Sox]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from other dab}}
}}

𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Yovt. I'm not an admin, but I do not think that this would be a useful redirect and R from other disambiguation would not be the correct Rcat. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Who's going to enter this character combination? A single character is always useful — as a redirect to its Unicode block, if nothing else — but most combinations are highly implausible. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 25 for a discussion of the 🎈 release redirect. This seems even less plausible, since it's two separate emoji characters, not just one. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

If I saw this request at WP:AFC/R, I would decline it as implausible and unhelpful. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser privileges for 2024 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards EPIC (talk · contribs), Mykola7 (talk · contribs), and Johannnes89 (talk · contribs), solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2024 Arbitration Committee election. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Temporary checkuser privileges for 2024 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers

Forthcoming WMF disclosure of users' private information

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought here yet, but there is a situation at the WMF Village Pump that is very close to boiling over. For those who haven't been following the story, Asian News International in India is suing the WikiMedia Foundation and three anonymous editors in a defamation suit over the content of its article. In at least one case, an editor is being sued for reverting the unexplained removal of sourced content. The WikiMedia Foundation is now being ordered to deliver the private information of these three editors to the court. Discussion is taking place in regard to a community response and the potential fallout if the WikiMedia Foundation makes a decision to do so. The posts can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 8#The Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation situation and lower down at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Contacted by one of the editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost has some coverage of this issue with WMF. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's very disappointing but I don't see what administrators, specifically, are supposed to do about it? – Joe (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Any interested editor can check out the most recent development at Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. Cullen328 (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)♤

Arbitration motion regarding Marine 69-71

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 18:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Marine 69-71

Administrator recall: reworkshop open

You are invited to refine and workshop proposals to modify the recall process at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop. After the reworkshop is closed, the resulting proposals will be voted on at an RfC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Request Admin Close

There is a merge discussion taking place at Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Requested move 3 November 2024 Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. I was about to close it myself, but controversial subjects should have an admin close and I think Wikipedia and antisemitism would probably be seen as suitably controversial. Would an admin here be kind enough to close that discussion? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There is also an AfD now, which I would argue is more appropriate since the action being considered is more of of a deletion in spirit / in effect (discussed a bit here). To me the merge was starting to look like a backdoor deletion without AfD's policy rigor. The initial proposer of the merge seemed on board with holding an AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Background. The proposer closed the Merge discussion on Oct 31st, saying they'd undo Merge if anyone objected and propose AfD. I requested that the Merge be kept open and more time be given for improvements. On Oct 31, the proposer agreed and stated in the edit summary: "Unclosing discussion. I will AfD the article in 4 days." Those four days would end tomorrow, Monday, at 22:38 pm Eastern. Fwiw, the original merge discussion had most comments before Oct 31. Since that time, there have been ~ 145 edits by 12 users, including substantive additions based on added IMO reliable sources. Also, a different editor proposed an AfD today, prior to closing the Merge. Thanks to @Sirfurboy and @XDanielx for addressing this. ProfGray (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Might it be wise to cross-post this at WP:RFCLOSE? You might be able to better alert the class of editors that likes to make uninvolved closes if you post there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I was specifically looking for an admin close, because the out of process AfD needs fixing too, but I see from WP:MERGE that you are correct. Admin closes are still requested there. I have posted there now, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not really out of process because one possible outcome of a deletion discussion is to merge, so there is no contradiction. The mistake here, if one can call it that, was not taking it to AfD in the first place. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Possibly a mistake, but we are where we are. There is a merge in which 25+ editors have expressed an opinion. Those opinions should be considered, and that consideration should happen before any other discussions. Consider the case that the merge has a very clear consensus for x, but AfD finds against x and closes as y instead, with a different set of editors. Then all those opinions for x have been ignored. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I entirely agree that the merge discussion should be closed before the AfD. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

A merge wouldn't really make sense any more, as the proposed destination already has related content now, and can't reasonably fit any more since it's WP:TOOBIG. So there's no merge to be done, just a possible deletion. Perhaps the AfD closer should read the merge discussion and consider any point that might still be relevant. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If the merge is completed and the merge closes as consensus to merge, then all that remains is to make the redirect. It is not a deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• I wish I had seen this discussion before I closed this AFD discussion at the requrest of Sirfurboy🏄. More discussion on my closure occurred on my User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Liz. Then please accept my apologies. Although in the AfD where I requested procedural close I did say I'll post to AN and see if we can get an admin to close the merge. There remains no doubt that there was no actual deletion rationale in the AfD and that it was opened one week into an existing merge discussion. Please feel free to self revert your close and relist if you think the close was an error, but I don't see how I could participate in that AfD unless the merge is closed first. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I actually don't think I'll revert the closure. I'm not sure if this discussion here would have changed my closure but I would have liked to have seen this first. Ultimately, this was/is a messy situation and I think closing this AFD was an effort to simplify what was going on. It doesn't make any sense to have two competing discussions going on at the same time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Closure requests is the correct place to request a close for this I think. You can leave in your comment there that you prefer an admin to close it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already done so, following the comment from Red tailed hawk. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What do I do about a username that includes contact information

Call_Center_Kredit_Digital_Phone-082188251238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single line ad. I'd like to do something to remove the phone number, but don't know who to approach about it, or if anything can be done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Possibly WP:OVERSIGHT? 331dot (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You'd be hard pressed to show that a call centre's number is suppressible personal information. Cabayi (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your username block. Perhaps you could revdel the log under RD5? Valid deletion under deletion policy, executed using RevisionDelete, and as you say, it's a spammy username. But maybe that's going too far with RevDel, especially since you've posted about it here too? Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it does not meet the threshold for supression. It possibly does meet WP:RD3 but getting rid of it with revdel at this point is kind of closing the barn door after the horse already got out. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I just suppress-blocked because while we do not particularly care about the call center's privacy, we have no way of knowing that this isn't a personal number being used for harassment. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess you have a point that we don't know if we don't actually call it, which I'm certainly not going to do. The number is still visible here and on their talk page, if it's being supressed it seems like those need to go as well. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Naturally, but it felt not quite as urgent to remove. Since we're on the fence here, I looked it up, and the results suggest that this is in fact a call center, so I have unsuppressed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I posted the number here because, based on the now-deleted user page, it was clearly commercial, and I only wanted to reduce future exposure, not necessarily eliminate it from all records. In retrospect, doing nothing is probably the best course, as that username alone is a pretty ineffective ad, so who really cares? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a widespread assumption on Wikipedia that any mention of a product (such as a call centre) is promotional. That is obviously not true, so doing nothing beyond what you have already done is probably the best course of action, as often. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

To me, it seems the first step should have been to search for the phone number on Google. Animal lover |666| 21:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the first step I usually take if it's a problematic username. As others have mentioned above, posting at AN is about the worst thing that can be done - contact OS or an OSer directly and keep it as much as possible out of the logs (including places like AIV or UAA). Primefac (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's most likely this is just spam, which we get a lot of. It would be nice if we could rename it as part of clean up. Secretlondon (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Clean up without renaming, and the disruptive username eventually fades into obscurity (posint here makes it take longer, but it will still happen). Rename the user, and the user can return eventually with the same name, causing twice as much disruption. Animal lover |666| 11:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

User Report: Niasoh - Repeated Vandalism and Harassment

= User Report: Niasoh== NoorBD (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Right off the bat, I see that you have been edit warring, breaking the 3 revert rule on the first article you edited. Please read WP:Vandalism and understand what is and is not vandalism before you start throwing accusations around. Donald Albury 12:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

OP’s Talk Page should set any mop up nicely for a WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE WP:BOOMERANG. Not sure which. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 14:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I went with DE, but yes all would apply. NoorBD is now INDEFfed. Star Mississippi 17:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Extreme Personal Attacks

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

This IP addresses is personally attacking me in very extreme way. They are calling me Khalistani, (a supporter of a militant movement) and are accusing me of being an "anti-Indian" user. They are also in a very subtly manner suggesting a legal action against WMF, they admit to word it in such a way in order to avoid WP:NLT. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 17:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for making personal attacks and legal threats. Valereee (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This says (I think) these needs to be longer [[18]]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

TPA revoked for making what I interpreted as legal threats, despite their clumsy attempt to obfuscate it as expert advice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; "stop this or you'll get sued" is a legal threat no matter how you phrase it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am topic banned for weapons and Japan which are two topics I am interested in and have considerable knowledge and sources, and which I enjoy writing about. I did make a ton of mistakes when new and caught the eye of a particular admin who rightly took me to task.

Reason for topic ban: As my editing skill increased, so did that admins attention on me. We had many content disputes because they did not carefully review the sources. My user talk page has many examples of this if you need it. There were many more like it.

This admin made countless assertions that material wasn’t in particular sources (when it was clearly was in those sources). This caused borderline reference spamming but the false assertions of failed verification were coming even faster the plethora of verifiable sources, despite every source stating it. Eventually they would say that they read a source, but this was typically only long after numerous allegations of something not being in that source and just as many deletions of all of material it referenced. Working with that person proved untenable. I’m sorry I don’t have all of the links or diffs to post here now. But they exist somewhere!

I had a large draft I was reorganizing per that editors request/demands. I was trying to work with him. The admins valid observation was that the draft was too big and covered too many topics. (In hindsight, I may have built a Frankenstein).

I moved masses of material from my draft into many main pages including some new main pages. My draft reorganization effort was ongoing. Only 1.5 hours after my last edit, this admin complained at Mfd that I was refusing to reduce the size of the draft by narrowing the topics AND that it was WP:STALE. But the assertions were blatantly untrue. They came after yet another heated content/source incident. These exchanges are perfect examples of the admin behavior being described. Nevertheless, the involved admin had the draft permanently removed without any review of the merits of the reasoning. Mfd did not check to see whether anyone was being accurate or truthful That Mfd was appealed and voted for. I lost as only a rare few reviewed the merits. Those that did, verified my version of events (I think). Most participants did not and review merits nor any of the diffs showing the moves and decreasing size nor of the recent edits. If they had, the untruth of the admin would have been exposed. But, the WP:VOTE upheld it. There was a weather event here and family death during that process and I had no access to WP.

This same admin then created his own version of the page with much of the same the content he had deleted from my sandbox. It’s what remains on the main page right now. Their version of that article is not remotely close to a complete picture of the subject per the sources. Yet they fully understood the scope the subject encompassed when they were reviewing at what I had edited in my sandbox. The current page is a small fraction of this subjects scope content that was deleted.

I restored the draft to my sandbox to cut it up in more parts and was eventually topic banned. I also made some edits and talk comments on the newly created subject page created by that administrator in violation of the TBAN.

It took a bit for that rule to sink in because it seemed so unfair. Time has passed and I request the ban be lifted but without giving me or anyone else the benefit of doubt. I’d like some assistance in finding the post-MFd (appeal?) as there is a diff that shows the draft revisions from before material was removed up to the point of deletion. That diff would prove quantitatively when, whether and how much the sandbox draft content had been reduced. If the diff was clicked there would be no need to accept my assertion nor the other editors admission that it was in fact being condensed despite his MFd claim that it was not. My behavior(s) sprang from that abuse from involved admin over content, and then his achieved goal in making his own page with that material.

I reacted badly and ignored or broke rules in reaction. There’s no excuse or defense. It’s an explanation that I hope is understood.

I’d appreciate any other links that can be found and for any decision to be made on the merits I put forth. However, that might be a TLDR situation. In the past those upholding the deletion and my ban did not look closely and took untrue words at face-value.

After Mfd, the involved admin came onto my talk page and admitted that despite his mfd claim, I had in fact, been reducing the size of my draft and the secondly that it was not “Stale”. Those are the very reasons he had the draft nominated to be deleted. He admitted he knew the concerns that he used to get my draft deleted and me eventually topic-banned were false. Did that admin work to restore my draft or have my topic ban removed? We’ll, I wouldn’t be here asking now if he had! A large part of my talk page is interaction with or about that admin. Feel free to look and my talk page or for additional links and diffs.

If you read nothing else, please read the admins quotes below!

Obviously draft was being edited yet the reason provided was no improvements and being stale. When the assertion were made the assertions were already know to be untrue. This is not disputable.

"MfD debate: At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat “I have nominated your stale userpage for deletion. Regards”

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/OpRedHat "The user has not condensed the material."

Compare my talk page comments from the very same admin who nominated it at MFD (and remember it was a sandbox draft). If it met the main page article requirements it would have been in the main space not my sandbox!

"Yes, of course you were tinkering with the draft." “Possibly I should have explained myself more clearly. The implied additional clause in 'The user has not condensed the material" is 'to produce an article that meets the requirements of WP:ARTICLE' etc.

Yes, I responded poorly. I responded by ignoring MFD and a ban because it was based on the above assertions of that involved admin that were admittedly false.

I want to edit topics covering weapons and Japan and further I’d prefer a block on the involved admin from interacting with me in the future. Johnvr4 (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not alert the other editor because I didn’t mention his name. I want nothing else to do with them. Johnvr4 (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC) (fixed a few typos)Johnvr4 (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• For the reference of anyone else who tries to make sense of this appeal, the topic ban was imposed here. I'd also note that if you are asking for an interaction ban with another editor, you need to alert them whether or not you mention their name. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Only 2 mainspace edits in more than 1 year. In fact, your appeal reflects your battleground mentality and justifies the topic ban. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Question Would Johnvr4's edits to Midget submarine violate the topic ban on weapons, broadly construed? It's entirely unclear to me if a midget submarine is itself a weapon or if it is a container of weapons. And either way, if that would be covered. Note that Johnvr4's last edits to that article were more than a year ago. --Yamla (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • It's certainly toeing close to the line. It's also close to the line of the "Japan" topic ban, given that his edits there primarily relate to the GIMIK project which (according to the sources he added) was intended to infiltrate Japanese-occupied Korea and then Japan itself during WWII in preparation for an American invasion of Japan. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    • (Also within the last fifty articlespace edits are a series of seven to Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote, which seems to be clearly within the scope of a TBAN on Japan broadly construed. It was back in December 2021, but Johnvr4 has made only 20 mainspace edits since then) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

      To help answer the question, talk pages and my sand boxes are where most of my most recent editing is contained, in a draft I was working on, and will need to come back to. In sandbox drafts, there’s also mention of a notable crashed training TB-25 which could be considered a weapon if it wasn’t a trainer or had guns or bombs. It didn’t. It had a famous general.

      If these examples are even borderline TBAN violations then I am clearly misunderstanding the broad scope of this ban.

      An unarmed OSS semi-submersible for Korea (and that was never deployed) is nether a weapon nor about Japan and the fact that someone once wrongly assumed it was a Japanese vessel is not a qualifying factor.

      Similarly, a statement falsely attributed to a Japanese historical figure but in fact had nothing to do with anything he said is not related to Japan.

      If broadly construed to be "related" to Japan is because it was uttered in response to the Pearl Harbor attack then in my view, that is way too broadly construed. If that is considered a violation, then I beg for removal of the TBANs which I believe I am compliant with.

      I am considering an article on a scientific bird study by the Smithsonian and WHO and others. There is an allegation that the program was secretly implemented for a biological warfare program. Perhaps it was. the allegation has been officially denied. I don’t want to have to tip toe around a subject (Toyota cars for example) or wonder if some obscure relationship might trigger a TBAN violation. I really don’t want to have to constantly worry or be so constrained by it. It's difficult to work like that even more so because of how it happened in the first place. Due to a required source on the subject, a 2023 book by Ed Regis, I can not cover much of the subject and it would certainly eventually trigger the TBAN if I tried and made a mistake. Just mentioning that potential source reference to a different editor who is also interested in the subject might be considered a TBAN violation. So I'm limiting my participation in main page editing until other admin can under what is my topic ban is about and why I believe (with very convincing evidence) that it's application (not to mention the admins deletion of the sandbox draft).

• • • Let's please be reasonable. These are not controversial edits nor are they crossing any TBAN red lines. I am here to request that I don’t need to watch that line so closely so I can continue editing on subjects I enjoy.

      I also apologize for the typos, this is from a phone and spellcheck is going haywire on grammar. I’ll try to fix them without disruption. Thank you for the missing link(s).

      I am flexible on the interaction block. A look at our past interactions should help to determine necessity of blocking interaction. Thank you for the consideration.16:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Johnvr4 (talk)

    • some typos addressed Johnvr4 (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The initial appeal is textbook WP:NOTTHEM, with barely anything addressing Johnvr4's own behaviour or why we should lift the TBAN beyond that they want to edit articles covered by the TBAN. Johnvr4's response to my raising their edits on Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote also does not give me confidence that we should loosen their restrictions. A quotation attributed to a Japanese admiral about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour is clearly related to Japan broadly construed, but Johnvr4's position is apparently 1. it's not and 2. if it is, we should lift the TBAN because they have violated it? If they cannot understand the connection between that article and Japan, I have absolutely no confidence that they are capable of understanding and avoiding the issues which led to the TBAN in the first place. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't intend to comment on every contribution. I do not intend to present a wall of further arguments.

  I very much appreciate ALL contributions to this request and want to expressly thank you personally for helping make sense of my initial submission and for providing useful links.

  Regarding the Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote, there is no legitimate attribution to any Japanese General that is valid, including that expressed in that page's references and title (period). The falsehood, or more accurately, the Myth about Folklore has verifiable coverage in many sources but in the face of the original quote, they are factually dubious and can no longer be relied on for accuracy or verification. The quote ("...and also don’t forget, sometimes you can strike a giant who is dozing momentarily, when the giant is awakened, look out.") is from an American about Giants. The comment came in the aftermath of something from Japan and specifically one day after. Now, if you want to listen to the entire Radio show, and present each of the times it does or does not mention Japan, you can. It could be relevant to a violation complaint or not. The title of that page itself is an issue because it falsely ties this quote to Japan or the Japanese. It is clearly a myth and a false one at that is not related to Yamamoto.

  I do not believe the WP:BANX tag for that edit was required or I else would have used it in my edit summary. I would think WP:OR would be your complaint there as no other source anywhere that ties these two subjects or offers anything verifiable. Verification is why I linked the original source.

  We can agree there is an important and valid concern about that page (and title) and sources etc. But I cannot raise the issue nor participate in important discussion because of the TBan in combination with a widespread mistaken belief of it being Japan-esqe.

  I can see that you are adamant and serious about your concern of these edits as a TBAN violation, which I do not want to take lightly even though I wholeheartedly disagree with it. I think there is a separate place to raise that concern and I agree to participate in that process, should you bring it or any of my other edits you may have concern with to that forum.

  To clarify, any concern or concerns being raised, It was me and only me who made the edits that previously violated the TBAN. As stated above, I did that. I reacted badly and I own that behavior (period).

  What I was reacting to is spelled out in diffs and links. No one has to believe me to sort it out. It's there, laid bare for all. I can, in fact, understand why NotThem concerns are being put forth by those who glance at the surface of the matter. The NotThem concern requires the other parties actions to be free from the valid policy concerns I raised and that simply is not the case per the evidence available to all in links, and diffs, and concerns previously raised in discussion and elsewhere. Complaining that I was being disruptive while they were deleting any text or sources that disputed their POV was the easiest way to deal with my concerns about them and their editing and which eventually led to my behavior. The TBAN for my behavior was a consequence of that.

  I am not claiming innocence, but the facts edits, diffs, sources and everything else should give anyone pause before repeating the NOTTHEM (or any other concerns) that first raised by the very same admins involved in the behavior I've described and have strong evidence that confirms it at the links you've provided us (again thank you for that).

  One super-easy test for this is to ask yourself, "Did the Red Hat Operation last for Six months, or did it last for Thirty years"?

  After simple verification answers that question to your satisfaction, then it's just a very obvious a POV issue.

  The (Johnvr4 sandbox4?) version that the other admin was successfully able to remove from WP stated that this Operation lasted for 30 years with exhaustive details and reliable sources with a plethora of detail about all three parts of the operation. The 30-plus-year scope of the Operations was verifiable by that admin and all other participants in the reliable sources that cited it and that version may still visible to admins that can still access it (I can't). 267th Chemical Company for example, uses a few of those sources but they are more than enough for any competent editor to verify super-easily that the subject Red Hat mission extended from the mid-1960s deployment up to the 2001 destruction of the Red Hat component agents. No one can argue otherwise. ...Except the other Admin and those involved with them in that effort.

  The other admin stated numerous times their goal of an Operation Red Hat article that only covers (their words) "the core" six-month Red Hat redeployment occurring in 1971. there are many example of this in the links you provided above. The Red Hat Operation was initiated around 1965 and was already going on years before 1971 with the initial deployments and then continued right up to 2001. What you are claiming as strong examples of NOTTHEM, is, in fact. Them. One can verify that editors obvious POV in the version of the article Operation Red Hat they resurrected and in the process to delete the article's history and talk page as well. My ban was in part related to his action to insert his POV and to reinsert nonsense and bad sources into the main space which I had already corrected long ago.

  To alleviate POV concerns I raised (Diff:[19]], he had to reinsert material he deleted from my sandbox to avoid my obviously valid NPOV/PFORK complaint. His version now republished was never an improvement and is wholly incomplete. Someday (not soon), I may revisit that page if asked but the community has decided they want his POV version over that which I had presented in the verifiable sources I cited. In my view, the community can be stuck with his version. The community worked really had to get that version and they deserve it now and without improvement, for eternity! There was an alternative to doing that. There are quotes from that editor that contradict every other assertion that he's ever made about it made or expressed in any forum about the version I was redeveloping. Never, not even once did that admin find something not verifiable in my sandbox. Please note that the reasons the admin stated for the removal of my sandbox that he put forth at MFD and everywhere else were entirely his own fabrication and that he actually came back to my talk page afterwards to leave comments where he stated that of course what he had alleged in order to have my sandbox deleted wasn't entirely accurate and basically admitted deception which is precisely that which many others latched onto (specifically complaints stale, abandoned, not being reduced in size per his requests, Not-here Not-them etc.). Those efforts were not me. That, was THEM; plainly displayed. These are inescapable facts with diffs that can bare out false allegations-easily. Please consider facts with diffs and examples before alleging WP:NOTTHEM behavior and repeating unfounded opinions as alleged by others (without diff or links). Johnvr4 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:TLDR, your posts are way too long. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I know. I can't help it. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Then we're in WP:CIR territory, and you might find yourself facing even stronger sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Linking Trump with dictatorship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm concerned about @HM2021:'s recent edits at Donald Trump & Dictator. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely inappropriate. We can include sources to the comments Trump's made about that, but saying he is/will be one in Wikivoice is a complete violation. — Masem (t) 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Edits like this make me wonder what they've done in the past and should we be reviewing more then just today's edits. Moxy🍁 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I am an innocent editor and the edits I made in the past are nothing to do with politics. Just LEAVE ME ALONE. I won't touch those two articles again I promise. HM2021 (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are links to three of HM2021's edits here, two on Trumpty-Dumpty's page, the first and the second, quotes that "America is DEAD" in the edit summary and another on Dictator, reading "America is doomed".

The first Trump vandalism was made at 02:29, November 7, 2024 and the second, which was a revert of removal of the first Trump vandalism, was made at 02:32, November 7, 2024. The Dictator vandalism was made at the same time as the revert HM2021 made on Trumpty-Dumpty's page, at 02:32, November 7, 2024.

@User:HM2021, don't try to pull a trick over on the admins with the ol' "the edits I made in the past ... I won't touch those two articles again I promise" card, when it hasn't been even a half-hour since your disruption was done. What in the sam hill were you thinking? This probably should have gone to WP:DRAMABOARD instead. BarntToust 02:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to ANI. While judging these edits to be unacceptable, let's also acknowledge the election stress this week. If these three edits are part of a pattern, I could see advocating for a topic ban but if this was a momentary lapse in an otherwise okay editing career, I think a warning is sufficient. But again, this seems like a case for ANI, not AN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

haha, Liz! I think that's right. the editor probably got carried away. I was thinking the same thing about why GoodDay brought things here. eh, no matter anyways. BarntToust 11:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure request for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 28#Ivy Wolk

Would an admin please close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 28#Ivy Wolk? The consensus is obvious, but only an admin can implement it. Posted here because no admins watch WP:CR. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

no admins watch WP:CR a rather bold statement given there are over 600 people watching that page. Seems statistically unlikely. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I know plenty of admin who watch WP:CR, and I personally used to keep an eye on WP:DRV, but I took a break recently. Will try to help with backlog there when possible. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Can someone delete my Userpage User:Blidfried

thanks--Blidfried (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I've done this. If you have a request like this again please use {{U1}}. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect

I was trying to create ஃ (film) as a redirect for Aayutha Ezhuthu, as the lead of that article notes: "The film's title was taken from the name of a Tamil letter ஃ – three dots corresponding to the film's three different personalities from completely different strata of society." But was hit with a blacklist warning.

Can this be created as a redirect?

PS: Not sure why this is in the blacklist in the first place, would be great to know the reason. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Gotitbro, is the film actually called that anywhere, or is it just where the name comes from? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it is, the title is a direct transliteration of the letter after all, and from what I can tell the reason the letter isn't broadly used is due merely to technical reasons (in print and otherwise). See for example [20] and [21]. Gotitbro (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

As for the reason, the comment in the blacklist entry is "potentially confusing mixed-script titles." I can't tell you any more than that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Min968 unban request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

By request, I'm posting Min968's request for WP:UNBAN here. As a WP:CHECKUSER, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. Min968 was originally blocked as Ylogm (see below) and was de-facto banned under WP:3X. I'm also reposting a follow-up question and response. --Yamla (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I, Min968 (Ylogm), would like to request a reconsideration of my block. I now understand the importance of collaborating with other members and how crucial it is to work together to develop Wikipedia. I am an introverted person and not good at handling conflicts, which unfortunately led to a heated argument with @LlywelynII and subsequently being banned without being able to defend myself. I then used a sock account to continue editing, which was a sign of my helplessness and lack of knowledge on how to handle the situation. I acknowledge that it was wrong, and I am committed to permanently stopping using sock accounts and contributing positively, while also respecting the opinions of other members and collaborating with them to further develop Wikipedia. Blocks are not punitive. I believe I need to be given an opportunity to correct my mistakes, a chance to contribute to the community.

My 5-year plan if the ban is lifted:

1. Rewrite articles about the Ming emperors
2. Improve and write new articles related to the Ming dynasty (my main area of interest)
3. Enhance some content related to the history of Vietnam and Korea
4. Correct mistakes and develop projects related to Chinese eras (a project I have started and also where I have made mistakes and stumbled)

My behavior on Wikipedia:

1. Adhere to maintaining neutrality and not obstructing the project.
2. Interact with members in a polite and respectful manner. We are all anonymous, somewhere in this world, and we are all here with the common goal of developing Wikipedia. Sometimes there may be mistakes, but we need to maintain good intentions, keep a cool head, and respect each other. All members are human, even those who have made mistakes.
3. Follow all of Wikipedia's rules. However, I do not believe that all rules are useful. Instead, I will lean towards resolving issues through discussion.

Why I chose English Wikipedia and requested to be unblocked: I chose English Wikipedia simply because it is a large project, widely popular globally, and accessed and used by many people for information. I want to contribute and improve content related to Chinese history, specifically the Ming dynasty, and bring it to a wider readership around the world. Unfortunately, the content related to Chinese history is not well developed and lacks information. I myself have waited for almost 5 years to read articles about Ming emperors, but they have not improved during that time. Therefore, instead of waiting, I want to take action. Min968 (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason you are not appealing this block from the Ylogm account? That will definitely be asked when this appeal is taken to WP:AN. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

When I was blocked before, I didn't know what to do or how to explain things. Usually, I just create a new account to continue editing. When I created this account, I wanted to start fresh with a more positive attitude. And when I was banned on this account, I received positive and enthusiastic guidance from @Remsense, so I chose to stick with it instead of Ylogm. Min968 (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I spoke at greater length six months ago on their talk page, so I'll try to be briefer here. If anyone has any further questions for me, let me know.

Firstly, Ylogm has a track record of worthwhile constructive editing in a highly important topic area (early modern Chinese monarchs) that can particularly benefit from additional motivated contributors. In the time I've been here, Ylogm was the only consistent contributor to many of these articles. In itself, that does not justify being unbanned. However, when they say they have learned from their mistakes and want to continue editing and making contributions here, I do believe them. I support unbanning them.

Ylogm was originally INDEF'd for disruptive behavior, namely a lack of adequate communication while undoing edits and otherwise ignoring the editorial concerns of others on articles they were working on. To be clear, I do not think anyone but Ylogm did anything wrong here, but is worth noting that the original ANI report was very brief, and the volume of prior communication concerning their conduct was limited—if normally sufficient as fair warning. They did not seem to understand why they had been blocked, which is on them. They then made this situation much worse by socking for a prolonged period, and rightfully earned this community ban. However, I do believe this to be the result of previous negligence, and not malice: if one accepts that they did not understand the social context, their attempted contributions consistently show a clear intention to be constructive during this time.

I am not aware that anyone engaged in direct conversation with them about their conduct until March, when I made an attempt to reach out to them on their sock Min968, after initially coming to this conclusion. As they didn't seem to understand, I attempted to explain their situation one-on-one, and they were immediately receptive to this. Their reaction reinforced my belief, and I felt I should be an advocate for their case. Then and now, I would like for them to continue making substantial contributions, if they prove capable of doing so constructively. It shouldn't be surprising then that I was acutely frustrated when it became apparent they did not immediately stop socking following my initial black-and-white dialogue with them at this time—given I had made this an explicit condition of my advocacy for them. If this appeal is not successful, I think this will be the most compelling reason why.

Even so, after being told they would would have to wait six months before their ban would be reconsidered, I believed them when they said they would do so. Given the comparatively compressed timeline of events where an apparent total lack of understanding had to be rectified, I find it plausible that they were caught in the process of recognizing the full extent of their mistakes for the first time in March. That is a confusing situation coming after months of previous confusions. I can't imagine everyone will come away with this conclusion, but I can only be honest in saying I remain convinced of Ylogm's unalloyed good faith. Now that the previous contingencies have passed, I also believe that they adequately recognize the how and why of their mistakes, and will behave competently in accordance with site policy going forward. Remsense ‥ 论 23:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Support per Remsense. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Given the explicit support of Remsense, the moral support of LlywelynII, the constructive continued editing at Chinese Wikipedia, and the fact that they\ underlying issues were merely disruptive, not dangerous, I think it's fair to extend another chance. The one thing I would ask -- though my support is not conditional on it -- is that Min968 voluntarily agree to a one-account restriction from here on out, as I think it would be beneficial for all parties, including Min968. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support unban. We could definitely use this editor in the Ming dynasty space. Last year I stopped reporting their socks because the contributions were constructive. The request is accurate: no one is improving these articles. Let's allow Ylogm / Min968 to help. Folly Mox (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment As blocking admin of the Min968 sock (not the master), I'm staying neutral here. They absolutely had socked in the past, but if the community thinks that there's merit to allowing this user to participate again under the WP:STANDARDOFFER I'm fine with that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support unban It seems that this editor misunderstood several important aspects of Wikipedia editing when they first began, and that was probably exacerbated by lack of deep fluency in the English language at that time. I think that the editor has made great progress since then, and has indicated a genuine seriousness of purpose regarding improving articles about the Ming dynasty and a commitment to follow policies and guidelines. The only recommendation that I would make is that the editor also focus on the preceeding Yuan dynasty and following Qing dynasty to help place that Ming history into a broader context for students of Chinese history in the past 800 years. Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The difference here is that our Yuan and Qing articles have seen relatively more development and improvement by other editors; our Ming dynasty coverage is particularly weak, possibly the weakest of any dynastic period (haven't compared exhaustively: this is my impression).

As an aside, since periodisation by dynasty has been so universal in Chinese historiography, and the political situation tended to change dramatically between dynasties (with some exceptions), it is common for people to have subject area expertise in a single dynasty while remaining largely novices in chronologically adjacent dynasties. Folly Mox (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment Follow all of Wikipedia's rules. However, I do not believe that all rules are useful. Instead, I will lean towards resolving issues through discussion. I find that a pretty suboptimal declaration in an unban request; we don't pick and choose which policies are followed based on our personal opinions about their usefulness, especially in terms of "resolving issues". Grandpallama (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a good point. @Min968, I want to stress a distinction here: the rules that are there in policy are basically the result of tested best common practices, and while dogmatically adhering to their letter is counterproductive, that's not the same thing as "they're not useful". Remsense ‥ 论 18:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a translation issue. I'd posit that the intent behind this statement is valuing discussion over mere rules adherence to prevent conflict (otherwise, Instead is non sequitur, and Follow all... rules immediately disclaimed). I would be interested in hearing Min968's clarifications on this at their usertalk. Folly Mox (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Min968 has responded to this subthread on their talkpage in three diffs. Folly Mox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support UnBan The request seems reasonable and I don't see any malicious behavior in their past editing. If this proves to be a mistake, correcting it takes three clicks and about six seconds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support - See no reason against this request. Capitals00 (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Given the result above, would it be possible for an admin to undelete the articles created by Min968 accounts that were deleted per WP:G5? Remsense ‥ 论 21:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I undeleted two of them, but then I realized that the appear to be recreating the exact same article (most of their deleted contributions are blue now), so I'm inclined to let them do that rather than use admin tools. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Theparties unban request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Theparties (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 23prootie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

By request, I'm posting Theparties's request for WP:UNBAN here. As a WP:CHECKUSER, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. Theparties was originally blocked as 23prootie and claims to no longer have access to that account. They were banned via Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive203#Ban_on_23prootie. --Yamla (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to ask administrator to put forward my request to the Administrators' noticeboard for unblock, according to WP:Standard offer. I have been contributing to other Wikimedia projects meanwhile as is recommended for users at unblock requests.

I learned my lesson. I know I should not evade a ban. And I promise that I would not do that again. I can pprove this by showing that the last time I have been caught, I actually volunteered to be caught. I did not have to admit to be a sockpuppet of 23prootie. But I admitted it showing my sincerity in turning a new leaf. I know it must be difficult to believe me but by showing that I have not ban evaded in the past few months shows that truly my intention is to follow the rules. I have been editing in the Simple English Wikipedia for the time being. Working on election articles for the Philippines. Please give me another chance. Please truly allow me to become a better editor. I also want to add tat I cannot use my original username 23prootie because I forgot the password and I do not have an email to connect it with. May this username be my reincarnation for a new and better opportunity to prove myself.

I request that a WP:Topic Ban on Philippines-related articles be instated for me in exchange of being able to edit again on unrelated articles.

(Rename/usurp request snipped by me, Yamla, see talk page. The reason given by Theparties was "Reason: Forgot the password. No access to email.")

Theparties (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: The blocking admin for Theparties and the blocking admin for 23prootie are both no longer active. I did not notify them. --Yamla (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Has realized the mistakes and accepted a topic ban from anything related to the Philippines. That is more than enough. Capitals00 (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Per above. As long they edit unrelated articles for too long, they might appeal topic ban in the future. Welcome back. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guidance to participants at a particular AfD, please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Gertoux has descended into a somewhat arcane discussion about a religious concept rather than being confined to whether the biography being discussed should stay or go. I can't find an obvious place to ask for whatever guidance is available to participants to be given, so I'm hoping this is the right board.

I realise that the eventual closer is well able to disregard any off topic material, but their job will be easier if it is handled at this stage. What I perceive as clutter is becoming rather large and imposing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps not needed. David Eppstein has engaged in selective hatting of off topic material. Thank you, David. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revdel

Hi, Could you please revdel this? And blocked the talk page as well? Yann (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like User:Secretlondon removed TPA back in October and User:Fathoms Below revision deleted that edit. So, all done here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The username alone is powerful evidence that this person came to Wikipedia only to troll. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

User:94.64.80.27

the IP 94.64.80.27 keeps adding unicode swastikas to the Scholz cabinet article. Please block immediately. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 21:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Done, blocked for one week. --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this is the sort of thing that an edit filter should be able to catch... — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Forum-y discussion

Hi, there's a very WP:FORUMy discussion at Talk:British_Isles#Irrelevant_archaic_colonial_era_terminology which has been dragging on for months but is going absolutely nowhere. I'm involved so can't close it myself per WP:SUPERHAT, but if anyone fancies chucking some {{atop}} and {{abot}} templates around it so we can all get on with our lives, that would be appreciated. WaggersTALK 15:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be going nowhere fast. I can't find any sort of actual suggestion from the IP as to what ought to be done and nobody agrees with them; I've collapsed the whole thread and suggested that if anyone has concrete suggestions and policy-based reasoning they should open a move request. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Red link example user

Red link example is permanently protected as a link that can be used in documentation and testing (note the page protection summary).

I have created User:Red link example for the same purpose.

Can someone kindly permanently protect the user, talk and sandbox pages, with an edit summary similar to the above?

Once done, I will also request that the account be globally locked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Self-nominations for the Arbitration Committee open

The self-nomination period of the Arbitration Committee elections is now open. The deadline for submitting a candidacy is 23:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to get an ENWP account blocked for multiple account abuse without filing an RFCU?

Hi there. I am editing on the Simple English Wikipedia, as well as this one, and this afternoon I've discovered an account on the Simple Wikipedia, belonging to someone who also has an account here. User:Times Daily has been blocked indefinitely (on Simple) for abusing multiple accounts.

The block was enacted by the administrator / checkuser User:Vermont on Friday November 1st 2024. Without carrying out a CU here, is there any way of getting the user blocked on here too, since they have been active with similar articles to those written on the Simple site, or do you have to conduct a local CU for the English Wikipedia, too?

The notice to the user is linked here: simple:User_talk:Times_Daily#November_2024.

Thank you. Dane|Geld 17:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We'd need evidence that they have been abusing multiple accounts on this project. Do you know the name of the other accounts they used over there? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't. I can check for an SPI over there, and see if their other accounts are listed. I'll have to wait for a few moments, because I'm in the process of putting out the notices to the involved editors I've mentioned. I'll get on it in a moment. Dane|Geld 17:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: - I can only see one on the SPI for Times Daily there, and that's User:The Unknown Explorer, who has not edited this site. They are however, connected. Involved parties (Vermont and Times Daily) have now been notified of this thread. Dane|Geld 17:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been an issue for over a decade, in that one CU block doesn't carry over to other projects and CUs rarely notify other affected projects in which the accounts have activity on. There is an additional process by filing the report on meta:Steward requests/Global to get a sockpuppet account global locked by stewards when this step should have been automatic. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ping to @JBW:, who issued them a final warning; there are several issues with Times Daily (talk · contribs) that were flagged by multiple editors, including copyvios, trying to push a certain autobio with title evasion, and CIR concerns (calling readers 'viewers' in edit summaries for instance). Nate • (chatter) 17:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I noticed only one, User:The Unknown Explorer, and they have not made any edits to en.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Based on the socking elsewhere and the disruptive editing here, I ran a check. They're a sock of Top Gun X 4. Blocking, along with The Unknown Explorer (both  Confirmed). Blocking etc. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit filter manager request for non-admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello all, there is an edit filter manager application open for a non-admin. For information or to participate in the discussion, please see the edit filter noticeboard. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT appointments, November 2024

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following user to the CheckUser team following private and public consultation:

• TheresNoTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In addition, the following administrators are appointed to the conflict of interest volunteer response team following private and public consultation:

• 331dot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Robertsky (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The Committee thanks everyone who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT appointments, November 2024

84Swagahh unban request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Request reason:

Hello members of the Wikipedia administration reviewing my request for unblock, It has been six months since my last request for unblock and editing activity on the English Wikipedia. Per the standard offer and other rules on Wikipedia, I have not used any other account or IP address to edit on any Wikimedia project during this block. In addition, I promise that I will not repeat the behavior that led to my blocks. This behavior including creating and abusing sock-puppet accounts, vandalism, harassment, disruption, and username policy violations. Lastly, I do not believe that given reasons for people to object my return. I have avoided bad behavior and contributed to other projects during my block. During this block, I have been active on the Simple English Wikipedia. I have made over 1400 contributions and have not received any warning during my time. I reverted bad-faith edits using twinkle, gave those users warnings, nominated articles for deletion, performed copy-editing, welcomed new users, and expanded articles. I have applied for the roll backer permission and successfully earned it, meaning I am in good standing with the project's administration. However, I have not been as active with editing on the Simple English Wikipedia recently than I was the last 6-11 months. I still spent time reading articles on Wikipedia, but I just wasn't as active. I believe that this shows my efforts towards returning to the community and my ability to make positive contributions. Please note that this request was shorter than my last request in order to make it easier for administrators to review. If there are any questions for me, please ask me and I will respond to them. Thank you, 😂🤣84Swagahh🤣😂 17:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Because he is banned via WP:3X, I'm bringing the request here. There is no evidence of recent block evasion (see brief discussion at User talk:84Swagahh#Unblock Request through the Standard Offer). What he says about his activity on simple-wiki is true; there is some additional relevant discussion here. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, I don't object. Editor seems to have matured some. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support – positive contributions at a sister project, meeting the WP:SO. Welcome back. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Can we get some additional context on the initial block? Was it just blatant vandalism with multiple accounts? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, yeah. Examples (note datestamps): https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BulgariaWarrior -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  In that case, support. Seems more mature, and there will be basically no cost if it turns out otherwise. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support as the editor is a good-faith editor and has been productive on another project, but with the condition that they not edit from temporarily assigned devices from their school. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support unbanning - I see no reason to not take this request in good faith and a spot-check of their contributions at Simple did not turn up any issues. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ACE2024

In case you haven't noticed, WP:ACE2024/C is currently listing 3 candidates for the 9 open arbcom seats. What strikes me about the three is that they are all either current or former arbs. What is probably happening right now is what typically happens: there's a bunch of former arbs sitting on their hands and they'll add their names as the nomination window is nearly over. I'm not saying that having former arbs is bad, but in the big picture, we need new blood to keep the thing going. So all of you admins out there, please consider taking a step up and running for arbcom. RoySmith (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'll throw my hat in the ring if we get approval to unionize. I think the pay arbitrators get here is substandard compared to that of arbitrators in similar positions on other collaborative editing projects.
  Seriously though, how can there be 9 open positions? Isn't it typically 6? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's typically either 7 or 8, depending on whether we're electing Tranche Alpha (7) or Tranche Beta (8). This year we're electing Tranche Alpha, so that's 7 positions, but Maxim and Firefly (both elected last year to Tranche Beta) recently resigned, bringing the number of open positions up to 9. --rchard2scout (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  We could upgrade your boring, basic mop to a Smart Mop^(TM), would that do? -- asilvering (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• RoySmith's concerns are really valid. All of the current candidates have already served more than one term within the past 8 years. I really encourage administrators with a year or two under their belt, particularly those who feel comfortable working as part of a team or who have experience with dispute resolution, to give this some thought. This isn't to criticize the experienced hands who have put themselves forward; it is to emphasize that "new blood" is essential for Arbcom to do its best work. Risker (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Full disclosure, recently I was asked to consider running again this year (after about 10 years away), but having just come off the very intense work of the MCDC, I need to do more project-based work and less committee work for a while.
• I was going to ask a question this morning about numbers etc, but Roy and Risker have now answered it. I wonder how many editors/admins are in my position — happy to help, a little hesitant given the burnout witnessed from consecutive Committees, somewhat hopeful that 10-12 other good options nominate so they don't have to, but will if numbers stay skinny. This might sound incredibly selfish but ArbCom does not seem like it would be 'fun' in the slightest; at best it could be considered rewarding. It's a big commitment (potentially two years) and that's a lot to ponder when considering throwing one's hat in the ring. Daniel (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm in the same place, Daniel. I was an arbitration clerk for two years and I know how much work is involved at some points and how much criticism even the most functional committee receives. That leaves me with mixed feelings. It would help to hear some former arbitrators issue a sales pitch for why it was a rewarding experience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

    @Liz and Daniel: To a certain extent, many hands make light work. Obviously most of the committee needs to get involved in the big cases but we only have a few of those per year. You're both experienced admins so taking flak for a necessary but unpopular decision should be nothing new. I've been doing it for a year now and it's not as bad as I imagined so I'd encourage you both to run. If you really hate it, you could always resign at next year's election but new blood is important and so is having an election with enough candidates for it to be meaningful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

    I have enjoyed my experience on ArbCom, even though I have not been the most active. There are many roles within the committee, so members can work in the areas or topics that are most interesting to them. Moving checkuser blocks to the community has lightened our workload to devote more time to other activities. The admin tasks that I think are most similar to working on ArbCom are AE, unblock requests and checkuser: those thinking about running can participate in those areas to see if they like that work. I strongly encourage anyone who is interested in ArbCom to run: I do not regret my decision and I feel like it is a fantastic place to help make Wikipedia better for its editors. Even if you are not successful, you can get some ideas on where you can find places to improve your skills on the admin side of Wikipedia. If anyone wants to reach out to me they are welcome to send me an email. Z1720 (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

*Dracula voice* "We need ze blood! Ze fresh blood!" But seriously, yes we do need new folks on the Committee from time to time. I can say that it is one of the best and most rewarding things that I do in my life. It provides a lot of transferable skills. I also find it easy to do on the go, which is a real bonus over regular editing. Don't wanna be scrolling mindless social media? Why not try reading Arb discussions! Don't feel like you have to come in as a perfectly formed judicial decision machine. We need the same thing we need in admins: humble people willing to learn. The time commitment is different depending on your style. Some people go in sprints, some run a marathon; ArbCom needs both tortoises and hares to run well. I think the work that ArbCom does is important and really makes a difference. It's not all sunshine and roses, as various guide writers (see User:Barkeep49/ACE) have put more eloquently than me, but it's meaningful, engaging work. So if you're on the fence, I really do encourage you to throw your hat into the ring! Or if you know some whippersnapper who'd make a good choice, why not send them a message encouraging them to run? I would have never run if it were not for a community veteran who privately encouraged me to take the leap. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I also find it easy to do on the go, which is a real bonus over regular editing. This, 1000%, is such a key selling point for me. I travel for work (far more than I'd like), and while I read Wikipedia/discussions/etc. every day, there are some days I just can't edit when travelling. Emails and just being across things are fine, but to sit down and actually edit on a plane or in a hotel just sometimes doesn't happen. Thanks for sharing your experiences CaptainEek, as well as HJ Mitchell and Z1720 above — it is genuinely appreciated. Daniel (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's much easier to keep up with emails on a phone than it is to do any serious editing. If you're used to reading and digesting discussion threads in between daily life you'll probably find ArbCom quite manageable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Until the WMF has a dedicated deputy general counsel and transparent budget and procedures for volunteer security/indemnification, I can’t countenance even standing for admin, far less Arbcom, even though I humbly suggest I would bring considerable experience and value to either role. I value my identity, job, and physical safety, and I cherish this project (and, uh, have the litigation skills in spades for that role if it existed—and a proposed job description as an ongoing brain-doodling phone note) but I’m going to stick to hyphenating compound modifiers and decapitalizing generic food names. I deeply appreciate the work of everyone who serves. I wish I felt comfortable being of more service. I’m just too scared of the trolls, and have too many IRL responsibilities to take on that enormous layer cake of anxiety with no expectation of support from the WMF. Julietdeltalima (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  ArbCom is covered by the WMF's Legal Fees Assistance Program. Legoktm (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  To the extent of an unknown amount of “earmarked funds”, hence my budget transparency concerns. These cases get really expensive, really fast, because the obvious initial line of defense in many U.S. states (including California) is an anti-SLAPP motion, which requires accelerated briefing and discovery—and even though most such laws provide for the prevailing party (hopefully the WMF and volunteer(s)) to recoup attorney fees and costs of suit from the non-prevailing party, there is virtually never any ability or willingness for the loser to pay that award. Or they appeal. Either way, even the winner has to keep paying lawyers either to pursue the appeal or file motions as part of collection efforts. I would need to know the extent of those “earmarked funds” and the policies regarding their distribution before I’d be okay taking on that risk. I can’t trust the WMF not to quit paying my legal bills because they purportedly ran out of money their “earmarked funds” got exhausted mid-case. Julietdeltalima (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• I note that there are now, about 62 hours from closing, 7 candidates for 9 seats, I presume (I have not followed the arbcom election messages) that if there are no more candidates than available seats all candidates will be successful, and that there will be no election. That can't be good. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Candidates still need >50% for a one year term, and >60% for a full two years, so an election would still be necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that ScottishFinnishRadish. You've put my mind partially at rest by showing that there is some quality control. It would still be better to have more candidates. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Here's hoping for the rush during the final 48. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates is pretty good for those who may be on the fence. Clearly we need a few more good candidates. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  For more descriptions of what it's like to be an arbitrator, see Wikipedia:Arbitrator experiences. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Glad to hear RoySmith and Liz are planning to add their names! :) How about some straight-up peer pressure other humble suggestions? Here are some folks I'd support (omitting a couple that I know I've nudged in the past and got a hard pass): @Red-tailed hawk, Firefangledfeathers, Novem Linguae, ScottishFinnishRadish, Rosguill, EvergreenFir, Girth Summit, Valereee, Joe Roe, and Muboshgu: (btw not expecting a response here -- just pinging in case you haven't thought about it) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  One step ahead of you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, there you go. I can pick 'em. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  As a sitting member of the Ombuds Commission, I am ineligible. RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: I'm flattered, and rather chuffed, that you would suggest I put my hat in the ring. Susceptible as I am to suggestion, I'm going through some IRL stuff at the moment which has taken me away from the project for much of the last few months, and which might do so again in the year ahead. I wouldn't want to make promises about my available time which I'm unable to keep. That said, if you put your name forward, as a very experienced and level-headed editor, I think you might get a lot of support... Best wishes, Girth Summit _(blether) 00:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Understandable. Maybe next time. if you put your name forward - oh heavens no. I'm just here to pester other people who would be good for it. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Rhodo, I appreciate your confidence in me. But I'm not a spot in my life where I have the time to do the job of an arbitrator well, so I won't be running. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• ArbCom work seems it's even worse than closing long, difficult discussions. I can't imagine wanting to sign up for it, but those of you who do: thank you for your sacrifice, and I'll be praying for your wellbeing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

What has kept me from throwing my hat in the ring, year after year, is that a) I enjoy the editing work I do now and that is pretty time-intensive and b) I don't want a repeat of my experience from my RFA which was grueling. But maybe arbitration candidates are treated more kindly than admin candidates. I do have a draft of a statement written up but I'm still undecided based on the two points I mentioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The biggest difference in the ArbCom elections is that the voting is secret, so you only have the question phase. That makes it less grueling in many ways, although even the questions can be tricky - I know I spent an hour figuring out how to answer a tricky question in my RfA but I guess I got it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I can't speak for ACE or EFA personally, but if you read the debriefs from the folks who just tried the admin elections, the general impression is that secret ballot made the whole thing pretty painless. Actually, one of the common complaints from the candidates who got more opposition is that they don't know what turned people off of them! The opposite of a gruelling RfA, really. -- asilvering (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Note to anyone waiting until the last minute: That would be right now. There are nine seats open and only ten applicants. You have two hours. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not it was your message, Just Step Sideways, but we got two more candidates in the final two hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I seriously feel a lot better. More candidates, to a point, are a good thing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for Draft Creation: এ.কে.এম দুলাল ডিগ্রি কলেজ

Hello administrators,

I am requesting assistance with creating a draft article titled "এ.কে.এম দুলাল ডিগ্রি কলেজ". When I attempted to create it, I received a message indicating that the title is restricted due to blacklist criteria for Bengali language titles. This institution is a college in Ashuganj, Brahmanbaria, Bangladesh, and it aims to provide higher education to local students in a rural area with limited educational resources. Here is a brief overview of the college:

Establishment: February 2020 Founder: এ.কে.এম দুলাল Principal: আহম্মদ উল্লাহ খন্দকার Location: শরিফপুর, আশুগঞ্জ, ব্রাহ্মণবাড়িয়া, Bangladesh Affiliation: Cumilla Education Board EIIN Number: ১৩৯৬৫১ Facebook Page: akmdulaldegreecollege Motto: "Education is Power" (শিক্ষাই শক্তি)

The college was established to provide accessible higher education to students in nearby villages, where such opportunities were previously limited. The college’s mission is to promote modern and scientific education to create a knowledgeable and self-reliant society.

Since I cannot create this page directly, I kindly request that an administrator help with creating the draft or advise me on how to proceed. Thank you very much for your assistance. A K M Dulal (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@A K M Dulal One thing that is necessary is to translate the name of the college into English, since this is the English Wikipedia. You'll also need to provide citations from independent coverage of the college in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There are similar educational institutions, like 'ফিরোজ মিয়া সরকারি কলেজ and বিএএফ শাহীন কলেজ,' which retain their Bengali names in English Wikipedia, indicating cultural significance. I believe 'এ.কে.এম দুলাল ডিগ্রি কলেজ' also holds local importance, providing essential educational services to underserved rural areas. I am also happy to include an English translation if needed, for example, 'A.K.M. Dulal Degree College.' Besides, I will ensure reliable sources and references to meet Wikipedia’s standards. A K M Dulal (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Article titles must be in English. You should create a draft using the English name. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I understand that article titles need to be in English, so I will create the draft as "A.K.M. Dulal Degree College." I will also include the Bengali name in the article introduction to honor its cultural significance, similar to ফিরোজ মিয়া সরকারি কলেজ and বিএএফ শাহীন কলেজ, which retain their Bengali names within English Wikipedia articles. A K M Dulal (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@A K M Dulal: I can't tell what you're referring to – ফিরোজ মিয়া সরকারি কলেজ and বিএএফ শাহীন কলেজ do not exist. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

But they do on Bengali Wikipedia. @A K M Dulal:, if you want to write your article in Bengali please be aware that this page, and the instruction that article titles must be in English, only relate to the English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

While you’re at it, please read WP:COI. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke (formerly titled Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Yasuke is designated as a contentious topic. Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years.
• The article Yasuke is subject to a 1RR restriction for a period of one year.
• Eirikr is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Symphony Regalia is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• J2UDY7r00CRjH is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Yvan Part is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Gitz6666 is warned that disruptive behavior will lead to increasing sanctions if they continue.
• Elinruby is subject to a one-way interaction ban with Gitz6666, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke closed

Please stop merging Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini

Mahsa Amini article is going wrongly to merge into Death of Mahsa Amini. Merging these articles is wrong because both article are notable and specially where Mahsa Amini has received Sakharov Prize. I think a person who receive this important prize must have an article independently. Please stop merging these articles. AlijenabH (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The merge is occurring due to the closure decision at Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#Proposed merge of Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini. Admins don't overrule consensus decisions on content. If they did, they'd likely be facing a recall discussion. You can try talking to the editor who closed the Merge discussion but it's unlikely to change the outcome of the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That would be me, and they did, but I guess they were impatient, because they came here about half an hour later. I'm continuing the conversation at User talk:Compassionate727#Mahs Amini. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Permission gaming after warnings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Uncle Ramon seems to be making a ton of useless edits to user talk page to get to Extended Confirmed. They have been made aware that this is prohibited, but they have deleted that notice and continued, so here we are. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm doing it because I can't post on someone's talk page because I need to talk to them about something and their talk page is extended confirmed protected Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

(I'm so dumb, I posted this in AN thinking this was AN/I...) There is always an option to request a decrease in protection level or reach the editor in a different way. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

What other way to reach them is there? Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You can just ping them. win8x (talking | spying) 06:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to cast aspersions, but with recent LTA's always being here, I am led to believe they want to edit Qcne's talk page. The user could just tell us who's talk page they want to edit, but doesn't want to tell. win8x (talking | spying) 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Huh? Who's Qcne?

I'm not looking to contact that user, and their talk page isn't even ECP'd

I just looked upon going to that person's talk page Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, who are you trying to contact? We can contact them for you. win8x (talking | spying) 06:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

But I don't want anybody to contact them tho

That's what I'm trying to get at

I want to be the one to contact them Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this user came outta nowhere just today and they already know jargons like "ECP". I'm probably bad at assuming good faith here. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Well you create an account and you already need to contact someone. There aren’t tons of ECP user talk pages. I want to assume good faith though, but I wanted others who see this report to consider the possibility. win8x (talking | spying) 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, because I just created an account 2 months ago. I'm pretty sure 2 months is enough to know what ECP is. Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You started editing today. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

So just because I started editing today that means I didn't start READING Wikipedia until today...?

And I'm somehow supposed to magically assume that I don't know anything about the user permission rights because I just started editing today? Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed revoked. You can make a request to regain that permission after making 500 real edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Then how am I supposed to contact the person I want to contact if their talk page is extended confirmed protected? Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You’ve had plenty of offers to help. See above. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

And I already said I don't need their help. So I'm not sure why you… felt the need to take my extended confirmed privileges away. Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Gaming the system. You were warned multiple times. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Over a talk page?????? Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Uncle Ramon, yes, this is over a talk page. The intent of the 500 edit requirement to achieve WP:ECP is to show convincingly that the editor is learning about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. An editor who repeatedly adds just another period to a long list of periods that does not improve the encyclopedia in any discernable way is learning nothing of value and is "gaming the system". That is what you have been doing, and if you want to have a conversation with another editor whose talk page is protected due to harassment, then there legitimate ways to do so, such as pinging that editor to this conversation. Your refusal to do so and reluctance to explain yourself indicates that your intentions are not productive. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not pinging them here because I dont want to ping them, I want to post on THEIR talk page. I already explained myself several times so I'm not being reluctant AT ALL to explain myself, y'all just dont want to listen. I said I wanted to post on another editor's talk page and I wanted to start the conversation from there, on THEIR talk page. Not anywhere else. I'm not understanding why the fuck y'all take a privilege away from somebody that already EXPLAINED their intentions and then refuse to give it back to them, when there shouldnt fucking be a restriction on the other page in the first place. Uncle Ramon (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Following their permissions being revoked, they have left this message for rsjaffe. Given the wording used, I don't think they understand the situation to put it mildly. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:RBI Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

IP hopper back at the Help Desk

There's an IP hopper back at the WP:HD posting stuff like this. This kind of thing has been happening on and off at various pages (e.g. WP:THQ) for awhile now and seems to resume eventually whenever the PP runs out. There seem to be different versions of essentially the same post being added, but they're all in non-standard fonts. I think some of the accounts have been blocked, but that hasn't slowed this person down. Is there any thing that can be done outside of page protection? I don't have much experience with WP:LTA, but it appears this might be one of those cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The disruption seems to have stopped for now; so, perhaps nothing needs to be done at the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry but probably nothing can be done. May be some ranges can be blocked but they seem to use multiple ranges. Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This now seems to be being discussed in more detail below at #Seeking opinions: protection of the help desk and teahouse; so, perhaps this thread can be closed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Flamewar at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions over BilledMammal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:BilledMammal (permalink)

BilledMammal was recently granted rollback permissions by Just Step Sideways and used those permissions to mass-revert CarmenEsparzaAmoux, a blocked sockpuppet. Makeandtoss and Zero0000 (an admin) are now arguing at that thread the permissions were wrongly granted.[22] Both of them should be told to knock it off.

First of all, RFP is not the right place for that discussion as both editors were warned by Extraordinary Writ, an uninvolved administrator, though they have continued arguing. Second of all, Extraordinary Writ and other admins have explained that to revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to) is an acceptable WP:ROLLBACKUSE.

I would appreciate it if uninvolved administrators can step in and close that thread since RFP isn't the appropriate forum for lengthy discussions of tool use. I'd also like a clear consensus over whether or not rollback was acceptable here.

For full context, Makeandtoss and BilledMammal were involved in a dispute over the Palestine-Israel topic area that made it to WP:AE in June, and the use of rollback occurred within that area. Makeandtoss was given a final warning by ScottishFinnishRadish for behavior that falls below the required level required when editing in contentious topics[23] and previous battlegroundy behaviour in the area. There is probably a further conduct issue that can be dealt with here or at AE, but the immediate action should be to close the RFP thread. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that PERM is not a place for debates. I've shut it down. I don't think that was an INVOLVED action as all I did was respond to the intial request, not the ensuing argument. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You conflicted my edit! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

And you thanked me for it. Go team. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No idea what the justification is of this use of rollback[24], not reverting a blocked editor in any case. Fram (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

[25] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

For the lazy: it was an accident. I definitely misclicked rollback within a day of getting the permission, and I bet at least half of our rollbackers/admins have done the same. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Fun fact: although I work permission requests semi-regularly, I hate the rollback function, I use a script that blocks it (if you didn't know, admins have no choice whether they have it or not), and I use Twinkle instead. It's too easy to make mistakes with normal rollback. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I hit a rollback button accidentally several times a week (much more often than I rollback anything), so I also use that blocking script, and rely on Twinkle for rollback. Donald Albury 19:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

When I got my admin tools rollback showed up on my watchlist. As I edit from my phone pretty often and mistaps are common, I immediately sought out help and installed a script to hide it before I got desysop'd for cause. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This has happened to me before when I try to edit on my phone. Looking at a page history, the link to look at an edit/diff is right next to the link to rollback and I've misclicked. Luckily, you can rollback a mistaken rollback. I've stopped doing much work on my phone if it involves looking at individual edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am actually using a script which blocks rollback on my watchlist (the highest chance to misclick due to banners on top loading slowly) but not on page histories or user contributions. I have a global rollback, but I do not think this matters. Ymblanter (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I use one to shrink the rollback button so that I am far less likely to accidentally click it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The remove rollback script is at Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Rollback/reverting. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a gadget that will require a confirmation before clicking. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 20:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The best mobile environment on offer for Wikipedia editing (Monobook with the "responsive mode" option enabled) automatically turns on this confirmation in small screen mode. In practice, that means I get a confirmation dialog on my phone but not on my laptop. No idea whether similar features exist in other skins. —Kusma (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I still believe there's an issue here. Makeandtoss appears to have a grudge against BilledMammal and ignored repeated attempts to de-escalate at WP:RFP/R. Would WP:Arbitration Enforcement be a better location for that thread? I'm asking for permission as WP:FORUMSHOPPING precludes me from bringing up the same topic at two noticeboards. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Chess:You got it the wrong way around: BilledMammal seem to have a grudge against Makeandtoss (and Nableezy, and me, and anyone else who isn't pro-Israeli enough). I haven't seen Makeandtoss filling WP:ARB, WP:ARCA, or WP:AE with reports about BilledMammal, but I have literally lost count over how many times BilledMammal has reported his "adversaries" these last couple of weeks, Huldra (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would concur that BilledMammal has been demonstrating a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude of late that is somewhat alarming. Granting them extra tools at this time and seeing them possibly mis-used is alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that would be the third noticeboard you bring me into today. The claim that the respectful discussion at RFP/R was a "flamewar" is misleading. As for the other claim, are you really arguing that if someone filed a report against me in the past I am not allowed to dispute any of their editing behavior in the future? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"Flamewar" may be a slight overstatement, but WP:PERM is not a noticeboard, and not the right place to bring up such concerns, valid or not. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay sure, if I have new relevant concerns I will open a discussion elsewhere; though I will note that PERM is listed as a noticeboard. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: I want you to recognize that following BilledMammal to WP:PERM and opposing user rights grants is not appropriate in any situation. It wasn't a respectful discussion, you were told by an administrator to knock it off twice and kept going for days.

The correct place to bring up improper usage of permissions is at this very board. That's why I asked for a clear consensus over whether or not rollback was acceptable here and why I redirected the discussion to this thread.

Right now, you've made a non-apology and are insisting that because PERM is technically a noticeboard, it was appropriate to post there. That's not the right attitude. I would rather you acknowledge you were mistaken, and when you receive a warning from an admin in the future, to look at your own actions and correct course before a thread like this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not going to get too involved in this discussion as doing so would probably increase tensions, but this discussion, regarding objections to my signing of an RFC with a timestamp, was opened by Makeandtoss a day before the objections at RfPP, with the same editors participating. Personally, I’ve considered them related. BilledMammal (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The permission was granted by Just Step Sideways without commenting on the doubt that @Fastily: had just expressed. I stated my opinion there, gave examples of what I believe is misuse of the tool, and noted that I am involved in the area. (Despite what Chess claims in this make-trouble posting, Extraordinary Writ said nothing to me.) Then the conversation was shut down by Just Step Sideways with the comment that we should take it up on BilledMammal's talk page. However, BilledMammal was just being BilledMammal. My comment was to Just Step Sideways, who in my opinion should have looked at BilledMammal closer before granting this unusual power and should have undone the mistake when informed of how it was used. And should reply when their administrative actions are questioned (disagreement is fine). The issue isn't whether sock edits can be reversed—everyone knows it is allowed—but whether a protagonist in a contentious area should be given the ability to make mass reverts without looking at them in that area at all. In my opinion it shouldn't happen and I would never consider using my administrator access to the tools to do mass reverts like that (vandals excepted). I would look at the edits and keep what is good for each article, which was quite a lot in this case. By the way, calling that discussion a "flame war" is absurd. Zero^talk 01:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Then the conversation was shut down by Just Step Sideways with the comment that we should take it up on BilledMammal's talk page. However, BilledMammal was just being BilledMammal. What does this mean? You never left a comment at BilledMammal's talk page, could you elaborate why not? [26] The only comment is about the accidental rollback.

I also don't understand how this is a make-trouble posting. You and Makeandtoss clearly believe BilledMammal acted in error. We are now at the venue where that error can be corrected. Why am I, a non-admin, being forced to create a thread on the Administrators' Noticeboard to get you to properly discuss your concerns with other admins? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Gimme a break. "Both of them should be told to knock it off." is not a request for discussion. Nor are your subsequent comments. They are an accusation and request for action, neither of which have the least justification. Zero^talk 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000: My point is that this comment wasn't the best idea. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000 I’ve always treated blocked socks edits as something that could be reverted basically without looking at them. Other people can look at them and restore the ones they want, which is what happened here, but the removals themselves are a non-issue imo. What I wish actually existed was a way to auto strike a sock of a banned editors comments on talk pages. The whole point of BMB is that, regardless of if they are good or bad, edits by a banned editors are by definition disruptive and can be removed. Somebody used a more efficient way to remove them, good for them I guess. nableezy - 05:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It would actually be very easy to create a bot or user script like that - I no longer have the time, but you could ask at WP:BOTR. BilledMammal (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, WP:PERM is by design a place where decisions are made over whether someone should be given an elevated permission. I don't see why that should exclude objections to the result when the case file is still there. The record is better served by keeping it together than by moving it somewhere unrelated. Zero^talk 04:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The perm was granted already, there's not really a need to argue or continue the discussion there as opposed to a talk page or noticeboard. At this point, from my point of view, the only thing to consider is whether they have violated WP:ROLLBACKUSE, which it does not seem like they have (minus a misclick, which happens). So, until they do, it's best to just let it be with your original objections having been noted at the request. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and I never had any intention of commenting on it further until Chess decided to make an AN case out of it. Zero^talk 02:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Samantha Crawford (soprano) page nofollow index help

I am hopeful someone can help me here. I have made significant improvements to the article "Samantha Crawford (soprano)", ensuring that it complies with Wikipedia's notability guidelines by adding reliable, third-party sources. These sources clearly establish that Samantha Crawford (soprano) is a notable soprano, with significant international performances, verified recordings by verified music labels, and media coverage. I’ve carefully reviewed the criteria for biographies of living persons and have incorporated independent references that demonstrate her impact in the opera and concert world. Could an admin please advise on the next steps to have the "<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,max-image-preview:standard">" tag removed? I would appreciate any guidance on addressing any remaining concerns about notability or sourcing. Thank you for your time and assistance. I have tried addressing this on my talk page but have received no answer, so hoping I'm in the right spot here. -EB Eshbowman Eshbowman (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi. What's your connection to the subject? There's certainly some promotional language in there that needs removing. Secretlondon (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It will be no-indexed until it's marked reviewed by an editor with new page patrol. Please see WP:NOINDEX. As an aside, the article appears to be quite promotional. Do you have a financial or other relationship with Crawford? If so, you must declare a conflict of interest per our conflict of interest policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the article should be moved to draft. I just took a quick spin and it's not ready for mainspace. A lot of references don't support the points being made, there were copyvios and too close paraphrasing. It reads still like a resume, not an encyclopaedia article. Canterbury Tail talk 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

And you must reply to the concerns raised on your userpage regarding undeclared paid editing before editing articles any further. I also note that concerns were raised 8 years ago (Special:Permalink/1257159884#Paul Appleby (tenor)) that you failed to address. These need to be directly addressed now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Wanting mostly to remove the noindex to allow search engines to find it means that they're more interested in the promotional purpose than encyclopaedic. Canterbury Tail talk 16:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Which, as it happens, is precisely why we use nofollow to discourage linkspam. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

noindex will be removed when the page is reviewed. I could be wrong, but I believe nofollow is built into the site infrastructure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

i want to create userpage about me

can you create userpage of Jean Ngatcha this is my name. Jean Ngatcha (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Jean Ngatcha You are free to edit User:Jean Ngatcha to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user, not necessarily to tell anything and everything about yourself. Please see the user page policy as to what types of content are acceptable (and not acceptable) for user pages. Writing an article about yourself is entirely different, and highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Unban request for Kansascitt1225

Kansascitt1225 is considered banned by the community due to extensive sockpuppetry, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kansascitt1225. They are requesting the ban be lifted and I am posting their request below. As a WP:CHECKUSER, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. Their request from August 16 indicates they haven't evaded in eight months, so that would make it about 11 months now. I lost track of this unban request due to 2024 Jasper wildfire and COVID-19, my apologies to Kansascitt1225 for making them wait so freaking long to start this discussion. I have very slightly altered the request to nowiki the references, to make them more obvious on this discussion page. --Yamla (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi admins, I have not edited Wikipedia since December of 2023. I was unable to continue responding to my last request due to personal circumstances and going out of town. I have demonstrated that I can follow simple, clear instructions which shows I am able to abide by community rules and not bypass my block. I would appreciate being given wikipedias standard offer. I promise to not use multiple accounts which is the behavior that got me blocked to begin with. Most of these accounts were improperly used for persistent block evasion. I don’t want to give anyone anymore reasons to object. I know now that if I have a disagreement with someone I can talk on the talk page or on their user talk page instead of edit warring or creating an account. I have learned that civility is important on Wikipedia too and have become easier to get along with as I am older now also. I want to make constructive edits to Wikipedia and am interested in demographics and geography along with world and cities populations. I am trying to keep this short and I promise that I don’t intend to be disruptive to the project at all. I know it was a problem on my investigations case page me objecting to “largely suburban” on the Johnson county pages. I truly believed I was doing the right thing as I was always taught where I was growing up that a suburb was a more car centric place that is less dense within commuting distance of a city which is currently what the suburb page says now. I intend to edit this page to educate people that sometimes especially in the US that suburbs is where most jobs are located. In the case of Kansas City this suburban area and the municipalities within it have lower single family housing rates, more jobs, more population and higher density than the city with some suburbs walking to work more than the city. I wanted to make this clear. I do have good references for this including from the us census bureau. I think the main issue I had with the content is that calling the communities like Overland Park and Johnson county “suburban” makes people think that more people commute out than into these places and that these places are less dense and have more single family housing, which is the complete opposite of reality. I won’t remove anything about these communities as being suburban but want to include that they have more density, more jobs and lower single family housing rates so people don’t get confused. I also edited a while ago (more than 6 months) the Economy of St. Louis page and showed how white flight influenced the city’s economy as it was the same for Economy of Kansas City and wanted to edit the page to make it more accurate instead of saying the economy is anchored by Kansas City Missouri even though there’s more jobs outside the city than within it. I have edited these before while blocked but not within the last 8 months. I want to make constructive edits to improve the encyclopedia and working cooperatively with others is what I intend on doing. I was also upset that this was removed as biased, misleading and false to the point the page was protected and from my point of view I felt as though I was being blatantly lied too. It’s a well known fact that Kansas City has experienced decades of white flight and urban decay and I think I was also caught off guard by people in Kansas City calling these places suburbs meanwhile them having these characteristics.

- Here are some references

• States that Most United States jobs are in the suburbs <ref>{{cite web|url= https://www2.census.gov/about/training-workshops/2021/2021-05-19-led-presentation.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newgeography.com/content/005264-suburbs-continue-dominate-jobs-and-job-growth#:~:text=Most%20Jobs%20Growth%20Since%202010,overall%20combined%20share%20of%20employment.}}</ref>

• States that Single family detached homes are less common in some of the suburbs compared to city in the Kansas City area. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP04&g=160XX00US2053775,2938000}}</ref>

• Shows that there is a Higher population density in some of the suburbs of Kansas City <ref>{{cite web|url=https://statisticalatlas.com/metro-area/Missouri/Kansas-City/Population#figure/place/population-density}}</ref>

• comparison that shows people walk to work more in some of the suburbs than the city <ref>{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=commute&g=160XX00US2938000}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=commute&g=160XX00US2039350}}}</ref>

Kansascitt1225 (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The blocking admin is Berean Hunter. They have not been active for more than four years so I did not notify them. --Yamla (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Frankly, this unblock request reads as a promise to continue to WP:RGW on a specific topic (I intend to edit this page to educate people that sometimes especially in the US that suburbs is where most jobs are located.), rather the opposite of what we want from editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  The following comment copied over from User talk:Kansascitt1225. Minor formatting changes from me, around references. --Yamla (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @HandThatFeeds: thank you for reading my unblock request. I’m not sure if you read these references or not, but the overwhelming majority of jobs are in the suburbs in the United States. In Kansas City for example only around 4% of jobs are in the central business district and only 30% of the Kansas City areas jobs are in the city of Kansas City, Missouri. Could you please explain how this would be tendentious editing so I can avoid it the future ? I can’t find any evidence for the contrary and genuinely do want to work cooperatively with others and I honestly don’t see how this is breaching Neutral point of view.

• Census publication <ref>{{cite web|url= https://www2.census.gov/about/training-workshops/2021/2021-05-19-led-presentation.pdf}}</ref>

• Website article <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newgeography.com/content/005264-suburbs-continue-dominate-jobs-and-job-growth#:~:text=Most%20Jobs%20Growth%20Since%202010,overall%20combined%20share%20of%20employment.}}</ref>

• Sample of jobs in central business districts. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.demographia.com/db-cbd2000.pdf}}</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansascitt1225 (talk • contribs)

Honestly, this just proves my point: rather than building up trust in the community by doing literally anything else, the user wants to go back to an area to educate people that they are right, and is arguing over sourcing rather than understanding that their behavior is the problem. Kansascitt1225, if you want any hope of ever being unblocked, you should step away from this topic entirely and work on something else. If this is the only thing you're interested in working on for Wikipedia, I'd suggest just moving on to some other site. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Kansascitt should move on to different projects. I'd suggest taking pictures of subjects that are highly needed in articles, Commons is all about contributing with highly educational value images. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.

Motion 2b: Word limits

Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

Motion 2c: Word limits

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

• The case title will be Palestine-Israel articles 5.
• The initial parties will be:
  • BilledMammal (talk · contribs)
  • Iskandar323 (talk · contribs)
  • Levivich (talk · contribs)
  • Nableezy (talk · contribs)
  • PeleYoetz (talk · contribs)
  • Selfstudier (talk · contribs)
  • האופה (talk · contribs)
• Aoidh will be the initial drafter
• The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
• All case pages are to be semi-protected.
• Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.

Addendum

In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:

• BilledMammal (talk · contribs)
• Iskandar323 (talk · contribs)
• Ïvana (talk · contribs)
• Levivich (talk · contribs)
• Nableezy (talk · contribs)
• Selfstudier (talk · contribs)
• האופה (talk · contribs)
• AndreJustAndre (talk · contribs)
• IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs)
• Alaexis (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Makeandtoss (talk · contribs)
• Snowstormfigorion (talk · contribs)

The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.

The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

Change to the CheckUser team, November 2024

At their request, the Arbitration Committee restores the CheckUser permissions of Spicy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the CheckUser team, November 2024

Titleblacklisted page creation request

I would like to request the creation of Draft:○△□, to translate jawiki good article ○△□ (絵画). ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. —Cryptic 23:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

15.ai behavioral issues.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

15.ai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article 15.ai has numerous issues which I have called attention to on the talkpage. [27] [28]. The article was recently subject to an edit war [29][30][31][32][33] which made it to DRN Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#15.ai, however, the process has ultimately failed as after the moderator instructed editors to implement the change[34] as User:HackerKnownAs a clear WP:SPA [35] who demonstrates WP:OWNBEHAVIOR behavior[36] toward the article arrived and has reverted the agreed upon edits [37] [38][39] as well as reintroduced multiple problems to the article in terms of misrepresented sources as well as sources which are considered unreliable. The editor in question has characterized my removal of unreliable sources[40][41][42] as removal of well-sourced content followed by claims of insufficient citations is particularly concerning despite the fact that the sources I removed were declared unreliable per WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED or in the case of Andrew Ng's The Batch, were marked as unreliable when the article was still a draft A large portion of the sources used are not reliable, notably The Batch, which appears to be the personal blog of Andrew Ng[43], but once the article was released from Draftspace the editor who is now vanished reinserted Andrew Ng as an erroneously flagged minor edit [44]. Likewise, at the recent request for protection the user has presented my conduct [45] as a large amount of nonconstructive edits. The AfD for the article was interfered with by WP:SPA vote-stuffing[46][47][48][49]. Other concerning events include the wholesale deletion of a talk page thread about potential WP:COI editing by a now-blocked IP editor [50]. Coupled with demonstrable evidence of off-site coordination in editing the article on 4chan (which is demonstrable in the archived 4chan thread used as a source in the article) and the apparent failure of the WP:DRN and the continued edit warring by User:RocketKnightX and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR from User:HackerKnownAs, I am raising this concern to the Admin Noticeboard. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I am currently away from my computer at the moment, but I would like to point out that it is very interesting that this user has conveniently omitted any mention of her accusatory, sanctimonious, and frankly alienating behavior (despite being a relatively new editor herself) that she has been called out for in the past. I will make a more detailed post when I get back, but I urge anyone reading this to take a look at the article’s edit history (and note the perennial participant of the persistent edit wars in the last few months) as well as her alienating comments on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1 and wonder why she neglected to mention how she refused to elaborate on her unfounded accusations based solely on circumstantial evidence. HackerKnownAs (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

RocketKnightX seems to lack the sufficient maturity to edit Wikipedia, judging by the comments like this one. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this situation is more relevant to ANI than AN if you would like to move it to that noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

+1. Thanks for summarizing the recent edit wars, the most recent seem to involve experienced trolling as well. Suitable for ANI. – SJ + 03:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, RocketKnightX and HackerKnownAs are tag-teaming to keep the article against consensus.

Note that all of HackerKnownAs edits are related to AI and 4chan, which is how this mess started in the first place.

See also SirGallantThe4th, the GAN reviewer, only edits are to chess topics and 15.ai. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not know this person and I have never interacted with them. What are you people on about? Do the admins not see that these people are actively discouraging people from contributing to Wikipedia with this dishonest conduct? This kind of harassment needs to stop. HackerKnownAs (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a tactic HackerKnownAs often engages in, accuse everyone of everything and see what sticks. (Also, you don't need to interact with someone to tag-team with them.) 180.129.92.142 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have always attempted to be cordial when interacting with editors on Wikipedia. I have also tried to always assume good faith as per WP:GOODFAITH, but the OP seems to not have the same courtesy, as she feels the need to throw out repeated baseless accusations of COI and SPA editing to multiple editors (WP:GOODFAITH), repeatedly bringing up other editors' contribution histories and patterns (WP:HOUND), and having an underlying hostile tone in repeatedly questioning others' credibility and motives (WP:CIVIL). Also, possibly a violation of WP:OUTING (or at least getting close to it) by extensively tracking and documenting other editors' patterns and suggesting connections to off-wiki groups?.

I do not know what incidents you are referring to when you say I "often engage" in accusatory and underhanded behavior. I really am bothered by this entire exchange.

And to repeat, I do not know who RocketKnightX is and I have never collaborated with them. I have interacted with SirGallantThe4th only when requesting a GA review, and have not interacted with him since other than when the article was under GA review, as was expected. HackerKnownAs (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

> Also, possibly a violation of WP:OUTING (or at least getting close to it) by extensively tracking and documenting other editors' patterns and suggesting connections to off-wiki groups?.

So you admit you've engaged in off-wiki co-ordination? 180.129.92.142 (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I have never engaged in off-wiki coordination; I invite anyone here to scrutinize my edit history. I mostly stay around articles that I find more comfortable writing about. There is nothing wrong with that.

I am frankly disturbed that this is even being suggested when I have made major contributions to several articles in my spare time. It seems hypocritical that OP dismisses IP editors' positions as inconsequential (as well as those of SPA editors), yet faces no backlash when these same "suspicious" editors support her position. There is a clear double standard happening here and I simply have not been paying enough attention to the politics of Wikipedia to point out every single time she has been doing this. HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

So, no violation of outing. Understood. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

180.129.92.142, this is the Administrators' Noticeboard. Just because this is an open discussion doesn't mean you can cast aspersions and accuse editors of misconduct without providing evidence. If this continues, you will be facing a block. Like a registered account, you must abide by Civility, even when discussing disagreements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, understood. I will look for evidence. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Like many disputes in Wikipedia, this is both a content dispute and a conduct dispute. I acted as the mediator for discussion of the content dispute at DRN. The content dispute concerned what should be listed as the status of the web site in the infobox. The DRN thread was Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_250#15.ai. (The filing editor was then indefinitely blocked for conduct unrelated to 15.ai, and I continued the mediation because there were still editors in good standing who had a content dispute.) RocketKnightX was listed as one of the editors, and made a brief opening statement, but did not take part in further discussions until the other editors reached an agreement to say that the web site had been abandoned. The article was revised as discussed. At this point RocketKnightX reverted the revision and disagreed. I asked RocketKnightX if they wanted to take part in moderated discussion, but they did not answer. Since there was disagreement as to content that could not be resolved by discussion, I first asked if I should start an RFC, and then launched an RFC. The RFC is currently in progress at Talk:15.ai#RFC_on_Status_of_Web_Site. The content dispute should be resolved by allowing the RFC to run for a month. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

good one brocade make the brigading more obvious

the gaslighting in this thread is insane yall are why i left the server lmfao its screwed up Rin6626 (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

See Editor Interaction Analyzer on 15.ai.

20:29, 11 November 2024, RocketKnightX reverts 15.ai one last time and disappears.

23:27, 13 November 2024, HackerKnownAs returns from 18 day absence (last edit before that was defending 15.ai) and requests page protection of 15.ai. Then reverts, 17:13, 14 November 2024.

These two edit 15.ai when the other is absent.

See Editor Interaction Analyzer on Talk:15.ai/GA1.

SirGallantThe4th reviews 15.ai in 1 hour and 24 minutes, after 1 response from HackerKnownAs.

(start, <51 minute gap>, response, <33 minute gap>, end)

This is insanely quick, and is a sign of co-ordination. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No, none of that is evidence. I've seen quicker GA reviews, start to finish—in fact, a recent one of mine, Talk:Checheyigen/GA1, took 29 minutes from opening to closing. I hope you're not accusing myself and the reviewer of off-wiki coordination? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course not. The difference being you're not a single purpose account. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

just so yall know, theres a discord server thats been trying to troll this community over the last half year trying to get this page removed by sockpuppeting and getting anyone who reverts it banned and the op (brocade) is in on it, notice the young account ages of the edit war actors and ip accs all over here Rin6626 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

im replying with my ip cause i want to prove im not on an alt btw 174.110.109.110 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe you for a second, but email your evidence to the Arbritration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org if you're telling the truth. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I did think it was especially peculiar that editors are acting so hostile and trying to discredit people who are just trying to help Wikipedia by spinning up accusations out of nowhere (for example, the above IP editor falsely claiming that I am a single purpose account when I've received multiple thanks from various other editors for my contributions). I am not surprised at all that there has been a coordinated effort behind this.

This article has been treated as a WP:BATTLEGROUND with only one side consistently being the aggressor. HackerKnownAs (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have found this: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=361116#p361116

It appears that this user in question (User:BrocadeRiverPoems) has a history of sockpuppeting/alting and virulently defending ideologically driven edits, particularly those related to Yasuke, while engaging in hostile and aggressive behavior towards other users who disagree with their position. I would very much like an admin to look into the disruptive editing patterns and possible sockpuppeting activities of this user, particularly in relation to the ongoing edit wars and harassment on the article.

This blatant dogpiling should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. HackerKnownAs (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You're really good at steering the topic away from yourself. Point is, you are still reverting against consensus on 15.ai. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I am certain you are part of the circle of sockpuppetry that was mentioned in the link above. You have been nothing but consistently hostile toward me and are happy to fabricate evidence if it means trying to discredit me, which is exactly what BrocadeRiverPoems has done as well. This behavior is appalling. HackerKnownAs (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Where have I fabricated evidence?

As for some mysterious "circle of sockpuppetry", bullshit. You mean to tell me that SuperStain, Thought 1915, Ltbdl, Brocade River Poems, Aaron Liu, North8000, Sj, BarrelProof, DrawWikiped, and Cooldudeseven7 are all socks? If anyone has a "circle of sockpuppetry" it's you and Rin6626, a 4 hour old account who's only edits have been to make wild claims about Brocade River Poems, which you also have been doing. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleted article question

The articles Max Israel and Y.Chroma were created by a new account yesterday, but I'm almost certain that they previously existed and ended up deleted for some reason. Is there any way to get a look at the page history of a deleted article that ends up being recreated under the same name? I'm also pretty sure the files used in the articles were previously uploaded and deleted too. I think the articles and files were created by this account but don't have the required permission to access the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have deleted the former as it was identical to the one previously deleted for reason G5. For obvious reasons, I have also indeffed the creator of this version (who also re-uploaded the same images). Equally, I toyed with the idea of draftifying the latter article but I've now deleted that as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for checking on this Black Kite. Is there any way a non-admin can "check" to see whether there were deleted files and articles which were subsequently recreated under the same name? I tried the Special:Log, but it seems as if the recreation of the pages somehow "removed" any record of their deletion from the log. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Marchjuly when you look at the history you can see it's deletion history up top under View Logs for this page. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. I didn't know about that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly, you can also search here, Special:Undelete, although it will only identify deleted pages with the exact title you are looking for. It will not help with variations on a page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that bit of info. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Non-admins can't use Special:Undelete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, I know it won't show deleted content but I thought it would show an editor that there had been a page at the specified target that had been deleted. It would show that a page had existed but was deleted, kind of like a page log would. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does not, but User:SD0001/deleted-metadata-link does something similar. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I was mistaken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Abusive message from ip user

Not sure if this is the right place to report a user, but I've just received an abusive message from this IP user –

There are no contributions on their page, so I can't figure out why they have done this?..

this was the message they left

Thanks – 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 L1amw90  (🗣️ talk to me 09:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The IP has only made a single edit but I blocked the 2600:1700:DF20:1A40:0:0:0:0/64 range for a month. People can change IPs and it does not matter who is behind the IP. Best to ignore them. The right place to report this is WP:ANI but here is fine. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Persistent IDHT and disruptive fabrication of Wikipedia policy

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianhistorian8 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

InfoWars link

Could someone with the permission to add and edit these links please change the link at the bottom of the InfoWars article from infowars(dot)com/contributors to infowars(dot)com/, because the contributors page doesn't exist at the moment. Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You should make a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well that's ... not how I thought this works. I don't want it whitelisted everywhere. Guess that's not possible then. Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The /contributors link is whitelisted everywhere. We don't normally whitelist domain roots for reasons explained at MediaWiki talk:spam-whitelist/Common requests#The official homepage of the subject of a page * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Apparently we can use "a neutral landing page like the site's "about" or "information" page". Their /about page is online; I'll go ahead and request a whitelisting for that. Thanks Pppery. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Of note, there's currently a legal dispute over the new ownership of the site, so it may be a bit premature to make any changes to whitelisting anything. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Well we still need a link to the site and the current one is broken. Whitelisting one page briefly is easily reversed if needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy un-pblock for deceased user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey all. Back in July 2022, I partially blocked JohnClarknew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from three articles that he had been editing in violation of WP:COI, including his disclosed IRL identity, John Clark (English actor). I didn't love making that block, as Clark was one of our oldest active editors (89 at the time), but there was no way around it. It came to my attention today that Clark died about a year after that. While he's far from the first blocked user to die, in other cases where I've seen that happen it's been someone who was siteblocked and not really part of the community anymore. Clark, though, was still an editor in good standing at the time of his death, would even still have been eligible to vote in ArbCom elections if he hit activity requirements. So given his 3,000-plus mostly-positive edits and the fact that the block cannot any longer serve any purpose, would a current admin consider lifting the block I placed? Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Unblocked, will request glock. Is it norm to create a redlinked userpage for a deceased editor with {{deceased}}? charlotte ^👸♥ 22:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't actually recall a time I've dealt dealt with a deceased user with a redlinked userpage, but I've gone and created one with {{deceased}} and a link to his mainspace bio. I'll add something brief at least to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2023. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TP:ACEMM not subbing properly

I'm currently multitasking a bunch of stuff right now, and it would appear {{ACEMM}} is not substituting properly. The Ivmbox is not rendering in substitutions. I would normally debug this myself, but my hands are full right now. Could someone take a look at why this isn't working? —CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Izno: since you work on this template mostly, can you check why it's not substing correctly?—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I had no issue substing it on User:Izno/Sandbox besides the image being squished that I am looking at right now. Izno (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I did a bit of under the wire tinkering. The subst was leaving out ALL styling information initially. I would appreciate it if you could maybe could push my attempted repairs over the finish line? —CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Revdel? (Can’t use oversight)

I read the big red box at the top, but I was directed here by people at the WP:TEAHOUSE. I’m requesting that all of my edits under this /64 range until the ones I made after my block expired get revdeled as I am ashamed of them and want to move on. I already emailed the oversight team and they said they would not do it under any circumstance. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2 (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If it helps IP, no-one here knows who is behind a particular IP, your IP keeps changing, and it is a vanishingly small number of people who will ever see the contributions from an IP range. The easiest way to move on is just to move on, nobody else will be thinking about the edits. CMD (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m really not sure. I know people have monitored my /64 in the past, and it is easily searchable by users (even if I don’t know how to do it myself). 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2 (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sure. The people who might look up the /64 edits to Wikipedia are a subset of editors who notice an edit, of which a subset would actually check other contributions from that single IP, and an even smaller subset who would think to and know how to check higher ranges. Even of those who check, they would not assume that the other contributions on the range are from the same person. Best, CMD (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2,

Are you the editor who was arguing about the Fictosexuality article? I was just looking at that ANI discussion from October the other day. First, I hope you are feeling better now. Secondly, if you hadn't specified an editing range, I never would have connected your current IP account with those previous edits. I doubt that you will be randomly assigned the same exact IP again. I think you can consider yourself anonymous. Finally, the Oversight team is correct, we don't revision delete edits that might be embarrassing later, only edits that are deeply offensive (racist, homophobic, etc.), violate our Biography of living persons guideline, like posting personal information or copyright infringements. I'm sure that ALL editors here have edits from their past that they wish they could erase but in the name of transparency, all of that information is logged and available for view.

But, as I said before, if you don't connect your present account to that IP range, like you did here, I doubt any editor or admin will be looking into edits from that IP range. If I were you, I'd consider this as a new start and wish you luck editing on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t really feel better, particularly about that topic you mentioned, but don’t worry about me.

Frankly I’m just glad the embarrassing block notice that shows up when you try to edit is gone, I have other family members who share my IP. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Need an RFC closed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline has been open for about a hundred days now, with no comments for the last couple of weeks. It's the oldest discussion listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests. It's a long discussion, but I don't think it's the most difficult, so please let me encourage you to write a nice summary for us. Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

How did it go unnoticed for so long? 118.104.245.6 (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's gone unnoticed. It takes a long time to read a long discussion, and not everyone can set aside a block of time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have ambitions to get to it eventually, but I committed to that mess of a discussion at Talk:International Churches of Christ, so that takes priority for me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin has closed this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to Review and Remove "Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting a review of the article "Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS" due to its explicit content and significant societal harm. The article describes a 1970s exploitation film featuring a Nazi officer engaging in sexual acts with prisoners. My concerns include:

1. **Promoting Harmful Ideologies**: The article glorifies sexual violence and Nazism, presenting these in a way that risks promoting unhealthy fantasies among immature male audiences.

2. **Stigmatization of Common Names**: The use of the name "Ilsa","Anata" and so on associates it with degrading depictions, causing real-world stigmatization and bullying for individuals with this name.

3. **Unsuitable for Public Platform**: This article is inappropriate for an open-access platform like Wikipedia, which is used by people of all ages, including minors.

4. **Timing of Creation**: The article was created decades after the film's release, in 2022, raising questions about the motivations behind its creation and its compliance with Wikipedia's policies on notability and neutrality.

5.

I strongly urge the administrators to review this article and consider its removal or severe content restrictions to uphold Wikipedia's responsibility as a neutral and appropriate public platform. Zaimingmingde (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zaimingmingde, you've commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS, which is the appropriate location. The discussion there will determine whether the article is kept or deleted. Schazjmd (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Enable the mergehistory permission for importers

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Enable the mergehistory permission for importers. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move and draftification; unclear how to proceed

MD Hydrogen 123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did a cut-and-paste move of 2024–25 Federation Cup (Bangladesh) group A to Template:2024–25 Federation Cup (Bangladesh) group A following a message placed on their talk page asking if they meant to create the article there. I then requested a history merge on the latter page, but withdrew this request after reading WP:NOTHISTMERGE, since MD was the only significant contributor to either page. Between the request and withdrawal, Cooldudeseven7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), unaware of the C&P move, draftified the page, meaning that the original page and the moved page now had diverging histories. I was going to nominate the now draft for G6 deletion, but I don't think that applies, because it is not holding up a clean move. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted the draft per G6 as it was created in the incorrect namespace and no other substantive edits were made to the page requiring a HISTMERGE. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! JJP_Master (she/they) 03:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello all Wikipedia Admins! I am just here writing to thank you all for the great work you do, and how you all make this an amazing place to be and contribute. I couldn't love more, the feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction I get from editing here and I plan to stay for as long as possible! Please keep up the good work. Have a wonderful day! Completely Random Guy (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Completely Random Guy,

Speaking for admins, we don't hear a lot of "thank you"s on this noticeboard. It looked like you had a rocky start as an editor on this project but luckily, you stayed around and continued to contribute. Admins are really just here to remove disruptions to allow content creators to get to work. So thank you for your contributions! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for editing wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Is WP:RECALL a policy?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus that Wikipedia:Administrator recall should not be marked as policy. Some editors noted that the discussion adopting it as policy was widely advertised and disapproved of this discussion being a basis to undo that. Other editors countered that said discussion was not a sufficiently robust basis to establish Wikipedia:Administrator recall as policy because many were nevertheless unaware of the discussion, some people did not participate because the question was confusing, and the RfC was not specifically about whether the procedure should be policy (rather, it was about whether to have a process). Many editors find it idiosyncratic that a procedure like recall could have binding force but not be policy, but other editors noted that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is the same way; editors also noted that Wikipedia:Policy defines a policy by wide acceptance among editors, which the turmoil from the recent recall petitions shows that Wikipedia:Administrator recall does not yet have. Overall, the arguments that the discussion did not establish the high level of consensus from the entire community (WP:PROPOSAL) required to adopt it as such were stronger than the arguments that it did.

Nothing about this closure should be construed as disestablishing the recall process, which remains in force. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

---

In her otherwise decent close of Special:PermanentLink/1253547916#Administrator Recall, Maddy from Celeste specified that Wikipedia:Administrator recall shall be marked as a policy and then did so. The problem is that the RfC did not ask if the page should be upgraded to a policy nor did anyone in the discussion subsequently propose it, making this aspect of the close a supervote. This perhaps happened because Maddy mistook the discussion for a change to an existing policy (On the English Wikipedia, there are no formal requirements for policy changes [...] this RfC is a valid way of figuring out where we want to set the threshold for this particular policy amendment) and/or, as they acknowledged when I asked about it on their talk page, because they forgot that we have an explicit process for proposing new policies. Nevertheless Maddy has said that given the significant developments these last two days, [they] do not feel comfortable making any unilateral changes [to the close] at this point.

So as a partial challenge of that close, I'm asking: is Wikipedia:Administrator recall a policy page? – Joe (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I refer to my comments on my talk page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the third (for now) active discussion about RECALL live at AN - shows that it's totally not a controversial idea at all! GiantSnowman 19:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I am currently running a pool on when RECALL will be brought to ArbCom. Squares are filling up fast. Contact me for information on how to bet, and how to send me the money for safekeeping in the mean time. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:POLICIES, "Policies have wide acceptance among editors". It seems clear to me that this is not the case with this recall process. Sandstein 19:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• There's probably no one who argued more strongly than me against making this trainwreck into a policy. But Maddy correctly read the consensus as saying that this should be adopted and put into effect (and not simply as a trial). So if the community has reached a consensus to put something into effect, that can lead to a desysop, I cannot see how that would be anything other than a policy. If other editors are just now waking up to the fact that they should have joined me in speaking up earlier, well, it's too late now. At some point, we will have to have an RfC to revoke this policy, but for the time being, it's a policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  This should be adopted and put into effect – I agree with that, it's the "policy" designation that seems unwarranted, given the lack of an explicit proposal to adopt it as one. I want to avoid on the one hand watering down the definition of a policy as those guidelines and processes which have the highest level of consensus on the project (because come on, this is clearly not that!) and on the other making it harder to improve the current process through normal editing and consensus-building. Pretty much everyone seems to agree that this process needs amendment, but usually the way to make non-trivial amendments to a policy is through an RfC, and pretty much everyone also agrees that we don't want more RfCs on this... – Joe (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I see that distinction as wikilawyering. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  We would have done if we had been aware of it! (see previous section re:lack of notice). GiantSnowman 20:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's an issue. But the people who pushed this through insisted that they did everything required in order to publicize the discussions, and they have a point. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Does it matter if it's a policy vs. a procedure? Is RFA a policy? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, in practice it's considerably harder to change a page tagged as a policy; and nope. – Joe (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• As a process (or policy) it's far from ready, as the Graham87 petition and all the various discussions around the project-space are showing. It's not a case of ironing out small details; the very fundamentals are being questioned and challenged. More workshopping is needed. WP:AR should be returned to draft policy status and discussion centralised on its talk page. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  What parts are far from ready? What aspects of admin recall that haven't already been discussed during phases I and II of the RfA 2024 discussion and subsequently still need to be hashed out? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, within the last 48 hours alone, questions posed on WT:AR have included timing of petition closures, the structure of the petition page and naming of its sections, the maximum runtime for petitions, early closure rules (or lack thereof), and the applicability of WP:SNOW (now at WP:VPP). Valid, key questions. I think a large part of why they're being asked now is because up until now, no one had much idea of how the policy/process would actually work in practice. As currently presented, the content of WP:AR feels scant, hardly a solid foundation for launching petitions. And the attempted early close and subsequent re-opening of the Graham87 petition further damage the process's credibility. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Policies have wide acceptance among editors". This policy/procedure does not have that level of support, as has been evident over the past 48 hours. Per SuperMarioMan above, this policy/procedure should be temporarily put on hold and then workshopped extensively to make it better. Daniel (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with this take, assuming it can even be made better, which I'm not sold on. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Opposition largely seems to be coming from admins, which makes sense but is hardly representative of editors at large. I would advise admins to take a step back and accept the wider community's opinion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I kind of have to agree? I know it's a surprise that the policy made it through but it appears to have done so on a legitimate basis? To those folks challenging the close, is there any example of irregularity or a flawed read of consensus? Andre🚐 20:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  While it is true that because this involves admins and thus admins shouldn't try to discourage the process, it still is a matter that this recall process will need to be managed by admins and thus has to confirm within the framework of other processes across the board, and that's where the debate seems to be happening, that as currently written and executed, it leaves a lot of missteps that need to be addressed with the help of admins to make sure the process is able to actually work. I don't see this as admins opposing any recall process, just that this one does not have the rigor thst admins experienced in P&G writing can bring to tighten it up and avoid the pitfalls happening now. — Masem (t) 13:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• No, process not policy. The original proposal didn't include listing it as a policy, most of the !voters didn't opine on whether it should be a policy, and similar pages like WP:RFA are not policies. The policy is Wikipedia:Administrators, which links to WP:RECALL. That's all we need. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  Adding: This isn't to say it shouldn't have the same "force" as WP:RFA. And regarding notice, being an RfC at VPP and linked from CENT checks enough boxes. IMO the RfC was presented in a confusing way (consensus-for-consensus with a handful of lengthy, fragmented discussions summarized in the background section), but that might just be me, and neither I nor others adequately objected on "this is confusing" grounds to constitute a real obstacle to consensus [about consensus] forming. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  +1 to both of these comments by Rhododendrites. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Who's going to be the first non-admin blocked for the lèse-majesté of seeking to recall an admin, per this policy? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• For those editors who say that they didn't know that this was being discussed, I expressed my concerns to theleekycauldron, the admin who oversaw the process, months ago, and you can see that discussion here: link. Here's a link to a discussion where I tried to get a better process for deciding whether or not it would be policy: link. At that time, I think editors really were looking to conduct the decision process more carefully. But that got short-circuited by the RfC here: link, which established the present consensus (however one wants to characterize that). You will see me arguing strenuously, but to little effect, that this was going to go badly. I and others argued that it was premature to hold that RfC, but Barkeep49 insisted that the time was right. That discussion was at Village pump (policy), and was advertised on CENT, so I really do think editors should have been aware of this earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • CENT is a bit useless, though. If it had been advertised via a watchlist notice I think there would have been far more participation. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

    CENT is at the top of this page, right under "Open tasks". Why do we put a useless box at the top of AN and other noticeboards? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

    • Except it isn't very visible, because the AN templates at the top and the TOC pushes it way down below the fold. I tend to notice Watchlist and Sitenotice messages, but not CENT ones. It would probably be useful to transclude CENT to watchlists. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

      +1 to adding it to the top of watchlists (or at least someone creating a userscript that does that). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was aware of RFC3 thanks to T:CENT, but the wording of the question in RFC3 was confusing to me, and led me not to comment. I thought it wanted me to read an old RFC and summarize what the consensus was in that, rather than coming to a fresh consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• I believe Maddy's closure was appropriate. However, the first application of the policy left a lot to be desired. I would like to see the normal editing called out in the close to refine the policy become a lot more vigorous as a result. In particular, we need to decide if petitions are allowed to devolve into a RRFA prequel (in which case 30 days is ridiculous) or if they are not (in which case stricter guidance on commentary and discussion is sorely missing).Tazerdadog (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: If editors believe that admin recall should not have the force of policy, at this point there are two options as I see it: close review of the RfC or start a new RfC seeking to strip admin recall of its status. Demanding that the policy status of admin recall be immediately stripped and that it be sent back to the drawing board is not how we establish and maintain consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's what this is. A close review. – Joe (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  If only people read a little past the heading before commenting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oops. My bad.  Self-trout. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• WP:CONLEVEL is pretty clear that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. It's overwhelmingly clear from the response to the recall attempt on Graham that there's not actually a favorable community consensus on a wider scale than the couple of dozen editors who happened to respond to that not-particularly well-publicized RFC. Instead of demanding that we force through a bad process, perhaps consider that the original close was not reflective of what the broader community actually feels about this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  You're conflating two different things; I oppose the recall attempt but generally support the process, even though it's not perfect. (I haven't reviewed the discussion and don't have an opinion on the policy or not question yet.) Legoktm (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  As someone who also opposes the specific recall, I'll add my much more noncommittal +1 to that. I don't really care too much about the specifics of the process and I'm supportive of considering it much more fluid and amendable than typical until a few months and/or recall petitions have passed, but I am overall supportive of having a process even if it's one that needs to be worked on (and even if I do believe we have another community initiated process that's sufficient, albeit only as a side effect and with likely a much higher... "activation energy", so to speak). Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  This (and a bunch of other comments here) seem to be a back-channel way to revert the consensus process rather than any of the official ways to revert an RFC. Everyone agrees that this has been an incredibly rocky start for the process, other people are trying to fix it. But a bunch of editors suddenly complaining about the process, no matter how respected, does not suddenly revert consensus. In these three threads, editors who have concerns about this project are (rightfully) way more likely to comment now than the editors who already agree with calling it a policy. I encourage the former to follow the proper way instead of claiming lack of consensus without proof. Soni (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  It was well advertised, I was aware of it but didn't comment or read much of it. If a well-publicised well-attended RfC closed less than a week ago is 'limited consensus at one place and time' then I have no clue what the wider community consensus ever could be.

  If you didn't participate in an RfC for whatever reason and disagree with the result there are ways to go about it, citing CONLEVEL isn't one of them. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• The distinction between policy and procedure in this case may well be worth diggin into, but the idea that this has to stop because "admins didn't know about it" is the fault of those admins, as it was on CENT and in the last issue of the admin newsletter, and the overall RFA 2024 process has been going on for.... I dunno feels like forever. I didn't think it would pass, and I think this first attempt at using it has thrown some serious issues with it into the public eye, but this wasn't snuck in any back door. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, it is policy and enjoys consensus. The whole process was well advertised and had a lot of participation. Could it of been more? Sure, but it was sufficient. There are things that can be worked out with the process as shown, but there is no question that there is consensus to have a process. So basically, since this is a close review, Endorse the close. PackMecEng (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• The policy modified is primarily Wikipedia:Administrators, WP:RECALL is really just the procedures for how to follow the policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Fourth time is the charm huh? Yes, it is a policy. How many times do we need to ask this question before we accept it as such? fanfanboy (block talk) 13:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  This question has not been asked before. Please read the top of the section if you have not already. – Joe (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• On the actual question Joe is asking, namely "should WP:RECALL have a {{policy}} tag, my response is that I don't especially care one way or the other; the tag at the top of the page doesn't change what actually matters, which is that the process has teeth (i.e. if an RRFA is failed, a bureaucrat will actually desysop the admin in question). But since at least Joe cares, sure, remove the tag, it was never authorized to be there. Mach61 14:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Maddy's close was correct. I happen to think it's more process than policy because it's a process Admin X goes through to keep or lose their Admin flag. It's not a policy because there's no clear X/Y outcome. It's petition pass/fail, RRFA pass/fail. As both of those are subjective, it is not a policy situation. However it is a policy in that (using the current example) Graham cannot close Diletantte's petition because they filed it per the framework established. It has bugs as any new process does. Let it run and sort it out before the next. Disclosure, current petition opposer but not involved in RFCs as far as I can recall Star Mississippi 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Is WP:RFA a policy? No. Is WP:ADMINELECT a policy? No. Is WP:RECALL a policy? Also no. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, admin recall is a policy: it has wide acceptance ("global consensus") and was thoroughly vetted by the community. Three separate RFCs over the course of a year, with over 100 editors participating, advertised at the Village Pump, AN, CENT, the Admin Newsletter, user talk page notices, and watchlist notices. If that doesn't count as thorough vetting and wide acceptance, then nothing will. Admin recall is a standard that must be followed (subject to IAR)--bureaucrats shall desysop following a successful recall--so it's not like a guideline or essay. And anyway, the mechanism by which advanced permissions like sysop are added and removed obviously must be done by policy and not by any lower level of consensus. The reason WP:RECALL should have a {{policy}} tag is because it's the page that documents the policy. To the extent this is a close review (I'm not sure about that), endorse and (involved). Levivich (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Another reason it's policy: the third RFC was held at VPP, which is the page for changing policies. AFAIK nobody at any point suggested this was the wrong page. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not a policy This is blatantly obvious. The RfC that was concluded indicating it is a policy did NOT include any mention whatsoever of asking if it should be policy. None. Nada. Zip. Nothing. In fact, several people who commented on the RfC noted that details of the policy still needed to be hashed out. The fact is, there was no vote to make this policy. User:Maddy from Celeste, I appreciate the effort you put into making this close, but this close is a mistake in making this a policy. The question was whether the recall process has consensus, NOT if the recall process should be policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't really mind whether the contents of WP:RRfA are moved into WP:ADMIN instead, but that particular sub-section I think has the status of a procedural policy. I also don't feel all policies have the same barrier to change, if that's the main concern. Changing a fundamental part of WP:NPOV requires a very different level of consensus compared to a policy with 15 talk page watchers. There are things with admin recall that will likely need tweaking; I think reasonably advertised talk page discussion has the ability to make such change. Re procedure: I don't think procedural policies need an explicit vote to that effect. Many current procedural policies didn't, eg AFAICT WP:File mover was promoted after xaosflux noticed felt it shouldn't be tagged as an essay, and nobody objected. Ditto with WP:IPBE per [51][52].
  Ultimately, WP:RRFA details procedure on a process that many in the community likely care about the details of, and said thing is built up by defined rules approved by consensus, as opposed to fuzzy conventions built up over time by trial-and-error. I think these are the some of the hallmarks of procedural policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:File mover was promoted after xaosflux noticed felt it shouldn't be tagged as an essay, and nobody objected. WP:FMR appears to still be an essay. If you read the box at the top of the page carefully, I don't think it's claiming to be a policy or guideline. Instead, someone wrote a custom ombox that seems to be rather unclear, instead of using the standard {{Information page}} tag. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's categorised under Category:Wikipedia procedural policies and listed at Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Procedural. In any case, there's WP:IPBE and these are just the first two I checked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I suspect all the userright procedural policies fall under the same bucket. The RfC behind them usually just asked if such a userright should be created / unbundled. The creation of a procedural policy page was either done by a single editor, or said by the closer to be done as in page mover's case, but was not the RfC question explicitly, and until the closer mentioned it, nobody else did afaict. My point being, I suspect very few of the current procedural policies had explicit confirmation votes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've started Wikipedia_talk:File_mover#Is_this_page_a_policy? to work on fixing these odd pages that have a policy category but no policy template and little original talk page discussion about promoting them to policies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• It's a rule, but it's not ready to be policy yet. Let the procedure evolve into a more final form and let the naysayers finish processing their defeat. Then hold a RfC about promoting it to policy.—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the questions of whether it has consensus or not (I personally think the final version of the procedure should have been put to an up or down discussion rather than having a weird RfC to determine if a previous RfC had consensus, which would’ve avoided the issues we have now), I don’t see how we can ask crats to desysop admins under this procedure without it having the force of policy. Galobtter (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's a very good, and important, point. If, hypothetically, an admin has a petition that reaches the required number, and either refuses to engage in a new RfA or fails to pass it, there could be a real question as to whether any bureaucrat has the authority to take action. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that the RfC wasn't worded to ask to make it policy, the answer is no. There is no policy that supports a bureaucrat having the authority to remove the flag based on this procedure. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a nonsense! GiantSnowman 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I've asked the 'crats. Levivich (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess that will be up to the crats. One of their roles is to provide a final sanity check on sysops/desysops, so I don't think it's a bad thing to allow them some discretion during the first few runs of this new process. – Joe (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Remove the "policy" designation I think that the close was a pretty good one for it's narrow scope in the chain of events that led to this, albeit requiring some expert derivation because the question was not clearly in the RFC making it what I would call an edge case regarding being the right close. But in the big picture (including that chain of events), a high impact policy should be something which had every sentence in it carefully reviewed, has been optimized, and has had wide advertisement/participation to adopt it, and where considering it to be policy a clear part of the question. IMO none or hardly none of those criteria has been satisfied. Further, the initial general decision (in essence saying that there shall be a recall process) was only the starting point of what should have been a thorough process that included all of the above and which in my opinion it wasn't and didn't include all of the above. Let's just take a little extra time to do all of the above instead of having this cloud eternally hanging over the recall process. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The ship has been launched, so let it sail for a whole year. Than review it. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Fingers crossed there's an iceberg soon... GiantSnowman 21:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the current petition could well be described that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

What an interesting mixed metaphor ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Well despite some initial doubt over the wisdom of the first recall including by me, things have turned out different so the process whatever you want to call it is actually being tested quite a bit. We'll see what happens next, I think our initial doubts have shown it's a mistake to jump to hasty conclusions so I'll leave it at that. Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you raise an interesting point. For me, it's more like bad cases make bad law, because I think the new developments would have quickly come under scrutiny under the old processes as well. I don't really believe that the recall petition brought forth anything that would not have come forth just as quickly without it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You volunteering as Captain Smith, GiantSnowman :D (Orig. sig: User:Serial Number 54129, 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)) SerialNumber54129 14:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notification of a request for transwiki importer rights

A request for the assignment of transwiki importer rights is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page importation#Request for transwiki-importer - EggRoll97. To participate, please see the linked section. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

User:AnubisIbizu requesting an unblock

Two years ago, I blocked User:AnubisIbizu pursuant to the ANI discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1110#AnubisIbizu. The editor has today requested an unblock, expressing remorse for their prior conduct, while vehemently denying that they also engaged in sockpuppetry. Although I don't specifically remember the discussion, the sockpuppetry denial seems dubious to me, but not impossible. I would therefore prefer the input of this board before acting on this request. BD2412 T 03:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

BD2412, if I remember rightly, unblock appeals are typically posted on WP:AN, not ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: You are correct; so moved. BD2412 T 03:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems there was an SPI about the socks, after the block: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnubisIbizu/Archive - found after reading User talk:ZimZalaBim/Archive 12#Alt account?, where @Zzuuzz had previously also commented about the socks.

That's all I'm going to comment on as a curious user. – user in a ::/32 range, currently 2804:F14:80BF:B801:8C35:ECA9:E927:764A (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This SPI seems pretty relevant to the sockpuppetry concerns with the CheckUser comment: Traynreck and ZimAlakaZam are  Confirmed to each other. AnubisIbizu is  Unlikely or at best  Inconclusive to those two: different devices and different regions of the same country (though possibly could be explained by having a corporate VPN of some kind, but my confidence in that possibility is not high). I didn't find any other accounts. Honestly, could this be a joe job? Someone at the ANI thread linked above even suggested the possibility. [...] Mz7 (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC) and it was later closed without tagging. Retro (talk | contribs) 05:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Given the SPI evidence, it looks like we ought to be unblocking, though given the ANI, some reminders about what AGF means and how to sort out content disputes wouldn't go amiss. -- asilvering (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Commenting because I was pinged and previously commented. In the absence of other facts (which I haven't looked for) my previous comments should not get in the way of any unblock. My comments were not so different to the conclusions of the SPI, but were perhaps a bit more committed. The comments are what they are and I have no subsequent amendments to them, but that was like two years ago and as far as I know the only such incident. Courtesy pings for Spicy and Mz7. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no immediately obvious recent block evasion from this user, based on technical evidence. Looks clear from that perspective. --Yamla (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Unblocking now, then. BD2412 T 17:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

MissionWar123

User:MissionWar123, a recently opened account, may be the same editor who has been posting barely coherent diatribes about plot holes in Indian TV soap operas from Indian IP addresses for some time. See [53] and [54] for a couple of recent examples. These posts have been reverted by concerned editors. Now the same kind of posts have begun appearing on the entertainment ref desk under the given account name. They have also been posting abusive messages on my and other editors' talk pages, see here for example. Can an administrator assist, please? Many thanks. --Viennese Waltz 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's the very definition of NOTHERE, especially the talkpage abuse. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for protected page

User:Example and its talk page are protected.

On the former, please change:

== See also ==
* [[Wikipedia:User pages]]

to:

== See also ==
* [[User:Red link example]]
* [[Wikipedia:User pages]]

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note for you in the future: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page also works for this sort of request. JJP_Master (she/they) 15:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Self-reporting rollback

hi i rolled back user:RJJ4y7's most recent contribs, as talk page spam, apologies if this was excessive. (Albeit I've just realised I missed half of them—no idea why how, but will leave em.) SerialNumber54129 14:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I think both the reversions and your decision to stop for now were good. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Appeal for Lifting Topic Ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Subject: Appeal for Lifting Topic Ban

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to formally request a reconsideration of the topic ban imposed on my account three years ago due to discussions on the English Wikipedia talk pages. I acknowledge that my use of language at the time was inappropriate and that I made amateurish mistakes. These errors stemmed from a lack of experience and familiarity with Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. Over the past three years, I have actively worked on improving my skills in both editing and communication, as well as my proficiency in English. During this time, I have consistently contributed to the Turkish Wikipedia, adhering to its standards and guidelines. This experience has not only enhanced my understanding of Wikipedia’s expectations but also reinforced my commitment to respectful and constructive collaboration. I genuinely believe that I can now contribute positively and meaningfully to the English Wikipedia. I am fully committed to abiding by Wikipedia’s principles of civility, neutrality, and verifiability. If given the opportunity, I will ensure that my contributions align with these standards and add value to the community. I kindly request you to reconsider my topic ban and allow me to demonstrate my commitment to these principles through constructive edits. I am open to further discussion and willing to comply with any additional conditions to regain editing privileges. Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal. I appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response.

Sincerely, Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The notification is still on this page;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1025564072#Cengizsogutlu Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning decline - no activity on en.wiki since 2023 and their last edits here were violations of the tban. Edits at tr.wiki look fine but unremarkable, and they haven't been very active there either: essentially no talk page discussions, some decent translations but they haven't even reached EC yet. Meanwhile, the appeal here doesn't even come close to fully acknowledging the issues that led first to their ban and then to repeated blocks due to violations of the ban. _signed, Rosguill ^talk
• Cengizsogutlu, you haven't done much editing on the English Wikipedia since your topic ban so it's hard to judge whether or not it has affected your editing here. Have you made any substantial contributions to other WikiMedia projects? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  My current interests include military equipment, the defense industry, military history, culture, and architecture of Belgium (the country I live in). Due to a topic ban related to Turkey and the Turkish Armed Forces, I am currently unable to edit on these subjects. Additionally, Belgian-related topics are often edited by Dutch authors, even in areas where I have substantial expertise.

  I have contributed to Turkish Wikipedia in these areas and continue to do so. Having completed my education recently, my English has improved significantly, and I’ve also developed a hobby in photography. What I want to express is that, if given a chance, I would like to contribute edits in these fields and upload my photographs to Wikimedia.

  To be honest, I feel that I’ve matured with age and assure you that I will avoid engaging in childish disputes. In the near future, I plan to travel to Cyprus and Turkey, where I will attend military parades and would be grateful if I am allowed to upload historical and military-related photos from these events.

  Apart from this, I am also interested in participating in several WikiProjects to further contribute to Wikipedia.I intend to focus solely on technological and cultural topics without engaging in ethnic or controversial discussions. If you wish, you can monitor my future edits in these areas, and based on that, you can decide on a permanent solution.

  Kind regardsCengizsogutlu (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning decline I blocked Cengizsogutlu for topic ban violations in 2021, but pretty much every one of the 30-odd edits they made in 2023 were also topic ban violations which no-one noticed at the time, or I suspect they would have been indefinitely blocked. Now they have returned after a year and want to edit on those topics? I would suggest we need to see continued evidence of productive editing in other areas first. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your feedback. As I mentioned above, I have very little interest or knowledge in other areas, so I can mostly contribute to Wikipedia in these specific fields. Regards. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• After being topic-banned from Turkey-related topics on 28 May 2021, the editor made a number of edits prohibited by the ban. They appear to have misunderstood the scope of their topic ban, a misunderstanding which was corrected in August 2023. That was their first breach of the ban and we should assume that it was a legitimate mistake. However, they have scarcely edited since, so this appeal is coming very soon and with very little fresh editing to assess. There is no evidence that the problems with competence, unsound sourcing, and pro-Turkish POV have been addressed. It is asserted in the appeal that the user has gained a fresh understanding of our policies and that their language and editing skills have improved. However, to support that, the only edits we have are this appeal, one reply in this thread, and one translated new article. I wouldn't be comfortable overturning with just that. Decline for now. arcticocean ■ 15:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• In the block appeal from 2021, the replying admin stated very clearly that "If a topic has anything to do with Turkey at all, you cannot edit it", so they can't really say it was a misunderstanding. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Cengizsogutlu, your topic ban on the English Wikipedia does not apply to Wikimedia Commons. You can upload photos that you take on your upcoming trip to Cyprus and Turkey to Wikimedia Commons as long as you comply with their policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  After uploading the photos I take to Wikimedia, I also want to upload them to English Wikipedia to make edits and adjustments. That’s why the photos I upload will have such a connection. The main purpose is to upload photos to support editing. Just as buying paint and a canvas but not actually painting serves no purpose, these efforts would also be ineffective. However, other users can, of course, eventually use and edit these contributions. But I believe doing both simultaneously will prevent providing an impactful contribution. Best regards. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Cengizsogutlu, you can add those photos to the Turkish Wikipedia and other language versions as well. The English Wikipedia is not the "boss Wikipedia" or the "most important Wikipedia". If you establish a consistent track record of editing the English Wikipedia productively outside the areas of your topic ban, then you can come back here in six months or a year to appeal your topic ban again. Cullen328 (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• This appeal is clearly AI-generated. No. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not saying it is or isn't, but do you have evidence of that? Buffs (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've run it through four different AI detectors. All agree that it was AI-generated, with a high level of confidence. One detector thinks the first couple of sentences are not AI-generated. https://quillbot.com/ai-content-detector https://originality.ai/ai-checker https://app.gptzero.me/ https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for this list, rsjaffe, I've never known where to go to check and see if content is likely AI-generated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Likewise Buffs (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  I get help from AI on most topics, what's wrong with using AI when expressing myself in a language that is not my native one. Is there such a rule on Wikipedia not using AI? Cengizsogutlu (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  You are expressing an opinion that you "used language at the time was inappropriate and that I made amateurish mistakes". Using AI is a step down from having amateurish mistakes and will only compound them. You were topic banned for a reason, continued to dabble in that topic but no one caught you, and now you want to be unbanned. This isn't good logic and lends credence to the concerns to others that you aren't going to be productive. Cullen gives you a good path going forward. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest Decline. The appeal does not create confidence in this editor's ability to use the English language. I agree that the appeal feels AI-generated, but any other explanations for the tone and content of the appeal would also be worrisome. And, most of their recent edits were in violation of their TBAN. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Decline per Pppery's evidence of AI involvement and lack of acknowledgement of the problem. Buffs (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History merge

Last night an LTA moved my user and talk page around a bunch and my talk page history got deleted in the mess. Could someone find out where it ended up and merge it back into the proper page? Thanks. C F A 14:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@CFA: I am working on this now. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@CFA:  Done. Let me know if anything looks out of place. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Closure request for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN appeal

Would an administrator please close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN appeal? I am not brave enough to test whether it is socially acceptable yet for non-admins to close discussions involving bans. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a secret third option, if you are feeling brave.— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Compassionate727, complaints that have been archived are not edited so closing an archived discussion would not be appropriate because, basically, it would be hidden from view and, as I said, archives are not edited unless it is to revert vandalism to them.

I would consider "unarchiving" this discussion and reposting the case here. But, regarding your main question, I don't think it's appropriate for a non-admin to close a discussion about imposing or lifting a ban or block although I'd like to hear from other admins here about this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

At one point it was unarchived, but then someone commented at CR that this was unnecessary, so nothing was done when it was automatically archived again. In my observation, editors split about 50-50 on whether it is okay to close an archived discussion without first unarchiving it (usually, a courtesy note is left on the active page when leaving it archived). At any rate, I don't care about the implementation details, as long as someone closes it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, if this query is not about a desired discussion outcome and more about your need for closure, then I think this request will not solicit any response from admins who review this noticeboard. Discussions on AN and ANI often get archived without any closure or action being taken. It's something you'll need to accept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

With five people supporting an unban vs. two opposing, one of two things should happen: the ban be lifted, or an explanation of why the opposing side's arguments were stronger be given. I don't think it's fair to the appellant that a consensus to unban seemingly have formed, yet the ban never formally be lifted because no admin could be bothered to take responsibility for it. That is why I posted here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

archives are not edited unless it is to revert vandalism to them. Based on what happened at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444, I would say that usually they are not edited unless it is for vandalism. Rare for discussions to be closed after being archived, but it happens. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Super Goku V, I find this surprising. Do any examples come to mind right now? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Other examples, not immediately. But I should be able to get a list of some discussions in the next 30-ish minutes. (Going to go digging at Wikipedia:Closure requests.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Consider this detective work, not homework. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Since this is would likely take half a day to type up, I will just list the results from Archive 1 and Archive 39 for Closure requests and some additional notes for the others typed up afterwards. (I was using the search results, hence the jump between multiple archives in the notes.) Collapsed for convenience. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Search results. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78 (Request) Taiwan/Archive 20[A] (Request) Notability (people)/Archive 2012 (Additional edit; Request) Pakistan/Archive 14 (Request) Talk:Circumcision/Archive 70 (Request) Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444[B] (Request) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169(-1170?)[C] (Request) Other results: Request refers to an archive (of a archive?), but the closure does not appear to have been done within an archive. Request refers to an archive, but the closure does not appear to have been done within an archive. Later comments request multiple closures within archives, but it was declined. Request refers to an archive, but it was declined. Request refers to an archive, but it was not done. Notes: [A] Taiwan/Archive 20 is abnormal. Between 45 and 50 edits were made in March 2012 with the majority involving closing discussion. [B] Specifically un-archived when closed. [C] Discussion is abnormal. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169 has a version with the sub-topic closed and the original discussion still open when archived. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170 has a version with the sub-topic never closed and the original discussion closed. Unusual duplicate. Additional details: Archive 4: 8 requests with all being done. Archive 5: 6 requests with 5 done and 1 modified. Archive 14: 17 requests. Archive 19: 28 or so requests. Multiple done and a few not done. Archive 22: 58 or 59 requests. Multiple done, few already done, at least 1 not done. Archive 25: 20 requests. Archive 30: 30 requests. Total requests from Archives 1, 4, 5, 14, 19, 22, 25, and 30: 179 or 180.

I'm not sure of how exactly to interpret this information but I appreciate your efforts and I think some of our data-loving administrators will find it interesting, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Archive 444 was the first example mention, but that was a bit of an exception. RSN regularly grows to an unmanageable size, so restoring a near half megabytes discussion would have (and did) make the page semi-broken. It shouldn't be taken as any kind of precedent. Also notices where posted on RSN that the close(s) had taken place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

But at the same time, there are closes that occur after a discussion has found itself archived for one reason or another. Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 22 is the best example that I know of with over 50 requests. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Like charlotte ^👸♥📱 07:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• There's a consensus to vacate the sanction, but the other side of the IBAN opposes the idea. What's the play here other than to quietly allow status quo to remain undisturbed? I'd argue that it would be reckless to close that discussion. And as for closing archived threads, I've always felt that only archived threads should be closed since their archival indicates nobody had anything more to say meaning they're actually ready to be closed. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  That would just allow parties to drag the discussion on indefinitely, avoiding a result. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. While it is important to listen carefully to the other party's concerns, I think that properly stops short of giving them a veto. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'd characterise the participation in (and material content of) the archived thread as sufficient to warrant a formal closure, and the byte weight of the thread as insufficient to disrupt this page. Anyone feel like unar­chiving and closing? We've got like twelve new admins, right? Folly Mox (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't wish to be cynical, but my observation is that administrators tend to be risk-averse and reluctant to make difficult closes, which I believe is because risk aversion is what enables them to pass RfA in the first place. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Where you see risk aversion, I see prudence. It's counter-intuitive to lift a two-way IBAN when one of the parties is explicitly against it; I'd go so far as to say that it would effectively invite the opposing party to subtly annoy the other until they request its reinstatement. I don't know if User:MaranoFan would accept such an invitation, but I'd certainly find it more than a little tempting. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

WickedFanAccount "outing" and digging through my social media

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=1258483252&oldid=1258483166

User:WickedFanAccount has dug through my social media post and made disparaging comments about me saying I'm "foaming at the mouth" at having met the cast of the Wicked play.

As @Trailblazer101 mentioned this could be a form of WP:OUTING.

Please WP:PING me if there's a reply as I'm not watching this page. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What's the point in reporting a user if you're not even watching the page? Anyway, this presumably involves off-wiki evidence so you should email the arbitration committee. Or find a pliable admin  :) Cheers, SerialNumber54129 10:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I occasionally check beck but not watching it.

But as @Happily888 mentions "I'd agree with above too. I believe this user just doesn't want to edit WP:CIVILly and that they think all their edits are factual, right and correct, even when they are not, and are instead disregarding policies like WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:CON, WP:OWN and WP:EW. "

Anyway, an admin seems to have expunged the edit mentioning my Reddit account. But the other concerns still remain.

Edit: Ooo it seems I can subscribe to one topic only. That's great!Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I admit the editor seems unlikely to enjoy a long career here. SerialNumber54129 11:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that on-wiki outing should go through Special:EmailUser/Oversight as that team has more members and a faster response time than ArbCom. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah course, I was thinking of a Case. SerialNumber54129 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You have the same username. You accused me of not being allowed to edit articles of things I am a fan of when you yourself proved you are a mega fan. I was simply stating what I noticed in the pictures. WickedFanAccount (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You accused me of "foaming at the mouth." Plus I don't go around digging your social accounts.

Plus it isn't just me who have a concern with you. @Happily888 does too. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Having the same username isn't enough. Unless someone explicitly connects the identity to external accounts or their real name, it isn't permitted. And using language like "foaming at the mouth" is a violation of WP:NPA. Guettarda (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Though I disagree with the basis for the COI concerns and understand your frustration, you stepped way over the line by doxxing another editor. If you aren't blocked for this, my hope is that you'll know better so you won't do this again. BOTTO _(T•C) 21:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it doxing if they are using the same username on a public account with similar interests that line up exactly with their contributions on Wikipedia? WickedFanAccount (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

YES WP:OUTING Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It's the SAME username. He literally put his username ON Wikipedia and matched that with his PUBLIC profiles. WickedFanAccount (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It's WP:OUTING. It's critically important you understand this. It's WP:OUTING. --Yamla (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Plus it's Ad hominem and Tu quoque arguments. I thought it was a partial conflict of interest based on the name and the fact that you're frequently editing articles related to Wicked. Then you went ahead and made a personal ad hominem attack and use tu quoque to deflect my concern. And as other said you went ahead and linked to my Reddit account, meaning you were stalking me since that post was probably on the second page of my profile. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll also note a match like this isn't conclusive. I literally blocked someone today for a username indicating they were Megan Thee Stallion. But even if it was conclusive, it's WP:OUTING and you must not do it. --Yamla (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If you don’t understand this basic protection for users, then you should be blocked to prevent you from outing other users in the future. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the user has now stuck a "retired" notice on their user page with the message "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia ~~ Everyone here is soft and does not appreciate my truthful edits. I used this site a lot 10 years ago. I returned just this month, and I realized why I left. It's worse then than it is now. I am leaving this site for good.." Based on that comment, I suspect they maybe a puppet or have another account as this account only start editing on November 10, 2024. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

To avoid ANI flu issues, I have blocked for harassment indefinitely. I invite review by other admins as I am new to the mop. Alterations or reversion of the block is fine. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Just curious, what's ANI flu issues? Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANIFLU — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

rsjaffe, my only comment is that, as I understand this situation, they were blocked for one instance of outing on one noticeboard. One very, VERY inappropriate edit. "Harrassment" implies more extensive editing focused on intentionally annoying a fellow editor and interfering with their editing which I don't see here. If anything, I think they were unnecessarily bothered with a totally ludicrous COIN case that argued that because they were a fan of a musical, they shouldn't be editing an article about it without disclosing they had a COI. If that's the case, then we should inform all of the Doctor Who fans who are editors that they are banned from editing any articles connected with that TV series. This was a frivolous noticeboard dispute and if it hadn't happened, the editor probably wouldn't have outed the filing editor and they wouldn't be blocked right now. I'm not defending what they did, outing is a red line none of us can cross without severe consequences, but this whole situation didn't have to happen. I think we have to do more to discourage editors from bringing minor disputes to the public forum of noticeboards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's more their name that I was thinking that might have a conflict of interest. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Any mops may want to close the thread at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard too Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikizilla

Wikizilla is basically wikipedia, but based on Godzilla, Mothra and King Kong related stuff. What I've noticed is that people claim that the text from Wikizilla is copyrighted, though per CactusWriter's claim on this revision on Tiamat shows that Wikizilla licenses text under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). GojiraFan1954 (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikizilla:Copyrights is what CactusWriter probably used as the source. Nobody (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, they claim that Wikizilla's text and many of its images are co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA), although there seem to be a couple of caveats which I don't know whether have been adhered to as I can't see the deleted material (and of course, per Bastun's edit-summary, the main condition—that it was attributed (i.e. sourced)—was not met). I think more importantly, why are we using it as any kind or source—perhaps excepting on itself—at all? It's a wiki, a fansite, with no editorial oversight and like WP, it admits to not being a reliable source. SerialNumber54129 10:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering how I could gain said consensus to get it off the copyvios list. If Fandom doesn't give us copyright strikes, then what about Wikizilla? GojiraFan1954 (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It won't go off the copyvios list because it still needs to be checked if the right attribution was added. Nobody (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the copyvios list is. I'm also not sure what copyright strikes are. But if you mean, what are the circumstances under which we can re-use Wikizilla material then, as IaN24 says, it will only be after their criteria for re-use, and our policy of attribution, is adhered to. But as to whether we would ever want to use their material, regardless of attribution: I'm wholly unconvinced of the necessity to do so. If we want to write about Godzilla et al., there must be plenty of non-fansites AKA actual reliable, independent third-part sources available. SerialNumber54129 12:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The copyvios list is technically any link that's not on the Url Ignore List. Copyright strike sounds like the youtube thing. Nobody (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any evidencde that Wikizilla is licensed. I checked when CactusWriter declined the G12 and checked again now: the website has no copyright notice, no terms of use page, no licensing info anywhere. That means it is copyright and we can't copy it there. Diannaa (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Sorry if I'm missing something; but their page ("Wikizila:Copyrights") was linked a couple of times above? SerialNumber54129 13:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now. Sorry for the mistake. I have struck my comment.Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I was worried I was completely losing it, which is always on the cards  :) SerialNumber54129 13:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I did decline the G12 CSD on Tiamat (Godzilla) by investigating the source and finding Wikizilla is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, that was only in response to the CSD tag, not on the value of the text. I really should have tagged the article for the reliability and sourcing issues. And informed the article editor, as well. I agree that no Wiki should be used as a reliable source -- but rather only as a basis for finding possible good sources referenced by the article -- just like we do Wikipedia. Perhaps we can include an entry about Wikizilla at WP:RSP? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@CactusWriter: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikizilla... ready and waiting  :) SerialNumber54129 16:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, SN. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@CactusWriter, When copying from licensed material, attribution is required. So if you are going to decline a G12 because the copied material is compatibly licensed, it would be a good idea to add the required attribution template. I attempted to do that on Tiamat (Godzilla) but someone subsequently removed it. Diannaa (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

G12 is for material we are not legally allowed, with our licensing, to host, or which we have no means to verify that we are. Compatible unattributed material should get attributed, not G12-deleted. Of course, this doesn't exclude any other deletion reason, speedy or otherwise. Animal lover |666| 00:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Block/unblock review scifaxEditor

My actions have stirred up controversy, so wanted them reviewed here. An editor, ScifaxEditor, who had predeclared their COI, wrote a draft on Scifax Publishing. I soft blocked for promotional name. I was later persuaded that it did not designate a role account, but rather a person at Scifax, and unblocked. Special:Permalink/1259131871#User-reported Shows the ensuing conversation. (Later addition) see Special:Permalink/1258413577#Changing username which had the opposite conclusion for another ambiguous possible role name. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't handled any UAA blocks yet, but ScifaxEditor, coupled with the disclosure of the COI, implies to me that this is an account that is being used by a single person at Scifax to write about the company and thus does not run afoul of the promotional username policy.

I do not believe that the draft should have been deleted. This editor did what we instruct COI editors to do: declared their COI, wrote in draftspace, and submitted for AfC review. This editor was not being disruptive, nor were they trying to push the draft through to mainspace. Looking at the draft that was deleted, I highly doubt that this company is notable, but there's no harm in letting it get rejected a few times and then having it get deleted after 6 months when the COI editor gets the message. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This conversation regarding an earlier block of mine, where the name is ambiguous (rep sr) I took to mean senior rep), colored my thinking. Special:Permalink/1258413577#Changing username — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I would be a bit concerned that "ScifaxEditor" is a position and that the account is a role account, one that can be handed off to a successor. But as of now I'd probably just let it be. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

While I (eventually) understood how this can not be a role account (I thought for sure it was before reading the arguments), 'editor' IS a role at Scifax [55] (under "Scientific Publishing Services").

I'd say it's at least ambiguous, in this specific case, given that fact. – 2804:F1...AF:F143 (::/32) (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure looks like a role account to me. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

UAA is there to deal with blatant violations of the username policy and literally nothing else. I think this falls under what has been called the "Mark at Alcoa" exemption to the policy, in that it appears to identify an individual rather than a group. If there is concern that it may be a role account, that can be discussed but the username on its own is not a violation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Deb: blocked OxervEditor (a user in this same shoe) for a username policy violation earlier today, even though I pointed out earlier that it isn't a literal username policy violation. Just wanted to point out as I think Deb is not aware of this situation too. Although, it appears OxervEditor is already asking for a rename as a result of the block. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

There are reasonable people who disagree on this particular name pattern, and context matters, as this pattern could represent a role account for some. Also, if you mention the actions of another editor, you must notify them. I’ll take care of the notification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe Whoops, thank you for handling that! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. To me, this username strongly implies a role account, and I would not be surprised if I've blocked others with this same username pattern. If the company has any kind of "editor" position then I'd lean heavily towards it being a violation; if the company doesn't, it still screams "role account" to me. I think this pattern is uniquely confusing because the term "editor" in this context can be overloaded. I think there is enough room for interpretation here that if another admin reviewed a UAA report as "not a violation" I would not object; likewise, I'd not expect a block (especially a soft one) to generate this level of controversy. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Such a name is very much a role account, one that could be passed on to another editor or shared by everybody who has the job of editor there. "Fred at Scifax" or "Scifax' First Wiki-editor" might pass muster, but not something so obviously a role rather than an identity. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we're looking at this slightly wrong. It doesn't really matter if it's a rôle account or not, what counts is whether it is "... clearly intended to denote an individual person ..." (the exception to Wikipedia:Username policy#Usernames implying shared use). And one thing that's certain in this discussion is that it isn't clear that this is an account for individual use. The block was correct, I think – if it's a single good-faith editor it's easy to request a rename. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and yes, I do disagree with the way the guidelines are being interpreted, and I would certainly have deleted the promotional content in ScifaxEditor's user page, which almost amounts to a CV. One difference between the two cases, however, is that OxervEditor, in addition to creating a spammy article, admitted to being the owner of the company (and did not post a COI notice on his/her user page). Deb (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, thanks for alerting me to the fact that OxervEditor has now added to his "appeal" by including yet another promotional blurb about himself and his company - which I'll be removing as soon as I've finished writing this. Deb (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Disclaimer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I sent this message to a few Wikipedia admins to make sure it gets seen, and now I am putting it here. My brother, who lives with me, has mentioned that he intends on vandalizing Wikipedia articles. He hasn't specified (to the best of my knowledge) what articles he intends to vandalize. Knowing him, it's likely to be anything relating to Donald Trump, and other things relating to the republican party. I wanted to bring this to your attention in part because he and I live together and share an IP address (I don't want to be stuck with the blame), and because I value the integrity of Wikipedia. Thank you. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

If he does, you will be blocked. See WP:BROTHER. You could still prevent this. SerialNumber54129 00:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Believe me, I am trying, but you don't quite know him like I do. He goes out of his way to do the exact opposite of almost anything I ask of him. If he does get me banned, I'll instantly request it to be undone, but it is obviously not the preferred outcome. I'm aware that it is a widely used excuse, which is unfortunate for those of us who are actually encountering this issue. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

One important thing to do is to be absolutely sure he has no access to your account. Never leave any computer he has access to logged in, nor allow it to have your password saved. Do not use any password he would be likely to guess. You may be able to convince someone that your IP address is shared and that you are not responsible for all its actions, but certainly not your account. Animal lover |666| 01:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sure my account is secure from him (I made sure, since I know that's the kind of thing he's likely to do), and I plan on changing my password once a month for extra security. I'll still do what I can to keep him away. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Recommended using 2FA (see WP:2FA) on all of your accounts. Never use your phone number as 2FA. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Would it bother anyone if I blocked this troll now? Or do we need to let him screw with us for longer first? Floquenbeam (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

They have made several good-faith edits to article space; they haven't only posted about this disclaimer, and they have responded productively to feedback on their talk page. It seems like we should Wikipedia:Assume good faith unless there is a compelling reason not to. 03:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Jackattack1597 (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking as well. WP:BROTHER is intended for cases where someone vandalized, got caught, and is trying to make an excuse. OP's situation seems plausible, and they haven't vandalized (that I can see). If OP owns the residence I'd probably be trying to ensure they can't use my Internet connection, but if OP doesn't then they don't have any power in this situation. This doesn't seem too different from someone editing from a school using an account (which we allow), except that they're related to the potential vandal. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

To clarify my remark above, when I said "you could still stop this" I meant: "there's still time to avoid being blocked". I don't believe a word, and Floquenbeam has the size of it. A five day old account suddenly wants to warn us about future vandalism coming from their IP? No. A (probably somewhat immature) attempt to get us all chasing our tails and bending over ourselves to show good faith? Yes. Now they know that now they don't even need to vandalize; we've wasted more time on the suggestion than we would have done on the actuality. Trolls vandalize for the attention; how much cleverer it is not to have to vandalize at all but still achieve the same result. DFTT. SerialNumber54129 14:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block request

Hello, can an admin please block the IP 58.120.141.78. It's a sockpuppet of User:Dopenguins, a user who has been previously banned on 100s of occasions. I have raised this the proper way at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, but it has not been dealt with quickly enough to prevent damage. In the last half hour alone, the IP has undone over 100 of my own edits, and if I didn't have to manually go through them one by one to restore content it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Jkaharper (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. blocked as proxy and mass reverted the edits done in the last hour. – robertsky (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jkaharper (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

User:ReflexSpray violating General sanctions

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

User:ReflexSpray has violated general sanctions numerous times (in fact, their entire contrib history is entirely GS-violating content) imposed on Russo-Ukrainian War and related topics, despite formal notification [56]. WP:RUSUKR dictates that "non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area". Notwithstanding WP:RUSUKR, ReflexSpray has been commenting on edit requests and an RfC. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 03:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC), made non-material changes on 04:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That does appear to be the case. One could simply strike their comments from the discussion via strike-through tags with a note that they violate RUSUKR. The user was given the RUSUKR notice, and continued to make edits. If they have questions about why their edits are being struck (or, if not, since they don't seem to understand this), then we should probably explicitly highlight the restriction to them. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Seeking opinions: protection of the help desk and teahouse

Most of you have probably seen threads here or on the incidents board about MidAtlanticBaby (MAB for short), a long-term attention troll who targets the help desk and teahouse. They're the one that rapidly cycles through open proxies to repost their whine about being banned everywhere and blocked on IRC and not getting responses when they email the Foundation. They're banned from all those channels because any attempt to communicate with them is met with spamming death threats to the user, like this. Don't try to talk to them, WP:RBI is the only appropriate response.

For the past couple weeks they've been spamming those two new user pages. Look through the history and you'll see many instances of an IP posting a message in an alternate unicode font, being reverted and blocked, and a new IP restoring the message within minutes. This can go on for hours, and only stops if the page is protected, which of course means that legitimate new users also can't post to those pages.

Earlier in the week I set both pages to pending changes, thinking that this would allow new users to post through PC moderation but also starve MAB of the attention they crave. It seems to be working - they are active but have not tried to post on those pages - but at the same time there have not been many legitimate posts from anonymous users hitting the moderation queue either. Pigsonthewing asked on the Teahouse talk page to remove the protection, and other users have suggested that we should just let MAB run amok since someone has to revert them anyway even if their edits are paused in the PC queue. I'm on the fence myself if the protection is net positive.

I'd like to hear what other users think. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I was actually just combing through the logs to look at who implemented pending changes, to start a discussion with them. I don't think pending changes really makes sense in this specific circumstance, since MAB's ostensible goal is to harass specific editors, and logged-in editors can see their posts through PC protection regardless of whether those posts have been approved or not, so PC doesn't really do anything to protect MAB's main targets. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think admins should be free tho deal with MAB as they see fit: short protections, blocks, and why not pending changes protection? There is no ideal solution, and being flexible in responses is a way to go imho. My take on pending changes has always been that it takes out the "immediate reward" part of trolling...I actually let the pending changes review lag for some minutes before reverting; some people have short attention spans. Anyway: pending changes is another way to deal with him, I would just shorten the time of protection. Lectonar (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'm not opposed in principle to PC protection being used for this purpose (and certainly I don't think there was anything untoward with Ivanvector's use of it), I'm just unsure of the efficacy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't take it as being against pending-changes protection in principle; I just think that there's no right way to go about it, but also no wrong way. And as the WMF isn't moving, we are stuck with the instruments we have. Lectonar (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As one of MAB's favorites, I understand the frustration in dealing with him. (Look at the > 100,000 byte edits on my talk page for examples.) I am pleased that he's found other ways to express himself while being saddened that others have to clean up his messes. What worked on my talk page was very brief semi protection combined with RBI and proxy blocks. Wish I had something better to offer. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm more or less in agreement with Writ Keeper. I don't want to go into too many details about how I normally try and deal with them, and unfortunately there's very limited ways to get admin coordination on the response.

I'm more concerned that this harassment can keep up for months and there's no support from WMF to get the lists of residential proxies they're using, e.g. vpngate and massblock them. That shouldn't be foisted onto individual communities and bot operators. There are other LTAs that use similar methods to harass people, including non-editors, and we really need to be able to shut that down. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Amen, brother. Amen. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I echo ScottishFinnishRadish's point that we need more support to deal with long-term abuse like this. It's time-consuming and exhausting for admins to handle, and this is clearly MAB's goal. Well, that and to normalise death threats. MAB has kept this up for literally months, if (perhaps) not years. And admins shouldn't have to deal with this garbage. Every approach I've seen so far has simply moved him from one venue to another, but hasn't meaningfully reduced the frequency. I think if we bulk shut down all VPNgate proxies, that has a chance of working. I don't think anything less than this has a chance, but I support any attempts, including Ivanvector's approach. We need a much firmer approach with MAB. --Yamla (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think PC is the least bad option here. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mentioned on Meta for admin retention strategy, which includes more resources from WMF to support admins dealing with persistent, long-term abuse. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Double amen on getting the proxies list. Ridiculous that we don't have it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Putting PC on the Teahouse in particular has a detrimental effect on its target audience - new, inexperienced users. As I said in the original discussion, if used in the case described, it should be for hours at a time, not a month. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. MAB gets frustrated quickly and moves along. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The conundrum here is that if we protect for a short amount of time, or for a long time, MAB comes back within hours of the protection expiring. I agree that our goal here is to limit the disruption to new users, and I guess the question is: is it more disruptive to new users to have to submit their questions to a queue for approval (pending changes), or not be able to submit questions at all for a period of time (semiprotection), or to be frustrated by edit conflicts when MAB is active and spamming the page? We don't have a lot of good options here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think pending changes works perfectly well for this and don't really understand the opposition to it. It's not like newbies posting at the teahouse get immediate responses. They can also survive not getting immediate posting access. But semi-protection for an extended period of time is a bad idea, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

For me, the issue is that they're normally reverted and blocked very quickly. Adding PC to that adds additional labor even when they're not actively trying to disrupt the noticeboards. I don't strongly object to PC, but I don't think it's actually benefiting us. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm, that's fair. I don't really feel like periodically approving some pending changes is a lot of work, but I see what you mean. I'll be the "don't strongly support" to your "don't strongly object". -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

A question in that vein: are users seeing a message that discourages them from editing pages under PC protection? I haven't been able to check, I'm on a corporate VPN. I can report that the message that logged-out editors get on proxy-blocked IPs is fairly discouraging. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Logged into my testalt – appears there's a list of info with the following wording:

"Note: Edits to this page from new or unregistered users are subject to review prior to publication (help link).

[Protection log entry for PC]

The latest accepted version was reviewed on xyz date. There are x pending revisions awaiting review.

The edit form below includes changes that have not yet been accepted. (show those changes)"

It's all listed next to an information icon, so no red warning signs or (excessively) giant text for what it's worth. I can't say whether or not that deters any editors, though. Perfect4th (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• I know the edit filter is not a fix-all solution, but might it be useful in this case? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Without going into detail, it's already being used. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I see. Well, in that case, (1) I would certainly defer to the judgement of people dealing with this user, but (2) if outside opinions are actively being solicited, I think I come down on the side of making Teahouse and Help desk more available to new editors, even if it means having to deal with more MAB posts. If we keep pending changes, asking more PCR's to watch both pages for legit questions might help. If we remove PC, then asking more admins to watch those pages and RBI might help. That's ... pretty useless advice, but it's all I've got. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm an administrator with over 11,600 edits to the Teahouse and it is definitely frustrating to deal with this driven individual. Rapid reverting and blocking is the obvious approach and trying to engage is an especially poor idea in this particular case. Personally, I find pending changes a clunky solution that may well deter new good faith editors. I agree with Floquenbeam that more adminstrator eyes on the Teahouse and the Help Desk would be a good thing, and if this conversation accomplishes that, then that is a positive outcome. Cullen328 (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I do not recommend engagement. It proved counter productive. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I thought I saw your face come up in the header yesterday. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If possible, I immediately unwatch all pages under PC (I really, really hate PC) so I am no longer watching the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Certainly protection of any kind for newbie-facing pages like these should be as short as possible. If we are fighting a single troll, I expect they will sleep every now and then so protection should be not longer than 16 or 20 hours at a time. —Kusma (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

My suggested approach to this type of individual has always that the Foundation should bring a legal proceeding seeking injunctive relief. I do not know whether that might be practicable in this instance nor whether the possibility has been explored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I admit to some curiosity about how this would be possible but it seems like a WP:BEANS issue to discuss here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think we're in agreement here that protection on these pages is not ideal, especially not long protection. I'll lower it on both pages momentarily. Might I suggest that when MAB shows up again, short periods of PC would be preferred to short periods of semi? Or is consensus that we should not protect these pages at all and revert when needed instead? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think we should at the very least protect the pages for long enough to get them to go elsewhere. I don't think that needs to be a long time - 10 or 15 minutes worked for me last time. -- asilvering (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  If we protect, it should be PC, not semi. Don't want to close the door on a newbie. That could have a lasting effect on the editor. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  And we don't care about the effect on established editors? Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• I emailed JKoerner (WMF) a couple of weeks ago after seeing Relaunch of the Community Safety Survey. I gave brief examples of abuse and wrote Asking "have you felt unsafe or uncomfortable contributing to Wikipedia" is not appropriate when such extreme abuse cannot be prevented. I received a nice reply but do not expect anything further. It is past time for the community to push the WMF. We need a statement that they exist to spend money on maintenance or on marketing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do you think they have any money to spare? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Wouldn't it be wise to discuss further this wherever admins discuss LTA matters, i.e. maybe in a less public forum? Perhaps there's a chat or something? I'm not trying to prevent non-administrators from offering opinions, but it should probably be assumed that most LTA are aware of these noticeboards and the talk pages of the pages they're disrupting and are monitoring them to see what steps are going to be taken. The Help Desk was unprotected and the posts starting appearing right away. If WP:RBI is what needs to be done with respect to LTA, then even a discussion such as this seems to somewhat be giving the LTA what its wants. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Ask the WMF to evaluate legal remedies

I appreciate that this is crossing a threshold into more serious waters, but I feel it's completely warranted to discuss at this point. To be clear: I am only interested in discussing whether we should ask the WMF to investigate; of course, I do not think anyone else should conduct anything themselves. While invoking the legal system is almost always a rhetorical pratfall, the internet is real life, and this level of sustained attack on Wikipedia's ability to operate warrants outside intervention. In my view, the WMF should determine whether MAB can be identified, and evaluate the merits of taking legal action against them if so. I know there has been much concern recently as regards the personal information of users, but there is no reason that seeking legal remedy against one of the most disruptive serial bad-faith actors in site history should be seen as a violation of trust or principles. Per User:win8x, it seems plausible for the WMF to contact VPNGate given their anti-abuse policy. I would appreciate input regarding whether we should communicate this matter to the WMF, and if so what the best means of doing so are. Remsense ‥ 论 04:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like something that ArbCom could try to talk with the WMF about. A petition should be a last resort. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Right—I've clarified that I would support whatever means of communication is considered best. Remsense ‥ 论 04:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Deb (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm on board with ArbCom talking to WMF about this. Although I certainly don't have all the information, I'm happy to talk to either group about the problems if it would help. We've also brought up bulk-blocking VPNgate endpoints, though presumably this list wouldn't be something VPNgate would be eager to give us. I'm not immediately sure how we could obtain such a list. If we could, we wouldn't need ArbCom or WMF to do the actual blocks. --Yamla (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll look into this, in my capacity as an individual arb. Z1720 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

There is currently some work to integrate IPTool with AbuseFilter: phab:T354599. Depending on the outcome of the integration, we may be able to prevent edits from proxy IP addresses. – robertsky (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• The Committee regularly deals with such requests and we will do our part to push for a resolution. I wouldn't hold your breaths though; a resolution will neither be fast nor guaranteed, for BEANS reasons. The community will still need an intermediate term solution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  RE: "we may be able to prevent edits from proxy IP addresses." Yaaaayyyyyy! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  glances nervously at UTRS -- asilvering (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

PIA shizzle

Hi, is there an appropriate warning template for a newish (non ec) editor adding PIA content to an article that isn't itself tagged as PIA? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think just {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} suffices, right? Remsense ‥ 论 11:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably can add {{welcome-arbpia}} as well (friendly version of alert/first that uses the language "prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict"). Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

(e/c) :@Remsense: Yes, that looks like it. I nearly fell off my chair when I got the big scary warning about warning people you get when you try to warn someone with it though. There should be some kind of warning. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Moderator Tools newsletter - Issue #2

Welcome to issue #2 of the Moderator Tools newsletter! It's been about a year since the first one (sorry for the delay), but we're excited to tell you what our team has been working on since then, and where you can guide our ongoing and upcoming work.

Automoderator

Automoderator's configuration page as of September 2024.

Automoderator is now feature-complete for its initial release! Automoderator is a highly configurable automated anti-vandalism tool which reverts edits that a machine learning model determines to be vandalism. It can be enabled, disabled, and configured at any time by administrators via a Community Configuration form. Automoderator is now in use on Indonesian, Turkish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese Wikipedias, with other projects at various stages of discussion and setup. You can track data about Automoderator's activity so far via a Superset dashboard. To request Automoderator on your Wikimedia project, please refer to the deployment steps.

We are wrapping up our focused time developing Automoderator while we review data and feedback about its impact. We also still plan to provide support for small Wikimedia projects with few/no administrators (T372280), and integrate the multilingual revert risk model, which is an improved version of the model currently in use, with support for 47 language Wikipedias. We're looking for support testing the multilingual model to better understand its behaviour - please check out the testing process and review some edits!

Nuke extension ('Mass delete')

During the 2024-2025 Wikimedia Foundation fiscal year, our team wants to make improvements to the software that moderators (patrollers, administrators, stewards, etc.) are using today, rather than focusing on building new tools. Although it's valuable to build new features, it's also important that we continue maintaining the important tools that are already being used to maintain and improve Wikipedia's quality.

Nuke search interface.

One such project is to make usability and feature improvements to the Nuke extension (known as 'mass delete' on some projects). We have contracted a community developer, Chlod, who has worked on the extension in the past, to help us with this! With the Nuke project, we hope to make a number of improvements, including additional filters, increasing the deletion time range, automated deletion of related pages, and bug fixes. Read more about this project, and provide feedback, at Extension:Nuke/2024 Moderator Tools project.

Recent Changes

As part of our efforts to improve existing impactful moderator tooling, we are working on a project for a few months to make improvements to Special:RecentChanges and related workflows. We will be prioritizing work for this project on an ongoing basis, but have some larger projects that we will solicit input for via our project page. We have a brief survey at Moderator Tools/Survey:Recent Changes to gather input for this project - please answer the questions if you're interested.

Task prioritization

Finally, looking to the future, we plan to research and work on tasks identified as part of the Community Wishlist focus area titled 'task prioritization'. We'll be looking for opportunities to speak with editors about how they decide what needs their attention, and in particular will be investigating the Watchlist to see where we might be able to make usability and feature improvements. If you have thoughts about opportunities in this focus area please share them on the task prioritization talk page, or file a new wish!

Although we have active engineering projects ongoing, we're always happy to chat about your community's content moderation tool needs - feel free to get in contact at Talk:Moderator Tools to let us know where you think we should focus our efforts. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Unban appeal of User:Baqiyah

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following is the appeal of Baqiyah, who is requesting that their 3X ban be removed. I am bringing this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mods!

First and foremost, I want to offer my sincere apologies for my past mistakes. I recognize the harm I caused, and I am committed to facing my actions and working to regain the trust of this community. It has been around eight months or so since I was last blocked, and during this time, I deeply reflected on my actions and fully understood the gravity of my past violations. I also took the time to further educate myself on the do's and don'ts of Wikipedia in order to never repeat any of the same mistakes again. After waiting more than the mandatory six-month period since my block, I am now requesting the opportunity to appeal my ban through the WP:UNBAN process.

To provide some context and clarity, I’d like to explain how things went wrong. I began editing with my main account, YousefSW07 , without a clear focus or understanding of Wikipedia's policies. My edits were indiscriminate, and I lacked knowledge about the topics I was editing. As a result, I made many mistakes, including engaging in edit wars and arguing with administrators, unaware that these actions were violations of community guidelines. When that account was blocked, I created S Molecular in an attempt to bypass the restrictions, stupidly thinking I could continue editing undetected. I engaged in more edit warring and was eventually banned and caught for sock puppetry. I now fully understand that I should not have done this whatsoever and there is no justification for what I did.

Instead of learning from my mistakes, I created several other accounts—Burhim, Lybcarian, Walgart, and FazeTK—thinking I could simply avoid violating the guidelines and escape detection. But I was wrong, and I was banned on all of these accounts as well. After a short period of time, I created Baqiyah, stupidly thinking that if I started fresh and followed the guidelines, I should be fine. I worked on creating new pages and made efforts to abide by the rules, but I was still a sockpuppet, I was then caught again, as I should have.

At this point, I took a break from editing and waited out the mandatory six-month period before appealing. Since then, I have spent additional time reflecting on the harm I caused and disciplining myself. I fully understand why I was banned multiple times, and I sincerely apologize for my actions and the disruption they caused to the community.

I now realize that true contribution to Wikipedia requires a commitment to the community's values (collaboration, transparency, and respect for policies). I am truly sorry for betraying those values in the past, and I am asking for the chance to prove that I can contribute constructively moving forward. I want to be an active, positive part of Wikipedia, working alongside other editors and adhering strictly to the rules. I also very much understand if there is any concern regarding my unban and am willing to answer any questions you may have.

I humbly ask for the opportunity to rejoin the community and contribute in a way that reflects the integrity and spirit of Wikipedia.

Thank you for considering my appeal. Sincerely Baqiyah 331dot (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

They are  Confirmed to Syria4you and Skibidy rizz. So nope. Spicy (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was easy I guess. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yousefsw07 is the SPI if you want to add that to the record. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

More like Ohio rizz. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unban request for Wikiuser1314

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikiuser1314 is banned by the community under WP:3X. They were initially blocked as a sock of WorldCreaterFighter who has a long-term abuse page, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/WorldCreaterFighter. They claim to be unrelated, but admit a long string of sockpuppets. As a WP:CHECKUSER, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. I solicited feedback from other checkusers on the cu mailing list but did not get a response. --Yamla (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia community! At first I want to apologize for my past mistakes. I want to face my past and work to regain the trust of the community. Quite some time has passed, and I fully understand my wrongdoings now. After waiting the mandatory six months since the block of this account, I sincerely ask for a WP:UNBAN process. – To better understand and summarize my past mistakes, I will try to exlpain how it started: my first account user:Satoshi Kondo (no access anymore), which initially got blocked because I stupidly created two other accounts at that time user:일성강 and user:Kumasojin 熊襲 simultaneously. I attribute these quite stupid actions to my then quite young age of 15 years old in 2016. After some time, those three accounts got correctly blocked as confirmed to each other, but later got merged into the "WorldCreatorFighter" sock-zoo, which now is confirmed to represent (at least) two distinct users (the other being user:Vamlos). I was however to dump and too impatient at that time to explain or wait and apply for a standard offer. As such, the misery started, paired with other rule violations and childish behavior on my side, such as being too impatient and too fixated on my personal views (regardless of if they were correct/sourced or not) and did aggressively try to implement them here. – My blockes were justified and I am ashamed of my past mistakes. Since late 2022, and with this account (Wikiuser1314), I learned a lot, not only here on Wikipedia, but also in real life. I improved myself, became more patient, more cooperative and appreciated to work together with other users. In short, I got older and learned from my past. For that, please also take a look at my talk page and edits of this account (Wikiuser1314). – I really want to constructively and positively edit and contribute to the Wikipedia project, together with fellow Wikipedians, and according to the rules. I do not want to run away anymore and hope to get a chance to prove myself. I am ready to fully cooperate with the Wikipedia community to regain trust. I am also ready to reveal my real identity to administrators and get in contact with them, to explain myself and for further details if it is necessary. Thanks. Sincerely – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I then asked, Please list all of the accounts you've used. A good place to start is Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WorldCreaterFighter and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WorldCreaterFighter. I'm primarily interested in accounts you've used in the past year that we haven't listed there and primarily interested in accounts you claim do not belong to you. --Yamla (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla: Embarrassing for me, but here are the accounts I once used: User:Banjardar, User:Bharat99x2, User:Kumasojin 熊襲, User:Kush3897, User:Ogbuago, User:SapmiSamo, User:WhiteTeaWiki, User:X Aterui x, User:일성강, User:突厥 哈萨克族, User:2001.4bc9.824.e0e4, User:AmurTiger18, User:AntiTuranism1908, User:Ape-huchi, User:Arario, User:Arkiat, User:AsadalEditor, User:AustronesianTaiwan, User:Azazmeh, User:Baikal13, User:BaiulyQz, User:Bayan Khagan, User:Benjamin Samasa?, User:Benji887, User:ChampaDroid, User:DeEnTranslator?, User:GanjDareh4, User:GoguryeoHistorian, User:Gyatso1, User:HainanTai, User:Heiwajima20Ip, User:HlaaluTW, User:Hmoob Yao, User:Jäkke34, User:JihoHone, User:KalifFR?, User:Kang Sung-Tae, User:KinhyaKing, User:KuroZetsu oho, User:KwestaPC, User:Lankaman20, User:LenguaEditar?, User:Lord Huynh, User:Magyarrider, User:Manasam98, User:Mandari9, User:Masamannamasam, User:MLx22, User:MomotaniSS, User:MomotaniYY, User:Nam Việt 18, User:OghurBushi, User:Quapaw, User:Rimisibaqwa, User:RobertoY20, User:Ruuchuu, User:Sakushain, User:Satoshi Kondo, User:Saxhleel, User:Shatuo, User:ShiroEmishi, User:Skaalra, User:Takeshima42, User:TAMILinJAPAN, User:TamizhUser, User:Tiberiussan, User:Tomislav22, User:TürkSamurai, User:Turukkaean, User:Whhu22, User:WikiEdit2204, User:Wikiworkbot2.0, and User:YonaguniFan.

—

The others in both lists are unrelated to me. (Not me:User:WorldCreaterFighter, User:ConspiracyThinkerPeople, User:Dddcg, User:DerekHistorian, User:DragoniteLeopard, User:Jinjin555, User:KnowledgeAndPeace, User:Lynch Kevin de León, User:TechnichalProblems, User:WorkingCatDog123, User:Adygeheipeople, User:BoxRec9, User:CantoneseMaster, User:ChowChowWong, User:Dan Capoccia, User:Deccodabo, User:DrKoraKora, User:Gailververgailqqq, User:HeichtiSmech, User:InternationalAffairs3, User:LemanderOrange, User:MasterChai, User:Namela123, User:OrenburgNative, User:OttoKhan, User:PeopleTaking11, User:Pinoy123xaaa, User:Robela2, User:Spiritclaymore, User:SushigirlJessice, User:TelephoneBaby, User:ToRespond, User:TurkicDelight, User:Verakhu, User:WayneMacleod1, and User:WuyueDNApeople. )

—

Accounts once associated with me, but not blocked/listed here should be these: User:Orange172212, User:Noble4c2, and User:Krause96. – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• If this user is really distinct from the master of the WorldCreaterFighter sockfarm, we couldn't distinguish them by behaviour nor by technical data, and we have a lot of those data points. At some point when we get into the hundreds of accounts that both look and act the same, we stop bothering to carefully distinguish one account from another, because they've collectively been so disruptive over such a long period of time that there's practically zero chance of them ever being unblocked, and each new one is just adding to the garbage heap. So maybe Wikiuser1234 is a different person, maybe they're not; to me it's irrelevant, and policy supports this irrelevancy. This case goes back over a decade, has been persistent throughout that time, and involves pushing fringe theories in a sensitive subject. I'm inclined to say never here, but I'd like to hear from people who edit that topic and have had to put up with this for a decade. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do we know when the most recent sock was? There's too many here for me to hunt-and-peck looking for it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Based on manual investigation (!!!) of the self-declared socks, Wikiuser1314 last edited articles on 2024-04-22. Prior to that account, Krause96 on 2023-08-02. --Yamla (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Wikiuser1314: what do you plan to edit if unblocked? Articles, topic areas, etc... what are your interests? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  The user is blocked and thus unable to respond, but Special:Contributions/Wikiuser1314 gives us a pretty good idea of their interests. Once unblocked, their immediate plans are probably to finish off the draft in their sandbox that they were actively working on when their past caught up with them. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, support. this is a good unblock request, and I see no substantive complaints to their editing on the Wikiuser1314 account. They've decided to respect our rules by waiting patiently for a possible SO, and seem to show good faith in their contributions. I don't see much risk to giving them a chance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support There's every indication that the user is ready to be reintegrated into the Wikipedia community. They waited out the required six months patiently, made a perfectly reasonable unban request, and came clean about their past accounts. Their most recent account, User:Wikiuser1314, made over 1500 edits over a period of 1.5 years without causing any disruption. I don't see any value in preventing them from continuing to positively contribute to the project. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. A solid six-month wait and a strong value to future constructive contributions seem that the user will not repeat the same mistake he did before. Welcome back. The community might trust you again. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Socked for too long. Let him prove he can productively edit any sister wiki before requesting unblock here again. Capitals00 (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually disagree with Capitals00 here; there is a reasonable request, a substantial (and surely rather embarrassing) confession and, more to the point, why would we want to inflict upon a sister wiki a user whom we do not believe is reformed? ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons i mention above ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support given the user provided their history of accounts. Give them some rope. – The Grid (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Contributions by User:Wikiuser1314 have been valuable, including some very good synthethic graphs and maps (an example), with a good ability at incorporating feedback from other users. Past mistake are concerning, but I think he could be given a chance for a fresh start, in exchange for a firm promise not to ever engage in sockpupettery again. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue with reverting major vandalism

There has been vandalism on the Age of consent article by User:Nhwr, however it cannot be reverted since a url is one of the citations he removed is blocked. Please see the article and you will stright away see the vandalism. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the blacklisted source, reverted the edit, and warned Nhwr. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that the edit in question was made by User:Nhwj, not User:Nhwr. The latter editor hasn't been active for many years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I warned Nhwj despite typing Nhwr above. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: I don't get it, Nhwj didn't remove the blacklisted source (you removed it), why was Terrainman's revert setting the blacklist off? – 2804:F1...F1:29EC (::/32) (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

voorts reverted manually and removed the source when they restored the edit. Terrainman was not able to use undo/revert because of the blacklist. At least I think that's what happened, I don't see any filter log entries. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct. I tried to revert as well but couldn't because of the blacklist, so I undid the edit and then manually removed the citation to faqs.org. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like @ActivelyDisinterested has fixed the issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see, Nhwj's edit broke a reference, which turned the entire By Continents section (and more) into a reference error, this 'removed' the blacklist link (by transforming the part of the text where it was in into the error) which in turn made the algorithm think the revert was 'readding' it.

It now makes much more sense why Terrainman called it major vandalism, despite it looking like a small change. – 2804:F1...F1:29EC (::/32) (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

For future reference in cases like this you can use rollback which ignores the blacklist. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I initially tried using UltraViolet, which should have used rollback, but that didn't work. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, some UltraViolet edits are tagged (and presumably use) Undo, while some are tagged Rollback... No idea how it decides between the two, though it seems to show up in the edit summary as well. I mostly use Twinkle myself, and I don't think I've ever seen reverts made from that be tagged as Rollback instead of Undo. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Article moves, disregard for conventions and WP:REDACT

• Teterev53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has moved several articles to WP:OFFICIALNAMEs, with clear disregard for article naming convention, even deleting our discussion about it and branding it as "nonsense". Once this was brought up to RM, they committed multiple WP:REDACT offenses in the discussion—which should not have been in that section to begin with—and started an edit war over it. Blatant disregard for all editorial procedure and etiquette. Mb2437 (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• The articles move was correct. The name of the events are FIA Karting European Championship and FIA Karting World Championship per FIA and consistent with naming of FIA Formula 2 Championship, FIA Formula 3 Championship, FIA Sportscar Championship, FIA Electric GT Championship, FIA Formula 3 European Championship, FIA GT Championship, FIA GT3 European Championship etc. The event logo features the word FIA. The lead of the article say its a FIA event. Also the disrespectful user three times removed my words from my text after his complete lie about "dozens of article title" [57] [58] [59] Also a very strange words about talk page. Per WP:BLANKING, the policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages. Teterev53 (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is literally proving my point that you are disregarding article naming procedure and WP:REDACTing your responses to change the course of the conversation; those names are not consistent with naming convention, as proven in both prior conversations. Your aim is to change dozens of article titles, as you continued to move articles (Karting World Championship) after I opened the discussion with you, and there are dozens of articles which fit your repertoire. It is not "disrespectful" for someone to disagree with you, Wikipedia is a collaborative project fuelled by conversation and debate. Mb2437 (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  This disrespectful user again repeated his complete lie about "dozens of article title". Only 2 or 3 pages in a question, not 12. Teterev53 (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  "Aiming to move" does not mean "has moved"; you're clearly not reading my words. Mb2437 (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  This user say he is know about my aim. CRYSTALBALL clearly. Teterev53 (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Have you glanced at WP:CRYSTALBALL before invoking it here, or? Remsense ‥ 论 07:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  I mean (in a figurative sense) about that user' words about my aim. Its not about wiki-rule. Teterev53 (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Of course you may remove comments from your talk page, but that does not mean you can ignore the contents of the conversation and simply brand it as "nonsense" when a user confronts you with clear policy. Mb2437 (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would support reverting the moves and initiating a move discussion. The situation that Teterev53 moved the pages, some without summary, without discussion and is contested is not appropriate in my view. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BOLDMOVE, autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply (all applied). Also the reason of move and the prooflinks were listed in this edits. [60] [61] What is not appropriate exactly? Teterev53 (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    What you said all are applied is It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. That one objected the move after you moved the pages yourself. Also you provided the link to one, not the other two which you moved without summary. Also wp:OFFICIALNAME is an essay as opposed to wp:commonname which is policy that is based on reliable sources. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    The page which was moved without summary were a technical fault (missclick), and the link was provided in a next edit on a page when discovered. here Teterev53 (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    And why do you think that a common name here is a variant without FIA? All secondary sources say FIA in the title. For example: [62] [63] [64] Teterev53 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    This is not a space for a move discussion, please read WP:CONCISE. Mb2437 (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    • I don't ask you what I should write here. Teterev53 (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

      I can confirm that the titles confirm policy per commonname and consistency, but the objection of another editor is concerning. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

      I work extensively on motorsport articles, and they are not confirmed by consistency: World Sportscar Championship, World Rally Championship, World Rally-Raid Championship, Formula E, European Rally Championship, Asia-Pacific Rally Championship, Middle East Rally Championship, African Rally Championship, European Drag Racing Championship, Formula One, are a few examples of many. There is no disambiguation needed, and it being known simply as the "Karting European Championship" is also confirmed in secondary sources.[65][66][67][68][69] The user is manufacturing points to suit his argument. Mb2437 (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

      Most sources listed in the article (and modern news outlets) say a FIA Karting in the title: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] etc Teterev53 (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) While it's true WP:BOLDMOVE states that users may boldly move pages, it's also states that such moves can be reverted. In this case, it seems prudent for the person wanting to move the page to follow WP:PCM and start a RM discussion. This can be done for a single page or multiple pages if necessary. Arguing about something that's essentially equivalent to a content dispute doesn't really require administrator intervention to resolve, but continuing to argue back and forth about it may lead to someone posting something that could lead to an administrator stepping in and taking some action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• I have reverted the moves to the three specified pages as an uninvolved page mover following a request to WP:RMTR. Teterev53, please open a requested move discussion regarding the matter. The technical requests section of the requested moves page is not the place to have such a discussion, nor is the administrator's noticeboard. If you need assistance with this process, please see WP:RSPM for instructions on opening a move request. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'll second that. Edit warring will not fix the problem you perceive. Buffs (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

LTA page for MidAtlanticBaby?

No thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong venue to ask this, but although I haven't been very active on-wiki in the past few months, I see that there is a new LTA User:MidAtlanticBaby who has been causing quite a lot of trouble, but doesn't yet have a subpage at Wikipedia:Long-Term Abuse. Is there consensus against giving them an entry there? I am wondering because his edits are disruptive in nature but might be mistaken for good-faith by somebody unfamiliar with his MO, rather than being unambigious vandalism like torrents of obscenities; in cases such as these I believe the usefulness of an LTA page outweighs the "vandal shrine factor". Thanks, Passengerpigeon (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC) I don't think there are many cases where MAB could be mistaken for a good-faith editor, what with the death threats and all. We already give them way too much attention as it is; we don't need to dignify it with a LTA subpage IMO. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC) @Writ Keeper: Do his new sockpuppets come out swinging right out of the gate or does he start making inappropriate edits to articles "peacefully" and only begin the truly bad behavior when challenged? I would personally be in favor making an LTA page if the latter is true so that his socks can be detected and blocked quicker; if it's the former then I agree there is no need for it. Passengerpigeon (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC) I agree with Writ Keeper.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC) We don't need new LTA pages on anybody, but particularly not this one. Spicy (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Update after close:MAB has been banned from all Wikipedia pages. Buffs (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Create Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could the page Youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ be created? it's the URL for the Rickroll music video and I want to redirect it to Rickrolling. MouseCursor (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yo Drmies, CU time. SerialNumber54129 18:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DIVINE unban appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

DIVINE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is considered banned by the community because they unsucessfully appealed their block to the community. They are appealing this ban:

I am requesting the unblocking administrator or the community to unblock me because I have understood the cause of my blockage. Why did I get blocked, and how would I have dealt with the situation calmly without providing legal threats already resolved long before, yeah more than six months if I recall it might be seven. I accepted that I was paid to vote for [AFD] and I revealed it myself which helped to block larger PR firms even after I got blocked I supplied information to concerned users and someone who claims to be an invisible administrator which I had submitted evidence long back to administrators.

In the period, I get blocked, I haven't used multiple IDs nor have I edited from any IP or any new ID i.e. CU can verify this humble request first before anyone reviews my unblocking request because, in the past, I have faced many failed SPI requests against me.

Within a pperiod of Six months after getting blocked, I have contributed to SimpleWiki which is kind of similar to Enwiki and I believe I have improved my English skills by learning and contributing via simple English.

To make this request short:

1) I understand why I was blocked and I will avoid those mistakes again and will only submit WP:BLP via WP:DRAFT and will follow further to get unblock from Mainspace WP:BLP in the future. 2) I won't vote in AFD for an additional Six months and request to community later 3) I love Wikipedia thus I have been here for 10 years and I still want to make an effective contribution and help Wikipedia as an individual volunteer once again 4)I have never doxed anyone's identity, but I was the victim of doxing before from few Nepali administrators which I will keep confidential and I have proof of how they misused their power.

Thankyou for considering this request :) DIVINE 08:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

They are active at Simple English Wikipedia (courtesy link to their simplewiki contribs), and PhilKnight found no CU evidence of evasion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• I am of two minds for this request. The previous appeal was a non-starter, and this one cannot be as easily dismissed; it has been six months per the standard offer and they have made positive contributions to a sister project. DIVINE's simplewiki contributions are alright, but they are almost exclusively using Twinkle to nominate things for quick deletion (the simplewiki equivalent of CSD). By my count, there are 17 bluelinks in their simple QD log, out of 261 nominations, which is an error rate of ~6.5%. Those would not be amazing numbers at enwiki; not sure about simplewiki.
  However, I am not seeing a lot which demonstrates their ability to communicate effectively, which brings me back to this block appeal. It is not the best appeal I have read, and I think that we need to see something better from someone blocked in part due to English proficiency issues. I find a time-limited topic ban from AFD to be wholly insufficient to address the UPE concerns (taking bribes to !vote a specific way is a massive no-no). I am not going to stand in the way of an appeal which comes with an indefinite topic ban from all XfDs, broadly construed; a six month AFD topic ban is a nonstarter and the fact that this was the offer from DIVINE is a reason to reject this appeal. Same thing with a only-BLP-via-draftspace restriction; I think we should be looking at an indefinite BLP topic ban, broadly construed. The "never doxed anyone's identity" appears to refer a comment of theirs which was partially suppressed.
  I think on balance I recommend declining; the limited fluency is a real issue for engaging productively at enwiki. I think that simplewiki is a great place for DIVINE to contribute, considering their limited fluency in English, and I would encourage DIVINE to continue to contribute there. If this appeal is to be accepted, I think it should come with:
  1. An indefinite topic ban from BLPs, broadly construed
  2. An indefinite topic ban from XfD, broadly construed
  3. An indefinite topic ban from editing topics with which DIVINE has a COI
• But again, I think that considering the limited language fluency we should not spend more of our most previous resource – volunteer time – trying to coax DIVINE to edit within the rules. I am not sure we can get enough benefit to make it worthwhile. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say six months of ban is enough time for reflection on how to edit Wikipedia better; if he returns to producing poor content, then of course a new ban would be in order.

I lean on giving him a chance, accepting the reinstatement of his account. He can prove his better English through his new edits. Aearthrise (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to ping Ivanvector as the blocking admin. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm left wondering what an "invisible administrator" is. I think HouseBlaster's restrictions are reasonable if consensus is that an appeal is granted. As for me, I didn't know about the UPE on AFDs but I remember when DIVINE was originally indefinitely blocked, they went wild and several of their talk page comments had to be oversighted. We have to ensure they have the temperament to edit on the project where disputes are very common.

Also, given their unsavory connection with AFDs, I think they should stay away from CSD-tagging completely because I don't trust their sense of what articles and pages should be deleted. I know our admins review all tagged articles but given the previous COI, I think their primary activity shouldn't be page deletion. Maybe improving articles, copy editing or vandal fighting would be more appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Decline Appellant has not adequately addressed the UPE concerns and I cannot support even with proposed restrictions on deletion matters and BLP. We could never be sure of their conflicts of interest.. Their best fit is SIMPLEWIKI.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Adding per Spicy to decline rationale -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Decline along similar lines as DFO. The appeal fails to engage meaningfully with the history of UPE; the fact that DIVINE sometimes reports their competition does little to convince me that they themselves have actually come to terms with the fact that abusing Wikipedia for financial gain is extremely high up on the list of the most harmful things one can do to this project. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• From DIVINE's talk page:

  Reply to Deepfriendokra & Liz:

  To Okra, Yes, I was involved in multiple UPEs (three Wikipedia pages). I had done a few COI edits. When I am unblocked, I will declare all of the in my user page. But all I want is one more chance, and I want to change myself and my contributions to enwiki. If SimpleWiki is the best fit for me, then why not enwiki, where I have been contributing for 10 years?

  Keeping your hesitation and concern in my mind, I will effectively contribute in the future, and I need that chance. If you suspect or feel anything like if I am being involved in COI or anything again, then you always have the tools in your power to block me without any hesitation. Thank you.

  To Liz, I accept your suggestions and will follow those. I will focus on anti-vandalism. I was a rollbacker before, and I do have ideas regarding that. Thank you.

  For English proficiency, I can present my English test certificates. I won’t say that I’m the best in English, but my CEFR score is B2 level for now, including reading, writing, & listening. I do have good communication skills in speaking, which is not useful while editing.

  The previous issue with my English was there because that day I was kind of under the influence of beer, and I was sad that I got blocked. And I wrote “gibberish” whatever I could without checking again.

  If the community feels keeping me away from Wikipedia is the best solution. So be it, I will accept the consequences and decision of the community

  I will not have access to a computer for the next few days, so I would appreciate it if someone else could take over the responsibility for copying over responses :) Thanks, BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• I think that the "invisible administrator" comment refers to an unknown person who contacted DIVINE by email after they were blocked, and may have been trying to impersonate me. The edits that were oversighted were their own personal info if I remember right (I'm not an oversighter but there's some discussion in my email related to the impersonation incident). I don't think either of these things are a concern, nor do I think is their English proficiency - they're clearly comprehensible, and we have never required anyone to have university-level English to edit here. It's evident (they've admitted) that they've engaged in undisclosed paid editing and have feuded on-wiki with other UPE operations, and I feel kind of the same as DFO and Blablubbs about the appeal addressing these things but I'm not quite ready to go full decline. Is there a restriction we could unblock to instead? They were productive here and have been productive at simplewiki. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Decline unblock. The issues with this user weren't limited to UPE and legal threats (which are bad enough on their own) or poor English skills. I'd invite people reviewing this request to read some past ANI threads involving DIVINE, such as this one, which resulted in the revocation of their advanced permissions and a block for personal attacks. My long-standing impression of this user has been that they are not compatible with a collaborative environment, and I think that even some of the supportive comments above speak to this - if someone needs three topic bans to have a hope of making acceptable contributions, perhaps they should not be unblocked at all. It might make sense to forgive certain indiscretions if someone was regularly contributing high-quality content, but their contributions to simplewiki have been fairly scant and mostly consist of slapping speedy tags on things. Frankly this user has been a massive time sink, violated the terms of use, and abused others' trust, and nothing I have seen indicates that they will provide enough positive value to make up for it. Spicy (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Spicy Thank you for your comment on AN regarding my unblock request. When my permission was revoked due to my request regarding the 4th level warning. I requested to remove other permissions like rollback and PCR after that, as I am never a fan of PERMS; I keep them when I feel like I need them. In simplewiki, I slap with speedy deletion because I follow Wikipedia rules to slap because they create pages that are supposed to get deleted by me or any other reviewer that won’t change the fact. Additionally, I have created 70 pages. Helped more than 100 pages to add references on them and have fixed them. Have filed multiple SPIs with 100% accuracy if I believe and have fought against in anti-vandalism. Anyway, I don’t want to waste my time and yours writing this long essay.

  Let’s me break this down:

  1. The day I was blocked, my identity, my university, and even my professor's name were doxxed publicly in AN, and nobody cares, but I was blamed for doxxing another user's identity. And editors were praising another editor, calling them Sherlock.

  2. I am human, not a saint; i feel bad and i do have feelings too. Yes, I reacted every time. That’s why I am here requesting to get unblocked after 8 months, and I was punished with an indefinite block.

  3. What you need to accept is that I have made effective contributions, but what I will accept is that I had some attitude problems, but I never meant to do personal attacks against someone.

  4. I have already mentioned that if you want to block me forever, there is no problem; I will accept that, and don’t think I came here to get unblocked after slapping multiple CSDs on SimpleWiki. I was editing there before getting blocked on EnWiki, but I came to seek one more chance.

  5. Wikipedia is an open community for all, and yes, of course there will be debates and arguments, but when I come to seek help in AN for getting a 4th level warning, it comes from nowhere towards me like an arrow that turned out into personal attacks.

  6. I have already submitted multiple unblock requests previously mentioning all of those things before; that’s why I didn’t add much into this fresh request, as I wanted to forget all of those and move forward with positive thoughts and positive attitudes.

  7. I feel like I was tricked; I got blocked by Ivanvector, but it wasn’t per community vote, but when I requested to get unblocked, it was passed to the community, and I got six months to appeal the block, and when I am requesting now, I am facing more brutal charges than before.

  Anyway Thankyou for your kind comment but we never encountered previously. DIVINE 21:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear here, Pppery cross-posted these comments from DIVINE's user talk page, they weren't added here by an IP or other account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Decline per Spicy and DIVINE's inadequate response. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Noting that the failure of disclosing COI had impacted the chances of welcoming back. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Decline. Saying "I love Wikipedia" in the same post that you're requesting an unblock after making legal threats and blatantly violating the TOU is not compelling. Neither is the attempt to spin the UPE as a positive (I revealed [the UPE] myself which helped to block larger PR firms even after I got blocked). The response to Spicy's post is just bizarre, frankly – talking about feeling like they were "tricked" and making demands (What you need to accept is that I have made effective contributions) is not a good response to Spicy's points, and does not inspire confidence in their ability to edit here constructively. Giraffer (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Giraffe, btw, I didn't demand I produce facts while everyone here was so concerned or confused with my csd tags.

  I presented useful contributions and facts about simplewiki, and yes, I am being WP:BOLD. If you think I will beg for it, nah, never not a cup of my tea.

  What I knew was this was coming; my unblock request was ignored for 1 month and 18 days, while the Tulsi request was procedurally decided within two weeks.

  I also mentioned about getting tricked which is fact, so do you have any explanation about that?

  Can you go behind and check the previous AN where my identity was doxed?

  Does anyone of you have the ability or will to talk in that? No, you will never, because at first you blocked me for legal threats.

  Second, language fluency.

  Third, person behavior.

  Now you are being “mortuary archaeologists.”.

  I love Wikipedia and its not owned by you or anyone as it is owned by editors like you and me.

  I will be admin within 5 years. Note it down; I am leaving it here.

  I withdraw my unblock request here.

  I would like to thank @Ivanvector. I was worried if he would go with decline as he was blocking administrator, but I always admired him, and @Liz was always supportive, whatever my past or present was, as she always requested me not to add too much CSD tags on WP:ADV drafts, but I ignored her and moved on by slapping and cleaning.

  I will request to revoke all of my simplewiki rights today too.

  I know how well your CU works. Telling that I have never used multiple accounts though.

  Love you all, no hate. Peace, I don't want you to disturb me.

  For COI declaration, Bongkosh Rittichainuwat, KP Khanal, Prakash Bahadur Deuba, Tulsi Bhagat, Sangeeta Swechcha, and myself [76].

  am happy of who i am. Make Wikipedia better now it’s in your hands which never can.

  I love you all. Take care and peace.

  For UPE Pudgy Penguins, the founder of Pudgy and one listed on my profile. Happy Now?

  Take care. I would like to request you to ban me here permanently. ❤️ DIVINE 17:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whatever the heck this is

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

see User:Ghadi21 and User talk: Ghadi21- they have placed/ attempted to place a block notif on their own pages? Maybe a non issue but thought it important enough to mention here. Sandcat555 (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sandcat555 Perhaps they're testing and just need a pointer to User talk:Sandbox for user warnings Mach61 07:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61 May be a silly question but are you certain they aren't actually a sock of someone else, given those are their only two edits? Sandcat555 (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sandcat555 Eh, my own first edit was pretty weird, unless there's a specific sockpuppeteer known to do this I see no reason to to assume good faith Mach61 08:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61 Alright then. Guess it's nothing Sandcat555 (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pontential vandalism by Fray7 on Wikipedia's Zagreb page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

There’s a potential vandalism by the username of Fray7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been changing the population of Zagreb. I’ve noticed that from weeks ago when they decided to change population, even though with all references related to Zagreb's population are accurate. Knowing that they are the user with overall 8 edits, makes it look like that. I’ve notify the user on their talk page. I posted a diff with link to the example that has been going on for weeks. [77]

Thank you for you understanding. SatelliteChange (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Greetings,

SatelliteChange keeps reverting my edits and changing the Zagreb metro population from his Wikipedia account and 3 other IP addressess to an incorrect, random number of 1,217,150. The source for and next to the metro population clearly states that the Zagreb agglomeration is home to 1,086,528 inhabitants (page 6 of the sourced PDF), not 1,217,150. Fray7 (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a content issue that should be discussed at Talk:Zagreb. I note that the figure of 1,086,528 is from the 2011 census. Maybe the 2021 census shows something different. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock Calculator

Does anyone know of a convenient tool for calculating rangeblocks? I had been using Fastily's. Unfortunately they have retired and disabled their calculator. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Source code is at https://github.com/fastily/ftools so someone could adopt it and publish it to a new location. Raladic (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The same thing was asked at the Teahouse today. Is Wikipedia:Teahouse#Alternative to range block calculator any help? Deor (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That was extremely helpful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I have created a similar tool inspired by Fastily's code, and I will publish it shortly. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

{{blockcalc}} works in a sandbox. Put {{blockcalc|1= ...wikitext with IPs... }} in a sandbox and preview the edit. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Phab request filed but will probably take a while. For the CUs among us, there's one at the bottom of Special:CheckUser (which realistically could be split off to its own special page, the JavaScript is at https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/extensions/CheckUser/+/refs/heads/master/modules/ext.checkUser/cidr/cidr.js). DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 02:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

https://galaxybots.toolforge.org/iprangecalculator – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Or just use NativeForeigner's tool[78]? It works fine. Bishonen | tålk 03:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC).

Whatever gets decided, it should be added to Special:Block. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Primefac, since this thread is no longer very active, I went to Special:Block to add NativeForeigner's tool, only to find I can't edit a "Special" page. Would somebody who can do that like to add either NF's or some other tool mentioned above? There should surely be something that works there as soon as possible. If some other alternative is then preferred here, it can easily be changed. Well, not easily, apparently, but you know what I mean. Bishonen | tålk 02:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC).

Bishonen, the content at the top of the page can be edited at MediaWiki:Blockiptext, which transcludes {{Sensitive IP addresses}}. The link provided by DreamRimmer is on Toolforge too, perhaps a bit better privacy-wise than someone else's domain, so I added that one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• I use {{IP range calculator}} which works quite well. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Administrator Deacon of Pndapetzim has doubled-down on uncivil and canvassing behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dachuna.

• When the article was AfD'd, they took it very personally, as indicated by their initial response on their talk page expressing exasperation and questioning the nominator's motives (diff).
• Posted this patronizing comment suggesting that non-historians shouldn't weigh in on historicity of the subject (deeply ironic not only because I am a historian, but because the nomination explicitly cited high-quality historiography to justify deletion)
• Canvassed Ealdgyth—who, according to AfD stats, had not !voted in an AfD for over a year and has only !voted five times in as many years—to counter a perceived conspiracy of deletionists (diff)
• When confronted about this uncivil behavior, they respond by deleting it as trolling (diff)

Deacon of Pndapetzim recently increased their participation on the project after an extended lull in contributions. I think they should be admonished and instructed to relearn the relevant policies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Pbritti is evidently very unhappy that I informed Ealdgyth of the discussion and how Ealdgyth responded. Ealdgyth is as far as I'm aware the main editor on medieval English religious topics. Pbritti seems to have come here trying to escalate things & create drama following a threat to do so that he made on the discussion page. Also, if anyone wants to explain what canvassing actually is to this user please feel free. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Posting a non-neutral note seeking to affect the outcome of a discussion is canvassing per WP:INAPPNOTE. Your comments were also not very civil and anyone can participate in a discussion, notwithstanding whether they're professional historians. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Read 'It is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation' That's what I intended to do and what I did. Not discussing this point any more, it's silly to suggest that one cannot inform other interested users and note their own concerns, esp. when the guideline page actually encourages it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

(Lest I be extremely hypocritical, I'll note that I saw this discussion mentioned in passing on Discord, but participated on my own accord without being asked :p) That's a very select quote from the canvassing policy, and ignores the context of the rest of the page. Ealdgyth is certainly an accomplished editor in the field, but you informed her and only her in a clearly biased way and urged her to participate on your side of the argument. There's miles between that and popping in with a "Hey, there's an AfD in your area of expertise" without commentary. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

What?! Selective? It's from the top of the page my friend, summarising the most important points. If you disagree with it, go try and have it removed, then and there I think you will learn what the actual consensus about the policy is. If you are successful, come back. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

From lower down the page: Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. See also WP:VOTESTACKING: Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT vibes here, getting a bit robotic as well. It is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation Posting to Ealdgyth was not canvassing or vote stacking, Pbritti may not see it like that because of what Ealdgyth ended up saying but that doesn't change anything. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Quoting WP:AGF while question another editor's motivations for a reasonable AfD and then quoting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when nobody is convinced by your misinterpretation of policy. I change my recommended response to this from a formal warning to favoring thanking Deacon for their 16 years as admin and desysoping. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Admins can't desysop another admin: that proposal needs to be handled by ArbCom or recall. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless there's a huge reform in their behavior, I think we're heading there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sad that you dislike me so much, but I can tell you one thing from being here 20 years, Pbritti, conflict forum escalation and grievance drama mongering will only take you so far and eventually bring you more trouble than it's worth. Only the Machiavellians & folk with no interest in content get on with people 100% of the time. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Please stop assuming anything about me. You have accused me of a number of things yet haven't provided evidence for any of it. I encourage you focus on your behavior and how you can adopt current policy/guidelines into your behavior on-project. Thank you for your years of content creation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• (after edit conflict) I'm going to repeat my comment I made at Deacon's talk page here "I have Deacon's talk page watchlisted, I was already aware of the AfD (I saw it in my morning reading of my watchlist over breakfast before Deacon posted on my talk page). I had planned to weigh in, but I had to feed farm animals and batten down the hatches this morning in front of a large storm headed my way." I'll further note I had noticed the prod notices and even before the AfD was filed, was predicting that one would be filed and had begun to look at the article during my overnight bout of insomnia (where, I also weighed in on Barkeep's talk page on a totally unrelated matter, thus confirming I was actually up at some ungodly hour of the morning), before Deacon posted on my talk page. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  You proved nothing except that you only intervened in this AfD once prompted. Rather humorously, you even mirrored Deacon's unusual !vote of Oppose (rather than a typical "Keep") further suggesting that your involvement is reliant on Deacon's prompting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  What I see from DoP: a mild mannered exasperated response to an AFD; the comment about 'historians' was not patronising; the 'canvass' message was just (just!) the right side of breaching CANVASS, but in any event the person who was targeted has said they were not actually canvassed; and I can totally understand why they removed your talk page post (which was patronising), but describing it as 'trolling' was inappropriate.

  All in all I'd politely suggest DoP take a deep breath in future when dealing with similar situations, but that's about it. GiantSnowman 19:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  The comment about historians was absolutely patronizing and completely improper: an admin should not tell editors they can't participate in a deletion discussion because they're not specialists in a particular area. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  No-one should tell editors they shouldn't comment on a particular area, doesn't matter if they are an admin or not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Posting templated 'warnings' on the pages of experienced users, it's patronising but trolling too surely, at least with a lower case 't'. What good can any experienced user reasonably expect except to arouse some sort of emotional reaction? Re the historian comment, no it has nothing to do with do not participate, it was a response to naive assertions about the historical issues relating to the talk. I did not act with any admin powers on that thread so I don't understand this obsession with me having the mop. I'm honest and sometimes tough in my approach to those things, I got my mop with that being a well established thing about me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  neither Pbritti nor i posted any templated warnings on your talk page - i don't generally do that, and prefer to use my own words when there's an issue, as i did in this case. i PRODed and nominated the article for deletion with WP:Twinkle, which automatically places notice templates on the creator's talk page. those are not warnings. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  More than that, I explicitly avoided a template and anny of those garish warning signs, even offering my appreciation for your return to content work in my personalized message. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I did notice the offering of appreciation, but it was accompanied by the 'warning' header and more trollish stuff, and I felt you were trying to escalate conflict, so I removed it and I would also remove other such comments in future if I felt the same way, it's my talk page I'm entitled to do that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  What, exactly, was trollish? That seems like a pretty serious aspersion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Deacon of Pndapetzim Policy expects that administrators lead by example, and they are expected to be role models for the community and to be civil at all times. Having the tools means that your words and behavior are scrutinized more because you have measurable "soft power" in discussions. While WP:NOBIGDEAL has been cited by numerous people participating in RfAs, uncivil behavior has led to admins being desysoped. Accusing someone of trolling in response to good-faith concerns about your behavior and editing their comments breaches basic policies and guidelines. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Also the fact that the canvassed editor intended to participate anyways is irrelevant. DoP couldn't have know that when the message was posted. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  She wasn't canvassed, why are you proceeding with that notion like it's some established fact? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't interpret his comment about historians as saying 'do not participate in the AFD'. GiantSnowman 19:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think the statement speaks for itself: It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, neither of you know what you are talking about. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Evidently not. The deletion discussion wasn't about the notability of this specific saint, not the historicity; that issue was being raised in naive and unhelpful way, that's why I suggested the issue be avoided. Make sense? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  the crux of my argument is not about the historicity of the saint - that is simply one aspect i mentioned in the nomination. the crux of my argument is the lack of sources, i.e. non-notability. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  The historians comment wasn't about the crux. Honestly, I think that's relatively clear, but I've clarified now in case there was any confusion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Especially patronizing, considering that sawyer777 (who nom'd) has worked diligently in the medieval saint subject area and has contributed FA- and GA-level content. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• i said i would disengage until further prompted, and apparently here's my prompting.
  i nominated the article for deletion earlier today after my PROD was contested yesterday, and during the discussion (& on user talk pages) Deacon has made comments such as:

• "this selective attempt to impose deletionist maximalism" (diff)
• "The deletionists going for the kill here could be emboldened to go after a lot more" (diff)
• "It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, you don't know what you are talking about." twice (diff, diff)
• "if you want to call yourself a historian" ... "I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings but this is a public encyclopedia used by millions of people and the lack of relevant competence is important" (diff)
• "I didn't want this discussion to have no input from knowledgable people & just be me and the two of you" (diff)

i left Deacon a message regarding his conduct, and he both edited my comment and replied in the same diff (edit summary: "rm trolling & ugly format, resp"), which changed the meaning significantly by cutting out multiple sentences. i restored my comment and linked WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS, and was reverted with the edit summary "rv, please don't troll or put ugly format on my talkpage. if you think your meaning has been changed remove the comment". that's not how this works. i am not imposing "deletionist maximalism" or "going for the kill" i just don't think this supposed saint is notable. speculating about my competence, accusing me of trolling, and editing my comments is creating a hostile editing environment. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

forgot one:

• "Regarding being a historian, I don't care if you're not a historian [...] I made the comment because you were saying nonsense things about something that is much more complex than you seemed to understand. Personally I think if one is editing articles on a project like this one should be [...] honest about where and how one can contribute competently." (diff)

i don't even know how to engage with this. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly inappropriate to edit another user's message, and it's even more inappropriate to accuse an editor of good standing, making a good faith edit, to be trolling. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This is astonishingly poor behaviour. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the article (here), but I think that Deacon of Pndapetzim should probably re-calibrate back into the relative obscurity they have enjoyed for most of the past, err, 12 years. Community expectations of discourse, collegiality and communication may have moved on since then. SerialNumber54129 13:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the goal is here with this complaint. Is it to admonish Deacon of Pndapetzim and ask them to be more civil, to not give the appearance of canvassing or be condescending, to not accuse your fellow editors of trolling and to assume good faith on their part? Deacon of Pndapetzim, even if you don't agree with these charges, do not do those things in the future. None of us should behave in these ways and this complaint is a reminder of this to us all that even in the midst of a dispute, we need to treat each other with respect and civility.

If the goal is to de-sysop them, well, you would have to show a pattern of misconduct, Pbritti, and while some of the behavior cited here is inappropriate, for a regular editor or for an admin, I don't think you have shown misconduct beyond their reaction to this one AFD. Additionally, at most, if there was a lot of agreement with your position, there might be a recommendation to take this complaint to arbitration or to start a recall petition but so far, I don't see a groundswell of support here yet and I don't think either a request for arbitration or a recall effort would be successful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the focus is the civility, the implication that only historians should participate in that discussion, and the canvassing. At least that's my read of it. In my opinion, you do want complaints prior to recalls, so as to not appear to be jumping the gun and to give an admin a chance to grow and adjust based on feedback given. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

HMIJ summarizes my rationale for opening the AN. Without this posted to AN, there would be no formal acknowledgment of their inappropriate behavior. I think Deacon's persistent refusal to acknowledge that their behavior was inappropriate here suggests their status as an admin should be changed. Above, I say that a reform in their behavior could prevent this step, but it should happen sooner than later. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm also finding their inappropriate edit summaries (stating a genuine comment by an editor in good standing is trolling), and editing other user's comments to be very inappropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Josh, I hope it didn't seem like I was trying to shut down a discussion. That wasn't my intent. But I think it's helpful to know why a complaint is filed, what the goal of it is. If it is bringing to light misbehavior, I thought that had been accomplished early in this discussion. If the goal was seeking to de-sysop this administrator, then this is the wrong place for that discussion. But I do agree that, for arbitration, editors are advised to try other avenues for redress before opening an arbitration case request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I definitely didn't view that as the intent of your message @Liz, especially given our past interactions I know better than to assume something like that from you. I just wanted to share my perspective on the matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The complaint is presumably targeted at getting consensus that obvious incivility and canvassing is in appropriate, and below community expectations. We shouldn't create the expectation that the next step after bringing to light misbehavior is recall. CMD (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, I think the goal was articulated at the end of the initial post: I think they should be admonished and instructed to relearn the relevant policies. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have to concur Deacon of Pndapetzim's comments in the AfD fall below the collegial standards I think we should strive to maintain in discussions. Comments should be about the arguments, not the participants. (I do admit this might be easy for me to say from the sidelines, especially as someone who is more of a reader than someone who writes content.)

  Regarding the comment DoP sent to Ealdgyth, to me it clearly crosses the line into non-neutral. There's no reason not to say simply "As someone interested in and knowledgeable about the topic area, you might be interested in participating in this AfD"; arguments about the precedent and consequences of deletion can and should be made in the discussion itself.

  While I do offer my feedback in the hope DoP changes his approach, some of the back-and-forth discussion above doesn't necessarily seem to be benefiting anyone. Talking about RECALL also seems excessive at this time. Retro (talk | contribs) 20:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I actually think the discussion is at the right time, given the number of different issues that are evident conduct wise. RECALL may be premature, but you should start a discussion about someone's conduct before doing so, and this is the opportunity for DoP to adjust their behaviour appropriately. Unfortunately, their responses are falling quite short of WP:ADMINCOND at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel like there's a meme here

Wikipedia: Why are there so few admins, this is a crisis.

Also Wikipedia: That guy told someone about a discussion & someone felt attacked, they're an admin, get them to the stake.

I feel like defending myself had just been feeding the drama beast, I'll leave this be, please don't tag me in any posts unless it is necessary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Deacon of Pndapetzim Is this how you intend to respond when people raise questions about your conduct in future? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Deacon of Pndapetzim I'm asking you again, since you have apparently chosen not to respond. Is this the way which you intend to conduct yourself when people raise questions about your behaviour in the future? This is a yes or no question. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Whether on wiki or in real life, perhaps you should consider taking criticism to heart and hearing people out instead of being dismissive @Deacon of Pndapetzim. Fwiw, part of the reason people believe there's not a need for more admins (a view I disagree with) is because so many old admins hold onto tools but don't utilize them, hence the misleading number of admins vs active admin numbers we have. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Without evaluating the whole thread, I will renew a concern I've expressed before about overbroad use of the anti-canvassing guideline. I understand the purpose of the guideline, but it should not be interpreted to prevent bringing a discussion to the attention of the people best able to comment knowledgeably. For comparison, I am a known authority on the author Rex Stout. If someone proposed deleting an article relating to Stout and I missed the AfD notice, I would like to be told about it; and if I then commented, I would not feel that either I or anyone else did anything wrong. Likewise, if an AfD concerns a disputed personage in medieval history, why would we want to disallow seeking input from a major contributor to our medieval history articles? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You do make a good point, but the biggest issue in this notification is the non-neutral way in which it was done. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

just speaking for myself, i have no issues per se with him notifying Ealdgyth - she is, as you say, a major contributor in the medieval history area (and someone i have a lot of respect for). the issue Pbritti and others have taken with the talk page message is the tone and content, especially the parts that say I'm pretty worried about the level and type of reasoning being used and the precedent potentially being added and The deletionists going for the kill here could be emboldened to go after a lot more, including the many place-filler bishop articles we've created over the years. in my view, that clearly indicates an intent to bring a "friendly" editor to be backup in a debate, rather than a simple notification of a relevant discussion. it's a fine line, and i agree that it's not uncommon to see overzealousness with the anti-canvassing guideline, but i do think this crosses into problematic territory. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I would not have phrased the notification with words like "going for the kill," nor would I have made any reference to "trolling." However, much of what was said on the user talkpage could equally have been said in the deletion discussion itself, which the "canvassed" editor would have looked at anyway, so I don't see why the location of the comments should make a big difference. And a comment suggesting that "if A is deleted, then by that logic B, C, and D could be deleted on the same grounds, which would damage our coverage of such-and-such topic-area" is hardly outside the limits of normal XfD discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You're assuming that Deacon knew the canvassed editor would see the AfD anyway, which is contradicted by the mere fact that they posted that notice. This is exacerbated by the uncivil responses both before and after the canvassing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually assuming that even if the canvassed editor might have missed the AfD notice to begin with, once it was mentioned to her, she would then have looked at the contents of the AFD discussion regardless of how the notice was phrased. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying this isn't canvassing because a non-neutral notice posted to a friendly editor's talk page might spur the friendly editor to look at the discussion and then get involved? That is canvassing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I took Brad to be saying that this is ideally how the canvassing rules should be interpreted or rewritten (but please correct me if I'm wrong Brad). I'm agnostic on that point and could be persuaded either way, but as of this moment, I don't think the community interprets CANVAS this way. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

(e/c) I understand your point, which has some validity under the guideline. But the point I'm making is that the effect of a "neutral" notification and a "non-neutral" notification, at least in this instance, would have been exactly the same, so whether or not the notice was "canvassing" strikes me as a peripheral aspect of the discussion. Put differently, if the editor posted "ABCD" in the notification, as opposed to posting "A" in the notification and "BCD" in the AfD itself, would that have changed the analysis? (And with that I may bow out of the discussion, lest I give too much attention to what I've just said should be a minor aspect of the thread.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, this makes sense. I think I disagree with you on the idea that a neutral notice has the same effect as a non-neutral one (especially when it is only sent to a single friendly editor), but I can fully see why you might feel otherwise. Thanks for taking the time to rephrase that for me! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of bringing to a noticeboard every example of someone getting upset that the article they've created is at AFD, but ... DoP is being so pointlessly aggressive, unfair, and patronizing here (and it's likely to end up being counter-productive to keeping the article), that I guess I can't really fault it too much. I suppose I'll say (a) DoP and his adversaries (for lack of a better word) should minimize contact outside the AFD, including here; and (b) if his aggression continues in the AFD, I'll just partially block him from participating there further. I've got it watchlisted now. The non-neutral canvassing, while not great, is less of a concern to me, both for reasons outlined by NYB, and because not every single policy violation needs to be admonished/punished. I know @Deacon of Pndapetzim: asked not to be pinged unnecessarily, but since I'm warning him that I might block him from the AFD, I guess I need to. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I've created over 1000 articles, I don't actually mind if an article I created is deleted per se, esp. one that short, you're speculating inaccurately. The users in question were making historical points based on some serious misunderstandings, I could've spent more time explaining if I wasn't so busy earlier today (honestly thought it would be nipped in the bud earlier) and if I'd been nicer there wouldn't have been so much escalation on their part, but it's neither here not there as far as the Dachuna discussion is concerned. I'm not going to participate in that discussion any more because I have been threatened by yourself and based on your assessment above I don't trust you to be judicious. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Further assumptions of bad faith, despite several comments encouraging others to assume good faith in the last day or so... Hey man im josh (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• New Proposal: A solid trouting Both of y'all take a fish and let's settle down. Make your point in the AfD regarding the article, not each other and move on. I'm not saying either of you do/don't have valid points, but it would serve everyone well to acknowledge they could behave better and back down. If not, I think a block is warranted per Floq. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not really sure anybody but Deacon deserves a trouting in this situating.... but it was already essentially calmed down since the last response was ~8 days ago. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was referring to Deacon & Pbritti. If it's calmer than then, I'm fine with a smack of a light goldfish. Buffs (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

  a) it's not really clear who "both of y'all" is referring to. i nominated the article for deletion and Pbritti started this thread. b) as josh already said, this has settled down. i've even taken the AfD off of my watchlist. c) i have made all of my points at the AfD about the article and its sourcing. i'd like to see what you're referring to. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Then a trouting will serve it's purpose well. Let's grab some fish and move along...hell, you can even swing a trout my way. I'm sure I deserve it for something :-) Buffs (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close review: WP:ANI#Overzealous blocking by User:ToBeFree

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I closed the mentioned ANI thread due to the filing editor being blocked for sockpuppetry. A few minutes later Voorts comes to my talk page and asks me to revert my closure. I believe that I was right, however I am coming here to get a second opinion. If it be that the comunity does not endorse my closure, than I will revert it. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 01:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Not really sure you need to post these here as a matter of course. There's no reason you need to profess that you will revert your closure upon request: if an admin actually disagrees with the thread being closed, I'm sure they would reopen it themselves. Remsense ‥ 论 01:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

This close review is unnecessary. I asked you to self-revert because generally non-admins shouldn't clerk AN or AN/I, and then responded with what I think SOCKSTRIKE says. I wasn't planning to unilaterally revert your close or bring a close review. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Aside from that, there are plenty of reasons to keep a thread open when it's opened by a sock: to report more socking to the same thread, to discuss the editor's conduct, etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

If the idea of the closure was to deny recognition or to minimize the impact of the block evasion, that doesn't work if there is a disagreement about it, and it completely fails if it results in a discussion on another noticeboard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

In fairness it was my idea to take it here. At any rate I have reverted NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 02:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Handling of pages requested by sockpuppets

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

Recently, over 350 redirects were created at WP:AFC/R. These redirects were requested, unknown to the several reviewers involved (including myself), by socks of TotalTruthTeller24. When these socks were discovered, admins @Hey man im josh and @Ponyo went to work deleting these redirects as WP:G5. While I'm not calling into question the judgement of the admins previously mentioned as they did what precedent would dictate, I think the community should review this methodology of handling cases such as this.

Technically, the guidelines surrounding G5 are not clear about whether it can apply to pages created at banned/blocked user's request. It states that pages must "have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions." However, I think most editors would agree that the act of creating a page (regardless of who's idea it was) is a substantial contribution.

The purpose of AfC as I understand it is to provide a method for editors to have their pages (including redirects and categories) screened by someone else. WP:AFC states that, "The Articles for creation (AfC) process is designed to assist any editor with creating a new page". Its use by blocked users is actually consistent with AfCs purpose, as it's currently written. Personally, I don't have a problem if a blocked editor wants to be constructive by going through channels that allow their work to be scrutinized and affirmed by another editor. Maybe this should actually be permitted and even encouraged to provide a way for banned/blocked editors to turn to being constructive instead of vandalizing, becoming a method for proving good intention as a result.

At its simplest, a contribution is either constructive or it's not. In this case, these redirects were found to be valid and constructive by several independent editors who spent combined hours accepting the requests. These redirects were deleted not because they were created by a banned or blocked user, but because they were the idea of a banned or blocked user. As this was a deletion of (many) otherwise constructive contributions, it seems only destructive to Wikipedia. As I've stated before, it seems more like "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face".

I have heard the argument that this blanket handling of AfC related requests by blocked users discourages socks because it doesn't give them what they want. The first part doesn't seem to translate to reality, serial sock users like TTT24 have not been dissuaded. On the second point, if what a blocked user wants is the same thing as what everyone else wants (to build Wikipedia), why not allow it to happen? Nobody has yet addressed the logical hole that I or any other editor could simply go back and create redirects on our own and they would suddenly be acceptable. In fact, if it wasn't explicitly stated that the redirects were as a result of an AfC/R request, would that also make them acceptable?

So, the logical proposal is to stop deleting pages created as a result of a request by a sock. If someone catches the request beforehand, deny it for being a sock. But, once the redirects are created, they shouldn't be touched unless invalid for some other reason. Regardless of whether the above (or something else) is agreed to, G5 should be clarified as to whether it does or does not apply to such cases.

Garsh (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Well this feels premature given we were having what I thought to be a constructive conversation and we were waiting on @Ponyo to chime in. I did not initially go to work doing so for what it's worth. I had noticed Ponyo doing so and I helped them complete the task, including hundreds of redirects I myself created (361 to be exact).

These were edits on behalf of a blocked user who was evading a block. A user who has done so for quite a long time. Now by bringing it here we're feeding the troll instead of actually finishing the conversation we started, so that sucks, but I guess we're giving them that acknowledgement now.

To allow that at WP:AFC/R simply encourages them to continue to create accounts, make requests, rinse and repeat, making their block effectively worthless and encouraging the sock puppetry. I didn't start the deletion spree, but I did contribute to it when I realized Ponyo was going to go ahead and delete all of the redirects that were requested.

Edits on behalf of blocked users are not permitted. I'm not sure why we should make an exception that encourages that behaviour. Though, at the end of the day, I'm most ashamed that I contributed and actually created hundreds of redirects for a sock that I'm actually already familiar with. Regardless of what's decided at this discussion, which again, entirely premature in the midst of an ongoing conversation which was waiting on Ponyo, I want those 361 redirects I created to stay deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Just noting it was exactly 4 hours between your post on my talk page and when you came here. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I’m not accusing either of you of doing anything wrong. This is simply addressing an issue that we have run into repeatedly at AFC/R for months. Garsh (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Just noting a similar conversation about whether an AfC acceptance invalidates G5 is happening here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 26#2024 Northeastern United States wildfires so some resolution in this area is definitely needed. (Will cross post there so all aware I'm cross linking) Star Mississippi 22:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:AFC states that, "The Articles for creation (AfC) process is designed to assist any editor with creating a new page".

Not blocked or banned editors. Common sense is expected when reading these things. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We delete stuff that is the result of block evasion. This is not somplicated. If any user in good standing sees utility in some of these redirects they can recreate them. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Is accepting a redirect request not an endorsement of its utility? Garsh (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Not really? It's more a statement that there's no reason that the redirect shouldn't exist. However, if it was created by a banned editor, that's a good reason why it shouldn't exist. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think this should be a broader discussion, perhaps to happen on WT:CSD about CSD G5 taggings and deletions rather than focusing this attention on two admins who were acting in good faith. As an aside, in my admin work though, I have noticed with CSD G5s, that it is almost always article and draft creations that are tagged for deletions while talk pages and redirects are not tagged. I don't think there is a specific policy guiding this but I have just been aware of this when looking at the page creations of a recently blocked sockpuppet. But this seems like a discussion to have about implementing Wikipedia policy, not a behavioral issue and this issue sure wasn't allowed to have much discussion time before appearing here.

I'm feeling a bit bad about this myself as it seems like this complaint that arose out of a simple comment I made a few hours ago on Josh's User talk page. I didn't think it would so quickly escalate to appearing on the AN noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I am confused about the proper venue for this. If so, I do sincerely apologize. I have clarified again and again that I am not calling the administrators’ conduct into question. Both are good admins who I appreciate very much. I only mentioned them because it was relevant to the background. This is intended to be a policy discussion. Garsh (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

If that were the case, then this should, ideally, have been discussed at WT:CSD. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We delete pages that survived AFD if it's later discovered that all the substantial edits were by a banned user. AFC reviewers are directed to accept if they think the page merely would probably survive a deletion discussion, so that's very plainly a lower bar. In the case of AFC/R, the substance is the identification of the redirects' titles and targets, and that the redirects were created directly by the reviewer rather than moved from draftspace is a technicality.

Yes, you can go ahead and recreate these redirects, so long as the changes are productive and [you] have independent reasons for making such edits. Just like someone can take responsibility for other G5-deleted content, so long as they don't mind being blocked if that content turns out to be copyright infringement or deliberate but (presumably) subtle vandalism. —Cryptic 23:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Editors who are evading a block or ban are acting in bad faith, if they want to contribute bin good faith they should make an appeal. Giving them a way to work around their block isn't a good idea, and will only encourage them to continue in the wrong way.

Any editor can take responsibility for a reverted edit and put the edit back into an article, in the same way any editor I'm good standing should be able to adopt any redirects or articles they create. Although they then are responsible for making sure any content is properly policy compliant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

So since we all seem to agree that 1) this was inadvertently brought to the wrong venue (should be WT:CSD); and 2) that this is a policy question that merits additional visibility, and not reflective of a conduct issue; is there any objection to closing this section out and transferring this discussion to WT:CSD?⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Well that’s rather embarrassing, apologies @Hey man im josh and @Ponyo. Garsh (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed motions to improve ArbCom workflow

The Arbitration Committee is considering a series of motions that set forth different approaches to improving the Committee's workflow and handling of its nonpublic work. Comments are welcome at the motions page. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed motions to improve ArbCom workflow

Request for Admin Assistance with Adani Group Article

Hello,

I would like to request administrative assistance with the Adani Group article. Currently, the introduction includes detailed allegations and controversies (e.g., stock manipulation, political corruption, and other issues), which I believe would be more appropriately placed in the "Controversy" section.

This placement would align with Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD guidelines, which recommend summarizing neutral information in the lead and placing contentious details in dedicated sections.

I have initiated a discussion on the Talk page: [Relocation of Allegations to the Controversy Section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adani_Group#Relocation_of_Allegations_to_the_Controversy_Section). However, additional input or intervention from an administrator would be greatly appreciated to ensure neutrality and proper structuring.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hello, JESUS,

Admins usually do not get involved with article content disputes, we address behavioral issues and policy violations. It sounds like you are doing the right thing in starting an article talk page discussion. I hope you get some good participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz, for the clarification. I appreciate your advice and will continue to engage with other editors on the Talk page to gather input and work towards a consensus. I’m hopeful that we can come to an agreement that ensures the article remains balanced and neutral.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Using AI-generated text, like you have here and on that talk page, is not constructive to discussion. I hope you will consider engaging in that discussion yourself rather than relying on external tools. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 08:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Thadeus. I’d like to clarify that all the contributions I’ve made on the Talk page and here are entirely my own. I prefer to communicate formally on Wikipedia to ensure clarity and professionalism in discussions. My intention is solely to engage constructively and ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines.

If there’s any specific issue with the way I’ve phrased something, please let me know, and I’ll be happy to address it.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to provide feedback

Inspired by Worm That Turned's re-RfA where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. While I reached out to some people directly, I'm very open to hearing from anyone who wants to fill out the feedback form. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts at self-improvement but I think you might solicit more participation if responses weren't posted on your User talk page. Maybe set up a separate User page devoted to getting feedback. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

• Ahecht
• DoubleGrazing
• Dr vulpes
• FOARP
• Peaceray
• Queen of Hearts
• Rsjaffe
• SD0001
• SilverLocust
• Sohom Datta
• ThadeusOfNazereth
• Voorts

• Ajpolino
• Fathoms Below
• Pppery
• Tamzin
• Worm That Turned

• Aervanath
• Christopher Sundita
• Dank
• Dennis Brown
• Dragons flight
• Fastily
• Graham87
• JaGa
• Kbh3rd
• Marine 69-71
• Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
• Yamamoto Ichiro

Interface administrator changes

• SD0001
• Sohom Datta

Pppery

CheckUser changes

• Spicy
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

Technical news

• Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
• An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Malformed RfA

Moved to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Solicited administrator actions

I have decided to formalize, as a personal policy, a practice of generally refusing to moderate or close discussions where my actions with respect to those discussions are solicited by a discussion participant, for reasons that I have explained in the essay that I have just written, Wikipedia:Solicited administrator actions. In a nutshell, I feel that whenever a discussion participant asks a specific administrator to intervene in the discussion, that creates the appearance that the requested administrator is expected to act in favor of the editor making the solicitation. I am more than happy to randomly select pending discussions on notice boards to close, but well henceforth decline to close the discussion where a participant asks for my closure. BD2412 T 03:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if something like this already exists, please point me to it and I will redirect my essay there. I was unable to find an existing project-space page delineating this concept. BD2412 T 03:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I kinda hate it when I get randomly asked to action something and I often just ignore it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to start a discussion on the talk page there with some thoughts. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think of such actions as unseemly. If someone is genuinely reaching out for help, politely decline or close it. Sometimes it may be a simple glance where consensus is abundantly clear. If someone is trying to sway you or ask a buddy for a favor, decline and state why. Not that hard to do, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It's an essay, not a policy proposal. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I never said it was a policy proposal Buffs (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)