Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard


Request for administrative panel closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination)

edit

Hello! Following a discussion with Liz at my talk page, I have come to request whether three administrators might be available and willing to form a panel to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination).

I started the AfD at 21:48 UTC on 31 March, so it is due to close at the same time on Sunday 7 April. The AfD has attracted upwards of 80 !votes already, and follows similarly high participation at the first AfD, BLP noticeboard, deletion review, and second AfD. It has also been the subject of a popular Wikipediocracy forum thread.

Given the high interest in this AfD, and the rather split opinions that are reaching to different policies and guidelines, it would be a great help if three administrators who have been uninvolved in any of the prior discussions might volunteer to close the AfD as a panel. This will hopefully increase the community's confidence that any consensus or the lack thereof is correctly identified, and reduce the chance of the close being contested at deletion review. Many thanks! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should be available to help close. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 11:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing panels have not, in recent times, been less challenged than single admin closes and have not, to my knowledge, been upheld more even when challenged. A 3 admin panel spends a lot of time of 3 administrators to not only do all the work of closing the discussion, but also with collaborating with each other. Given that they are seemingly not achieving their stated purpose of more legitimacy I question the use of editor time, one of our most precious resources, on performing them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also might not be needed; numerically it's 2:1 in favour of deletion, meaning there will need to be a huge swing in the other direction or some very strong keep arguments even to get it to a no consensus close (and no, I did nothing more than count heads, but there's still most of a week to go so it was pointless to do anything but). Primefac (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except AfD closures are not based on votes but the strength of the arguments. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 17:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; nice to see you read what I wrote. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if it sounded dismisive. I know you qualified the statement, but there are AfD closures of no consensus in ones that garner the same ratio with a fraction of the participation. There were vote counters at the first AfD and at the DRV so it's possible I'm developing a twitch in regards to this. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 19:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49, Sandstein, and Primefac: Even if three uninvolved administrators declare themselves available and interested in forming a panel to close the discussion, as Ingenuity has generously volunteered their time and energy to do so, would you still oppose a panel closure in principle? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 18:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to tell people how they should spend their volunteer time. But I am opposed, in principle, to nearly all closing panels. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither opposed nor in favour, I'm just saying that if the consensus is clear enough, a panel is kind of pointless. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ingenuity does not need two other people to help them close the AfD, they can do so on their own. Sandstein 19:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Barkeep49 alludes to, if those volunteering to evaluate the consensus view of a discussion feel more comfortable doing it in a group and agree on doing it, that's up to them. However personally I disagree with mandating that a group of evaluators is needed. isaacl (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Barkeep49. With panels we get even more admin overhead for the same outcome. Additionally, panel closures are not provided for in policy, making them out of process. Moreover, calling for them in any slightly controversial case has the effect of delegitimizing single-admin closures. Sandstein 15:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the same vein, the RM at Talk:Where is Kate? § Requested move 23 March 2024 has reach the backlog section on WP:RMC. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 17:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it would be better to close the RM only after the AfD concludes, or people may get confused and scripts may break. Sandstein 19:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted.
  1. Too many alt proposals to be closed within a week.
  2. There is no clear consensus yet.
  3. We typically close RMs after ongoing AfDs as the process to clean up on the AfD after rename isn't really straight forward.
– robertsky (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you, appreciate the relist! microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this is going to be complicated because it is really covering more than two possibilities. The competing/conflicting RM will make the situation even more complicated. IMO the usual reason (heated/contentious) for panel closures does not exist here. While there are many opposite opinions, I don't see it as particularly heated/contentious. IMO a panel closure would probably just unnecessarily make the closing job even more complicated and time consuming. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, to be fair, I want to state that I suggested the idea to IgnatiusofLondon on their talk page and I think he put together a very cogent request here even though it is not getting the support I expected. So, you can fault me if you think it is a bad idea. I can just tell from my involvement closing AFDs these days and the twists and turns this article has experienced over the past month, that a solitary admin decision would be contested and that a three admin panel decision would be less likely to end up back at Deletion review taking up even more time from participating admins and editors who frequent that noticeboard. As I stated to IgnatiusofLondon, I see valid arguments on several options at the 3rd AFD but the consensus I truly see in this discussion thus far is that editors are tired of arguing about this article. I thought a panel decision would help avoid a second Deletion review but perhaps that was wishful thinking on my part.
And since I'm here, talking about admin time, we could really use additional help closing AFD discussions. Participation, from discussion participants and closers has fallen over the past year and we really only have 3 or 4 regular admin closers where, when I started 3 years ago, I could easily have named a dozen admins who helped out closing discussions in AFDLand. Even if you could devote an hour one day a week, it would help and I'm sure discussion participants would like seeing more diversity in the makeup of admin closers. I know that almost every admin area has become short staffed after the decline in active admin numbers in past years (since COVID-19 if not earlier) so just consider this my pitch! Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I'm surprised to hear this. I have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs on my watchlist and when I've been in the mood to maybe do an AfD there is almost never anything open for me to do. Is that bot not properly updating? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll be blunt here. There has been a trend in AFDs that I have seen over the past few years. And I'll admit up front that I'm partially responsible for this (or partially blamed, if you're not so kind). But discussions that seem borderline, strongly divided or sparsely attended are getting relisted more often than they used to be. This relisting has been done both by regular editors who are helping out through relisting AFD discussions and by some admins including yours truly. This relisting has been done because there is no obvious consenus. I know, as a regular closer, that I like to be as certain as I can be about a closure because I get no joy out of being called to Deletion review as you might see from my previous remarks. We have other closers who shy away from closing any discussions that don't seem unanimous or close to unanimous. This isn't ideal but I understand this behavior because being scrutinized at A Deletion review can sometimes feel like you're getting a colonoscopy. They can be a little brutal. However, when I look at AFDs from years ago, I can see where we had some admins who were very decisive about AFD closures but were casting Super votes because their decisions sure don't seem to reflect a consensus point-of-view. So, there are good and bad aspects of relisting disucussions in order to seek more input from editors. I have seen instances where a bunch of editors suddenly show up after several relistings to offer great feedback and the closure becomes clear but there are other instances where closures just keep getting postponed for too long.
The issue you mentioned though arises sometimes with our non-admin helpers. If I'm not sure about a closure, I will sometimes leave a discussion open because the admins who review "old discussions" do not seem to need the certainty that I like to see. However our "helpers" will often relist any discussion they see that is still open. Our regular admin closers are leaving the discussions open for admins like you to handle as old cases but the discussions just get relisted again for another week. I've discussed this with several of our NACers and relisters but it's hard to describe exactly the conditions that exist when they should just let older discussions be and age out and NOT relist them. They want to help but they should just let these discussion cycle over to the Open AFDs page because what they really need is a fresh set of admin eyes to read them over rather than our few regular admin closers.
I realize that by stating all this, I'm opening myself up to criticism as I do tend to relist discussions that I think are ambiguous or have little to no participation (which is a different problem we could talk about another day). And I've anticipated some pushback from AFD participants but I've only seen a few random comments from editors who are impatient about a relised discussion. But this "multiple relistings" trend should probably be reduced except for when it is genuinely called for. That's my feedback to y'all from the AFD trenches. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that this issue would probably be greatly reduced or even eliminated if we had a few dozen more thoughtful AFD participants but editors seem to burn out on participating there which is understandable. But more participation that is not "per nom", and I think most discussions would have a clearer consensus. That's generally the case for most AFDs except for discussions like that of Where is Kate?. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who contributes at AfD less than I used to I think that relisting and especially the rush to relist is a massive factor in that burnout. Relisting feels like a slap to the face of everyone who has participated, almost as if you're judging their contributions to be insignificant and you're asking for some REAL opinions not the horseshit thats already been offered. I know its not that, but I also know that I'm not the only one who feels a sort of way about relisting. On top of that some people go about relisting in a condescending way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed this trend in AfDs, but I don't necessarily mind it. In fact I have even asked for a relist once or twice to give the discussion more time. I think I might once have expressed surprise that a strongly trending AfD needed a relist, but on balance I think the cautious approach is beneficial. Personally I don't feel the slap to the face from a relist. I may, however, have adapted to the situation. I watch a lot of AfDs but I don't feel a need to participate in most. If an outcome is strongly trending in a way I agree with, I may not take part at all. I may also be guilty of not wanting to go first on some where a lot of searching is required (Um... like this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Shepstone Secondary School). Proper searching takes time. So often it takes the relist for me to remember to do something. So all in all, the more routine relisting may not be a bad thing, but it may, perversely, slow down participation. One thing that is very helpful is when the relisting contains a comment/prompt as to what is needed, such as a request for a source review, or else, in another case I recall, a request for someone familiar with a particular notability guideline (GEOLAND in that case) to comment. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz. The way that eager non-admin closers would relist in ways that prevented closures was a problem I dealt with regularly when AfD was a big part of my admin workload. So I get that. But also from what I'm seeing at the moment, it feels like it would be really hard for me to become a high volume AfD closer again, even if I had the time. If that's true for admins who might be willing to help, then I wonder what can be done. That said I'm unsurprised Low quality participation at Articles for Deletion is still true and would agree that if we could solve that it would have a bigger benefit to the system than getting more admin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a solid statistical basis for having the default listing period for an AfDs be 168 hours precisely? As far as I can tell, somebody at some point was just like "seven days I guess" and then we spent twenty years having them run seven days -- and there wasn't any kind of math done as to whether 7 was better than 6, 8, 10, et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, the thinking was that people have different schedules, so keeping it open for a full week insures that people who, e.g., only have time to edit on Sunday morning, will have a chance to weigh in on a conversation initiated the previous Sunday evening, before it closes. BD2412 T 20:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a week is eminently sensible for that reason. And I can't see what a shorter or longer timeframe could achieve. In any case, relists sometimes don't seem to run for the full additional seven days. The issue is that relists seem often to act as an "extension" due to minimal participation rather than "we're so close to consensus; we just need a final push" for which I think relists are intended. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has tried to save a lot of articles, I've been grateful for relists; I'm not on-wiki all the time, I don't hang out on wikiprojects, and some nominators don't even notify the article creator, let alone all editors who contributed substantially to the article. And in any case I haven't contributed substantially to all our articles, even on topics that interest me :-) So sometimes I only see the AfD after it's been relisted. Plus when I do see it, it usually takes a while to search for sources, and it takes even longer since I've learned to improve the article first rather than posting at the AfD on how it could be improved to better demonstrate notability, and since either way, it usually takes someone being persuaded by my argument and/or work to turn the tide. That 7-day deadline can come awfully fast. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copies from Where is Kate?

edit

Related to this case, an editor RodRabelo7 (!voted keep) has copied the entire page over a redirect [1] and then immediately reverted themselves, creating an unattributed copywithin in the page history of the redirect. Should this be revdelled? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution provided, no need for RD. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found another copy in Special:History/Catherine, Princess of Wales cancer diagnosis. RodRabelo7 made it during WP:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 21#Where is Kate? and WP:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (2nd nomination), as can be seen by the {{AfDM}} and {{Delrev}} tags in those revisions. WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD), point 5, advises against such copying due to WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline) concerns. I find the reverts' "missclick" edit summaries to be implausible.

Date Diff Cross-page diff (confirms exact copy) Active deletion discussions
22 March 2024 Special:Diff/1215065254 Special:Diff/1215064312/1215065254 DRV, AfD 2
6 April 2024 Special:Diff/1217462037 Special:Diff/1217411519/1217462037 AfD 3

Sirfurboy had notified RodRabelo7, so I will not notify them again.

Disclosure: Two years ago, I reported a user at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for merging during AfDs. No action was taken against that user or me. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be happy to work with Ingenuity on closing this AfD. I'm sure they can do this by themselves, as could I, but I agree that coming from a panel of multiple admins will lend more credence to the close, reduce accusations of a supervote, and hopefully bring us closer to a broadly accepted conclusion for this saga. And by the way, @Liz, there's an attending anaesthesiologist at my colonoscopies, but I'm expected to be fully awake at every DRV against me... Owen× ☎ 17:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion needed: Black Kite has raised the issue of my WP:INVOLVEment, based on this comment I made in the DRV. I didn't think my comments in that DRV renders me INVOLVED, and I don't have strong views about the article either way. But if there's an appearance of a bias or involvement, I'll recuse myself from closing the AfD. Please advise. Owen× ☎ 22:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the greatest of respect, there's not an appearance of bias, there clearly is a bias, because you've said the article should be kept. As administrators we cannot close AfDs on which we have commented in one way or another, this isn't a difficult issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to say participating in a DRV always makes you involved with respect to a later AfD, but in this case you've specifically said that you think the topic warrants inclusion, and that's enough to make you a non-ideal closer, I think (especially for such a contentious discussion). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Flatscan regarding the copies. Most of these redirects were deleted under WP:G8 but this one specifically has not been deleted and that is my fault. I had earlier felt that the redirect (and one other of the 20+ creations) was reasonable and should be targeted to Catherine, Princess of Wales#Health. Because I retargeted the redirect, it has not been deleted with all the others. I have thus taken it to RfD here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Catherine, Princess of Wales cancer diagnosis where I explain my reasoning for doing so. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Force logging out NEW users...

edit

Real recently, I have joined as Aliens' Probes only that I can't log in at all, and FORCED to use a possibly bad numeric designation. I tried everything as directed here short of creating another account, and IF I did, some idiots would scream SOCK or some others shit. What is your recommendation? Is there a bug on here? Can a referral of this be kept in the event that someone cries "SOCK", so that people knows that this option of creating a account is a result of a glitch and not a sock or worse?! - and can I use the new account to get back to you all, so that the other can be secured? I have a Android phone that is a real mess at times. It also has a real shitload of Emojis as well. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is "a possibly bad numeric designation"? An IP address? Screenshots would help and although you have a good point about creating a new account, the help desk is now probably your best place for help with a technical issue Elinruby (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP edits:
  1. 05:37, 8 July 2023 comment by the OP's IP about not being able to log in as Unfriendly Aliens, who was later CU blocked - the IP was, too, separately;
  2. Current post by the OP here and at ANI about not being able to log in as Aliens' Probes, who is not blocked;
  3. Accounts similar.
I'm just leaving this as a note for future eyes (as potentially the less attention feedy option), though I am going to revert the ANI one. – 2804:F1...9E:9592 (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the help in this matter. I was concerned about a bad IP and a glitch on here. Why is there a limited set of IP designations?216.247.72.142 (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by a limited set of IP designations but reading the IP address article might answer your question. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ottomanor (talk · contribs) and 2023 Turkish Super Cup (WP:CRYSTAL)

edit

Long story short. Fenerbahçe team abandoned the pitch, but Galatasaray is not awarded the cup yet. However this user already edited 50 pages, editing stats, add honours to players, etc. violating WP:CRYSTAL. [2] here his edits he claims win awarded to Galatasaray nowhere told, Mauro Icardi being Man of the Match (infobox). Reverting all may seem weird, thus something should be done. Beshogur (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting User HughMan532

edit

This user has put "Kill Yourself" what you should do NOW" On the "Kill Yourself" Wikipedia page, I am not completely sure if it is still here but it is disruptive.

- ShibaNation — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShibaNation (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did not notify User:HughMan532, which you are required to do. Additionally, this user has zero edits, zero hits on any edit filters, and zero entries in the logs apart from the account's creation. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 18:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any way SN could know about HM532 without the two accounts being operated by the same person, and it's very suspicious for an hour-old account whose first edit was vandalism to post on AN immediately after. Should the two accounts be Checkusered? – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 18:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for what I did, it was my attempt at a joke lol. Me and SN are friends but aren't the same person. HughMan532 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issue with pdfs?

edit

Not sure where best to take this question - I uploaded the pdf below on commons but I cannot get it to show here as a thumbnail in an article. The below should be a thumbnail picture:

 
Test caption

The only clue I have is in the Dimensions data:

Any suggestions welcome. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody (including me) reading this seems to know the answer, my suggestion would be to try asking at Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile, I think it's the period in the filename that's messing up the way it displays. If I try with the filename without the period, it does a thumbnail (that doesn't resolve because there's no file of that name, of course). Try renaming the file without using a period until the .pdf portion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Schazjmd: that solved it! Thank you! Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it worked! Schazjmd (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor

edit

151.2.203.215

Zenomonoz (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the most blatant case for a NOTHERE block I've ever seen. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for a month, edits on John Money revision-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doremon9087 has a new Account

edit
Users blocked by RickinBaltimore. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Doremon9087 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is now active with the Account Manoj Singh Gaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WikiBayer (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, along with a sleeper Fateh Singh Gaur. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Messy CopyVio History

edit

So Roberto Sabatini has a long history and I'm not sure what would be the right version to revert to since most of the content seems to be copypasted from here Q T C 22:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OverlordQ you might want to list it at the WP:Copyright problems board using {{copyvio}} so editors can assess and remove any violations. – Isochrone (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request Review of Topic Ban imposed by Novem Linguae

edit
CLOSE ENDORSED
Totally uninvolved admin here: When one requests review of a close, the argument should be that the closer incorectly read the consensus arrived at in the discussion, not a relitigation of the points. This request is tone deaf in that one of the issues identified is refusal to let it go and move on. I suggest you do that. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 request a review of this closure by @Novem Linguae:.

The allegations made were (A) Forum Shopping and (B) a refusal to drop the stick on Tim Hunt. Allegations were made by involved editors unsupported by evidence, reference to my contribution history shows them to be untrue. 2 other editors supported that allegation also without reference to any evidence of misconduct. 1 editor cited one of my comments as evidence of bad faith.

[10] My contribution history on Tim Hunt. 100% of it reverted. 0.7% of all contributions on the article.

Note: [11] {{npov}} tag added 13 March 2024, [12] single revert to restore. [13] 25 March 2024 - one single edit adding context and information in WP:RS per WP:NPOV. That is all of my contributions to the article.

[14] My contribution history on Talk:Tim Hunt.

Note: [15] 13 March 2024 - comment on NPOV tags, [16] 17 March 2024 - [17] Further comment, 25 March 2024 - Comment on revert of my contribution. I had not made any comment in talk since 12th February.

Since 12th February, I've made 3 comments in talk, 1 contribution to the article in total. This is hardly the actions of someone who can't drop the stick.

In talk, I raised concerns over the neutrality of edits in the context of a WP:BLP. Comments that the closer of the RFC noted were valid concerns [18] I am specifically mentioned in the close.

I have not raised the topic of Tim Hunt in any forum. I raised a tangential issue that {{npov}} tags were being removed by edit warring at WP:ANI on 13th March. I can't link a diff because the edit has been oversighted [19].

The allegations made are demonstrably false.

As regards, the accusation of bad faith [20] That took a talk quote taken out of context, which was a response to [21], where the editors responsible for the RFC indicate they do not feel the need to respond to the closer's comments. Reference to misogyny is not my comment but for example [22] he's just another misogynist. Further I did not oppose the RFC but complimented the closer on a difficult close in the circumstances.

I have in fact, already committed to disengage on Tim Hunt. My concerns ref WP:BLP are shared by @Isaidnoway:, @Fiveby:, @Elemimele:,@Springee: and @Nemov:. I note the concern expressed by Isaidnoway I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way. This was also my motivation for disengaging. I am concerned of the chilling effect that an editor can receive a topic ban without evidence of misconduct; assessing consensus should be based on strength of argument and in the absence of evidence there is no such strength of argument.

I request a prompt review of this closure by an uninvolved admin. WCMemail 15:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - I see no other viable closure of the thread in question. WCM's further argumentation here belies the fact that the main objection leading to the topic ban was the opening of the ANI thread regarding JayBeeEll, not edits at Tim Hunt or Talk:Tim Hunt. Further, if WCM is genuinely committed to disengaging from this topic and dispute, a better way to do that would be to not immediately write a several-hundred-word appeal directly pertaining to it. signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Cadaver Dogs

edit

Hi! I would like to request access to edit/create a standalone article page for 'Cadaver Dogs'. Currently, it is stated that I am blocked from editing it, and I need to request administrator access. I was hoping by reaching out here I would receive that?

Thank you :) Taylorwikipag3 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Cadaver dogs" is a redirect to Search and rescue dog#Cadaver dog. You can expand that section rather than creating a fork. If the section becomes large enough, then you can propose splitting the section out into a separate article. If the article you want to write is about another topic, then you can write a draft, either in the Draft space or in a sandbox in your own user space, and then ask for help moving it to article space when it is ready. Donald Albury 21:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the issue is that you were, up until just now, not an autoconfirmed user. I would still strongly suggest you draft an article before just creating it, but you should technically be able to do so now. The correct title would be Cadaver dog, which is currently a redirect. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024: Phase I ready to be wrapped up

edit

Hello! Each proposal of Phase I of RFA2024 has been open for 30 days or more (much more), and is ready to be closed by an uninvolved user. If anyone would be willing to help out, it would be much appreciated. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfD still open

edit

This RfD has been open since as late as March 19 (potentially even earlier) and it still has not been closed yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#List_of_arunachal_pradesh_cricketer Okmrman (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth @Okmrman:, a month at RfD (March 11th to April 12th) is really not that much cause for alarm. If it was touching two though, and/or was a decently contentious discussion which has lingered at the bottom for weeks with multiple relists, that's a lot more noteworthy. But the old RfD in question received 7 delete !votes and 1 !keep vote within the last 7 days. Would've been closed any day now, and likely isn't something that needed to be cross-posted here.
What I will say though, as a word of advice, there really shouldn't be that big of a rush to close things at RfD. Generally, discussions should stay open for at least a week regardless, but I noticed you closing brand new discussions within a day, which should generally not be happening. You closed this discussion yesterday that was live for 18 hours after one person !voted to retarget and two people echoed it, which was a highly premature close from my point of view, (especially as I would've !voted something else). You were asked on your talk page 5 days ago to undo a close you made on Holy Chao, and again asked earlier today. I presume that case was also 1-2 days old as User:Veverve asked you on April 7th to reopen their RfD that initiated on April 5th?
I appreciate your enthusiasm for keeping the RfDs up-to-date, as well as coming here to make sure that the old discussions receive their proper closure, but with this recent pattern I'd advise you to take it at a bit slower pace, thank you. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry. My own discussion on the Genociding redirect was closed within less than a day so I thought that type of stuff was allowed. Okmrman (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good, thanks for the response. Looking into the particular Genociding case, it seems it was primarily based on there not being a strong reason for action at RfD, i.e. it wouldn't be appropriate to delete Dancing as a redirect to Dance due to the -ing, either. The super early close isn't something that I would have done for it, as early closes are contentious on principle, but we live and learn though! Utopes (talk / cont) 06:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request: Willbb234

edit

Willbb234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Willbb234 was blocked late last year after an incident involving a sexualized personal attack (it has been revdeleted, don't go looking for it). They requested unblock about a month later, but I found their explanation lacking and declined with some reading material. They made a new appeal about a month later, but even though several admins have seen it it hasn't been actioned. The requests read:

I recently made a nasty comment and I would like to apologise for said comment and for the distress it caused. I would also like to apologise to those that had to read the comment. I promise that this won't happen again. In my nearly five years of editing this is what I believe to be the first personal attack I have made, and so it is certainly not like me to make such a comment, and I will learn and change from this experience and block. Regards, Willbb234 18:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC) (declined by Ivanvector, same day)

Along with the things I said in my previous unblock request, I would also like to acknowledge the seriousness of my comment and the fact that I have read through the resources given and have given thought to what they have said. Passing off sexual harassment as a joke is completely inappropriate. I hope that we can move on. Willbb234 17:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC) (request remains open)

After a discussion among several admins today, we agree (more or less) that given the nature of the incident, the community should review this request. I am inviting interested editors to comment on Wilbb234's talk page directly so that they can respond to questions without us having to do a whole lot of copying and pasting back and forth. Please join the discussion at User talk:Willbb234#Unblock request for community review. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalting needed

edit

Can an admin please unsalt Sanket Mhatre so Sanket Mhatre (voice actor) can be moved there? It seems the article may be notable after all, and the disambiguation is not needed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could this wait until the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanket Mhatre (voice actor)? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request Admin assistance

edit

Hello. There are several premature RFD closures that probably need to be reopened. User:Okmrman is a new account with a little over a month on Wikipedia ( 3 March 2024 User account Okmrman talk contribs was created ). They have closed several RFDs too early. and they seem to be over eager to close these early. Links to these particular RFDs are: Holy Chao, Discorianism and the ones beneath Discorianism - Dischordian, Discodianism, Discorianist, Discordian Date.

Here is the talk page discussion related to this on Okmrman's talk page: [23]. Although myself and another editor have pointed out that they should re-opoen these discussions (as a procedural matter) they seem to be unavailable at this time. Hence, I am requesting an Admin re-open these discussions. You can see, some of these were closed after only four days. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okmrman just responded on their talk page: [24]. They are causing a lot of work for other editors because after only a month on Wikipedia he They "still stand by the closure and [then they say] if you want to reopen it, go request the admins to see if it's valid or not." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As a note, some of these were also closed by me. Particularly, on April 5th Veverve nominated 30+ redirects across 20+ RfD sections, all to Discordianism, across 38 minutes ranging from 22:21 to 22:59. With basically a redirect getting nominated every minute, many of these nominations were not handled with the proper diligence as expected of an XfD proposal. An example would be "Discordian date", which was nominated with the rationale of "nonsensical", even though there's nothing inherently or evidently nonsensical about it. Discordian calendar, a target that four people unanimously pointed out and zero opposition, is a very plausible location to discuss dates; so, I closed this nomination on April 11th, in order to clean up some of the mass Discordian nominations that had a simple fix to retarget. Similarly, the disappearance of a section isn't a reason to delete Chao (Discordianism), if it's still discussed in a different section. Admittedly, Okmrman's closes were a lot earlier than I would've hoped for (April 9th), but I don't see how any of them would have turned out any differently. Opening them now would just be a detriment to editor's spent-time, as all have come to a universally agreed conclusion, and/or have no suitable reason for deletion provided (as mentions of terms such as Holy Chao have been added / re-added to the article, etc). Utopes (talk / cont) 21:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have already been too many noticeboard threads about this topic, but since Steve Quinn has decided that this matter warranted yet another thread, perhaps he will be kind enough to explain why he wrote at Veverve's talk page that Oakman, Skyerise, and Furius are quite the clown show regarding these RFD and Discordianism pages [25]. Steve Quinn has ignored a prior attempt to get him to retract this personal attack. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lepricavark, to which noticeboard threads are you referring? This is the only thread I know about regarding the possibility of reopening the RFDs ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more specific. I was referring more broadly to all the Discordianism-related threads. Continuing to ignore criticism of your personal attack is a bad look. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK I agree that those are not noticeboard threads. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several threads about Discordianism at the noticeboards. Too many, in my opinion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. That's not a very good look for him. Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot Okmrman (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough blame to go around regarding the Discordianism and RFD discussions. So I suggest we all drop it. Otherwise we can all have dueling diffs between among several people. Frankly I don't think that would be productive at this point. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and that's why this user essay exists. To make people think about their own actions before making discussions like this. Now personally, I would suggest to get an admin to lock this entire thread (and maybe give you a 2 day block for personal attack). Okmrman (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your response is known as trolling. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing wrong with me opening this discussion. In fact, it was quite justified. It is and was not a personal attack. You have actually prematurely closed a number of RFDs. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright maybe the discussion was valid but were the very cleverly marked up sections where you took very obvious jabs necessary? Also, the personal attacks refers to the messages you made about the three users in that user talk page. Okmrman (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not really cleverly marked up. They are strike thru's. In other words, that means I rescinded those remarks. And I rescinded because they seem to contradict Assume Good Faith. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, regarding those three to whom you refer, I think that would be up to us to resolve. That is the instance I refer to where several of us would be in a situation of dueling diffs. One remark or action caused another remark or action and so on---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this has come up more than once or twice - I apologize for making the clown show remark regarding three Wikipedia editors (three colleagues) who are doing the best that they can, just like me. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "enough blame to go around" I wasn't referring to opening this thread. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my request based on Utopes input above. I didn't realize the scope of, or the number of, RFDs created in a short space of time. Also, I didn't realize that proper due diligence was not carried out on most of these RfDs. But if I had realized the scope of the mass of deletion requests, I probably would have had a clue about due diligence. I got too involved in this situation, which is not a good thing on Wikipedia. It is a recipe for errors in judgement. I can see how it happened, now, I am remedying the problem, with egg on my face, so it won't happen in the future. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) For what it's worth I think it's still a fair position; Okmrman was closing discussions beyond just Discordianism, some of which stayed open for a fraction of the time the Discordian ones did. I mentioned a couple sections above this thread, here, about how this RfD opened on April 11th and was prematurely closed by Okmrman after just 18 hours. That's definitely a problem and should be undone. But with the Discordian titles now officially hitting a week since they began... unless there's expected to be a different outcome for whether or not to delete something like Discorianism, the snow-close seems correct for those specific titles. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm closed my discussion in a similar amount of time. Honestly, if Steel wants to, he could easily ask me to reopen it and I put a message on his own talk page just to tell him that. Okmrman (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and yes I still think Genociding deserved a discussion even though it falls under {{redirect from verb}} because it's barely used to the point where online dictionaries literally don't even acknowledge it. Okmrman (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a silver lining to all of this. It seems that many of the discussions are leading to finding sources that correlate with the redirects and previously removed material. I think in the end, the Wikipedia articles involved will have the desired in-line citations, demonstrating how well sourced the content is ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are causing a lot of work for other editors because after only a month Yeah, I'm pretty sure that reopening them would cause even more unnecessary work for the editors that would eventually end up with a near unanimous keep anyways if your request actually went through. Okmrman (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please can Owen Hurcum be protected from IP address vandalism

edit
Wrong venue and no need for protection anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article Owen Hurcum has repeatedly had IP editors missgendering them (I can find 5 different ones) and one edit saying they are delusional, unfortunately this is kind of transphobic vandalism is becoming more common in the UK. Please can it have a protection added, whichever you think is most appropriate, I worry that because it is a lower traffic article it will get vandalised by IP addresses or new accounts and then not corrected for quite a while.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you cite was back in September, there doesn't seem to be anything recent. That said, WP:RFPP is the correct venue to request page protection. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Reporting @Juli Wolfe

edit
Various parties to this dispute have been blocked and in one case, subsequently the block has lapsed. There does not appear to be anything else here that needs admin eyes since Divine's unblock request has been processed. Star Mississippi 16:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Reporting this user @Juli Wolfe

Trying to delete articles that I've contributed to in bad faith. This user is disruptive and needs to be removed.

I donate to Wikipedia insane amounts of money and do not want to see users like this on the platform. Please delete and remove @Juli Wolfe Yfjr (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First off, when coming to WP:AN you need to realize your own actions will be under scrutiny. Including where you called another editor a clown and tried to vandalize their user page. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Philipnelson99 thank you for reverting back my talk page to normal. And thank you everyone for stepping in, This user @Yfjr has been using personal attacks towards me for no reason, and mentioning things like if I try and edit any articles that "he will have me removed from Wikipedia" saying things like that under my talk page. And if you take a look at my contributions I contribute very well and fairly to help make articles better and then this user creates this thread under the Administrators' noticeboard for zero reasons claiming that I am "trying to delete articles contributing to bad faith, and that I am being disruptive". Which you can see is clearly not true, my mission to to continue to to make meaningful contribution whereas this random user has no user page is, trying to say because of the use of their "claimed" donations they can enforce editors off the website, using personal attacks seen here calling me a clown, single handedly making edits adding certain images that are copyright violations under articles like Luca Schnetzler & Pudgy Pengins. It's safe to say that this new User @Yfjr is potentially a troll and needs to stop.
@JustarandomamericanALT @Phil Bridger @Schazjmd @Lepricavark @CambridgeBayWeather What should I do now with this thread noticeboard that the troll @Yfjr made under my name? Thanks guys, Juli Wolfe (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to do anything further. It's clear that this was a frivolous report. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious boomerang indef for incivility, given the diffs provided above. JustarandomamericanALT (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflicts) I have not looked into the matter, but I must say that the amount of money that you donate to the WMF (nobody donates anything except time to Wikipedia) is both unknowable and irrelevant to an editor's presence here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This report seems a bit exaggerated. Juli Wolfe nominated a single article for deletion, and Yfjr's only contribution to that article was adding an image. Yfjr's comments at the AfD and Juli Wolfe's talk page are overly aggressive. Schazjmd (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I had warned Yfjr about personal attacks prior to their most recent edit at the AfD and this report. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support boomerang indef of OP for trying to use their purported donations to influence these proceedings. Yfjr, your sense of entitlement is pathetic to those of us who have donated countless hours of our lives to this project, a far more meaningful contribution than you will ever make. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The single edit you made to Luca Schnetzler was to add an image that was a copyright violation. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yfjr, I must say that I simply have came across the article for "Luca Schnetzler" that was newly made simply had false information in the career part of the article, all I did was correct it. Making edits to Wikipedia you must have notable articles cited for things placed. And you decided to Report me for being disruptive? Is quite I must say outlandish. And not to mention you called me a "clown"? For what? Following the rules and making Wikipedia a better place?@Yfjr Juli Wolfe (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated an article for deletion because you “thought” that a fact is false, when it fact it was true.
It is shocking to see how many came to your support despite making my case very clear.
You have not done your research on Luca Schnetzler and made a false report and nominated the article to be deleted.
This should be punishable considering you never even took the time to review what you are reporting, thoroughly.
It honestly embarrasses me to say I’m part of this community after seeing the few people who were quick to respond in such a haste and unfair matter.
I will no longer be donating to Wikipedia and will be reporting all the users who took action to reverse my reports which were made in good faith.
I’m passionate enough about Wikipedia to stand and defend articles I’m passionate about and contributed to.
you will not take that away from me.
You deserve to be banned for your lack of awareness and thorough research before nominating articles to be deleted @Juli Wolfe
You are a literal danger to this platform, I am the one speaking up against you. You are not allowed to take this and turn it against me. 2001:1970:4DA3:D300:0:0:0:7C56 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly certain this is just @Yfjr editing logged out... Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It honestly embarrasses me to say I’m part of this community you aren't a part of this community. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! you are still here?.. Thinking logging out would we wouldn't know it was you... Listen this person or whoever you are working for or even if it's you paying for press WILL NOT get you on Wikipedia so you can continue trying... You are going against Wikipedia's rules!! And I wont stand for that as to why I opened up a "discussion" to see if it's notable. Since you made things worse gonna make sure you don't get it & I can definitely speculate that you are associated with that said individual in CA/LA wherever you/he is... Plus you are trying to use the use of your purported donations to go against certain rules, you thinking you are entitled to is piteous to those of us who have donated countless hours of our to actually make this website a better place. Juli Wolfe (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, the hypocrisy is a little staggering. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this whole thing felt off to me after viewing the interactions between Juli Wolfe and Yfjr. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on here?

edit

I'm beginning to think that this whole thing needs more eyes. Juli Wolfe's talk page access should probably be revoked since she's using it to pursue a battleground campaign against DIVINE, who merits some scrutiny as well for trying to close the Luca Schnetzler AfD despite being the article creator. Meanwhile, with Juli blocked for socking, Bhivuti45 has taken up the crusade by opening Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DIVINE and taking two of DIVINE's article creations to AfD (1, 2). Curiously, Bhivuti45 had not edited in two months prior to wading into the middle of this dispute. At this point, it's not clear which of these editors, if any, are acting in good faith. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I havent checked up on Bhivuti45, but I'm pretty sure that none of the other protagonists are editing in good faith. The fact that Juli Wolfe has been blocked for sockpuppetry doesn't mean that Yfjr and DIVINE have been cleared of any wrongdoing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be parrying accusations of socking, meatpuppetry, and UPE back and forth. Maybe they are all guilty. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is honestly extremely worrying as there is a lot of missing context. Both articles are clearly notable and were instated at the same time.
The user @juli wolfe saw something in the article that she didn’t approve of.
then she nominated the article for deletion falsely.
this is what caused this whole ordeal.
editors should not be harassed whatsoever and these things need to be resolved more amicably. 199.7.157.86 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article subjects are not "clearly" notable so there is no fault attached to nominating them for AfD, which is where things are usually resolved amicably. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can bump up the article i don’t have any issue but as a creator of the article its my responsibility to defend them. If it weren’t notable or didn’t seem to be notable i would have not created those articles. But the act which i have been around and the mental pressure which i am handling without any wrongdoings is really not that good. I cannot agree on upe just because of someone’s personal assumptions again and again if i haven’t especially done UPE and yes i also don’t know what’s going on here and why this personal attack on me. DIVINE 04:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And about closing the AFD discussion: Yes maybe i did mistake there which i can agree on and two wikipedians told me about that i closed because the sock were block but i forgot to check the word where i was involved. I close that on good faith but another editor re-opened it which i don’t have any problem with. And about good faith i have contributed alot of my time to wikipedia while fighting with vandalism or reviewing new pages which i got award of too. But due to some dispute on ANI my NPR was revoked long back and due to that circumstances i asked my Rollback and PCR to be revoked. Thankyou if anyone need to know anything you can ping me now i will just be in peace with my personal life. Have a good day DIVINE 04:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DIVINE, every day I review dozens of AFDs and while I know it is not a good feeling to have an article you created nominated for a deletion discussion, I'd estimate that 95% of the time it is not personal. An editor stumbles upon an article that they don't believe meets the standards of sourcing demonstrating notability which is expected of main space articles. That other 5% is when an editor notices that there is a possible problem with an editor's page creations and does target their articles for review but that is not what happened here. I don't know anything about your "personal life" and why you have brought that up or your revoked permissions or why you think a discussion on two blocked editors is a personal attack on you. Editors were saying that you shouldn't have closed that AFD but you were not the subject of the discussion here. It's fine to defend an article you created in a deletion discussion but this AN discussion was about two other editors (and possibly some IPs) and I thought had reached a natural conclusion was going to be archived soon until your recent comments. In a roundabout way, you admit that the AFD closing wasn't a good idea and so, if I were you, I'd step away from this noticeboard and go back to your own editing routine. If you were seeking support from your fellow editors on your work, AN/ANI is the last place I'd go to find that. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DIVINE has been a paid editor since oh so long ago. This just looks like rival UPE farms fighting, if you ask me. One of the editors DIVINE was coordinating with once upon a time, Ozar77, was determined to belong to the Vivek.k.Verma farm. Which group DIVINE belongs to or if they belong to any group, I do not know. But they have created articles for Nepalese subjects, Indian subjects and Western subjects. Now, that can happen with actors and musicians, sure, but minor businesses and businesspeople? I see that they even tried their hand at declaring one of their clients. What a coincidence that the one editor I had been accusing of UPE for five years happened to get a paid job! The harassment of OP with socks and IPs sounds familiar. The last time DIVINE was trying to get me removed from Wikipedia[26], there was an off wiki campaign to find out my identity with assistance from journalists and Nepali Wikipedia admins.(still live:[27][28][29][30],[31]) If you noticed that one of those gentlemen was named Prakash Neupane, you might find these interesting:[32][33] You may also want to search for "Prakash Neupane" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurav456/Archive. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lepricavark  I am sorry you had this feeling but I am not here to carry a crusade against DIVINE or anyone else. I genuinely stumbled upon his AfD and shocked to see such a promotional article about a non-notable individual was created by an experienced editor like DIVINE. That was a red flag so I asked him to use AfC. Then Juli Wolfe pinged me on their talk page and provided me with the diffs. That grew my interest and I am pretty sure Yfjr is a sock and there may be more. So, far I only opened AfD for 2 of his articles that I think are not passing the criteria and opened a SPI case and informed about UPE on the Spam Talk page. If you find anything problematic then let me know. Bhivuti45 (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first edit back after a 2-month absence is timestamped at 18:47 29 March. You voted in the Schnetlzer AfD at 18:53, having already concluded that it was a UPE creation. Within three minutes, you were draftifying the Pudgy Penguins article. Now I'm aware that coincidences do happen from time to time, but your claim that you just happened to stumble across those pages is stretching the limits of my AGF beyond the breaking point. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot help with that, sorry because what I did so far based on my findings, align with the guidelines. You are free to report me if you think I acted in bad faith. However, I am finding it surprising that a frivolous thread was open by a seemingly sock @Yfjr (after 7 years of absence) and now what @Usedtobecool has posted with diffs, specially[37] and [38], they don't merits some scrutiny for closing a AfD but a lot more for possible violation of Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use given the coordination with other UPE farms that are already blocked. Bhivuti45 (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bhivuti has suddenly become very interested in AFD, participating in 36 different AFD discussions over the past 3 days despite never having participated in one before. (afd stats). Their participation speed indicates to me that they are highly unlikely to be interacting with sources, which is reflected in the bulk of their AFD comments being a couple words, saying that an article fails a guideline without saying how. [39] occurs 60 seconds after [40], [41] 69 seconds later, [42] 46 seconds after that, [43] 44 seconds later, followed by the Schnetzler AFD [44] 2 minutes and 34 seconds later. ~ A412 talk! 07:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I am interested in AfDs now but I do check the sources, not in all cases but in some cases when I feel it is necessary after looking at the article's contents, for instance[45] or [46] etc. Bhivuti45 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be my last response here at AN per @Liz: suggestion while there’s many thing going on here and @Usedtobecool: have already concluded that there’s enough to CU me & YFJR or something whil SPI case is still pending against me and CU are checking. Usedtobecool filed SPI against me so long back, usedtobecool do have their own list of WP:RS Nepali sources which hasn’t been passed by anyone neither Wikiproject Nepal nor WP:RS (like that any editor from Nepal can come and claim the source to be eligible as most of them are in Nepali language). Still @Usedtobecool: is trying to connect with me somewhere or with someone per their personal assumption/opinion ( please listen to me again personal opinion) which can be seen here[47] while @UtherSRG: has responded them. While everyone is arguing here i want you all to check into deep about the previous contributions of Bhivuti45 and the articles they have created and the way they went missing after multiple users and administrators warn them to disclose their COI/UPE without any response & @GSS: might be watching out those problems mostly on Wikipedia. As @LEPRICAVARK: notified me on my talk page, i came here to response from my end. Also Bivhuti have filed case against me on wiki project Spam where i have provided link to their COI warnings before[48]. If administrators want to know something from me further please ping me or if I still feel suspicious to you: You can take any action which is preferable according to Wikipedia policy against me. Thankyou DIVINE 12:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Take “Arguing” as “Discussion/Discussing” DIVINE 12:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to leave it beacause i don't want too much mental presuree and my anxiety is not helping me DIVINE 17:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, what seems like the most likely explanation here is a turf war between at least two different UPE rings/purveyors. Overall, Bhivuti45's participation seems like a mostly WP:GOODHAND account which on March 29, 2024 decided to participate frantically at AfD and to chase after DIVINE. I am on the fence about a wikispace partial-block to head off the disruption at AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly was looking at Bhivutui45 earlier and thought the same thing. I think a partial block isn't a bad idea. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a compelling reason why an admin shouldn't just indef Bhivutui45? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At first glance I was under the impression that some of the gnome/referencing work they had done in article space was ok, but on a closer look I'm seeing that the reference work looks questionable (e.g. Special:Diff/728934564) and that there are fairly clear UPE articles sprinkled throughout in their deleted contributions (Allegiant (finance services), Jesu Segun London, Emmessar Biotech & Nutrition Ltd, Byron Cole). Blocking indef as UPE. signed, Rosguill talk 14:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DIVINE and Tulsi: COI/UPE/quid-pro-quo editing, association with threats and harassment

edit
DIVINE (talk · contribs · block log · change rights · rights · deleted contribs · logs)
Tulsi (talk · contribs · block log · change rights · rights · deleted contribs · logs)
The oldest account I've identified for DIVINE is Dansong22 (talk · contribs · logs) ([49][50]). Dansong22 created an article for Arun Budhathoki[51]. Then, they created an article for The Applicant many times[52]. It was apparently an online magazine founded by Arun Budhathoki[53]. They stopped editing in July 2013, but they were still trying to protect the Arun Budhathoki article only weeks before[54]. They were evidently successful as the articles remained until 2019[55][56].
They came back with the DIVINE account, previously Azkord and Owlf, in June 2014 because they had found an actual paid-editing job: promoting Kenneth Beck (the deleted version)[57][58]. They created articles on Kenneth Beck[59] and CEO Connection[60], founded by Kenneth Beck[61]. Note that they're doing the same things previously attempted by CEOConnection (talk · contribs · logs), an obvious paid editor and SPA. On the same job were SPAs Salvatore.emery (talk · contribs · logs) and Radicaldoubt (talk · contribs · logs), around the same time and after. Xtools also lists CEO Connection Mid-Market Convention, CEO Connection Mid-Market Awards and CEO Connection Mid-Market 500, created within the same week. Next article that may be worth looking into is SkillBridge (deleted version), the last article they created that July before all but disappearing.
Ozar77 (talk · contribs · logs) appears on the scene in October 2016. They create Anna Note, which was "[t]he digital newspaper ... looked by its senior correspondents, Brabim Karki and Arun Budhathoki" (see en.everybodywiki(dot)com/Anna_Note). They then create, in order, Brabim Karki, the aforementioned senior correspondent, Rameshwor Thapa, employer of Karki and Budhathoki[62], Annapurna Media Network, the parent organisation, Kathmandu Tribune, a "digital newspaper" whose editor-in-chief is Arun Budhathoki (see now blacklisted kathmandutribune(dot)com/about/), Nepal Tribune Media, the organisation founded by Arun Budhathoki that owns Kathmandu Tribune, and Nepali Tribune the Nepali language version of Kathmandu Tribune if I remember correctly. In November 2019, they accept paid-editing job for the Vivek K Verma UPE farm and are promptly indeffed as a sock of theirs.
Gaurav456 (talk · contribs · logs) came to Wikipedia to write about Gaurav Adhikari and Y8.com. But of note is their persistence with Prakash Neupane, first created in May 2015 probably[63] and still live in draftspace, which is mentioned 15 times at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gaurav456/Archive. It's plausible that Prakash Neupane socks are a different case from Gaurav456 socks[64] but I will refer them as Gaurav456 anyway because it doesn't make a difference. Gaurav456 sock SeytX (talk · contribs · logs) nominates some of those Ozar77 articles for deletion in February 2018.[65][66][67][68][69] There are no related live edits by Ozar77 during this incident, but it does bring DIVINE out of semi-retirement. They respond to the AFD notification for Kathmandu Tribune on Ozar77's talk page within two minutes of it being posted[70]. They edit-war to remove an AFD template, characterising Nepali Tribune Media as independent media, calling its nomination an attack, and in general taking great personal offence at the suggestion that it should be deleted[71], and say the very same about Kathmandu Tribune[72]. Their participation in the AFDs was somehow worse[73][74]. See also the full thread at [[75]]. They are next seen in December 2018 in a hat-collecting run, doing anti-vandalism work and writing legitimate articles, which pays off spectacularly as they are by 9 January 2019, rollbacker, pending changes reviewer and new page reviewer, though not autopatrolled[76].
Meanwhile, Gaurav456 has given up on Prakash Neupane as their attempt to come clean and get unblocked fails and their sockpuppet investigation stops receiving new reports. Instead they're keeping their nose clean with NecessaryEdits (talk · contribs · logs)[77]. The February 2018 targeting of Arun Budhathoki articles by Gaurav456 starts to makes sense in December 2018; by all indications, Gaurav456 is out and DIVINE is in.[78] DIVINE has an advantage; they can get Prakash Neupane covered by Kathmandu Tribune. Prakash Neupane himself is an editor for Kathmandu Tribune now (see kathmandutribune(dot)com/author/prakash/]. DIVINE is still at it at Draft:Prakash Neupane. It's been created and deleted so many times in between, even I gave up at one point, though thankfully not Praxidicae.[79]
In June 2019, while I was still figuring things out, I found myself in opposition to DIVINE, having found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepal Tribune Media (2nd nomination) from watching deletion sorting for Nepal. On 6 June, Arun Budhathoki tweets attacking me(speaking from memory, the tweet is now_restricted) and DIVINE reports me to ANI the same day (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Account_compromised_and_User_Should_be_checked_clearly.). Prakash Neupane responds to the twitter conversation assuring that he will have Wikimedia Nepal find out and disclose my identity[80]. Evidently that didn't work out. There are some troubling aspects about how Nepalese Wikimedians, including those receiving salaries, grants and scholarships, operate. See, for example, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1990 Nepalese revolution. But, I am focusing on Tulsi's conduct here, who on 7 June, the same day as that tweet from Neupane, meets him in person to take his pictures[81][82]. They'd done the same in the past[83] and do so again in the future[84] While Tulsi has gone on to add Neupane's pictures to ten Wikipedias that have his article, not missing even a stray userspace draft on enWP[85], DIVINE has tried to repay with Tulsi's very own article on the English Wikipedia[86]. Tulsi was caught doing UPE work, creating previously known UPE articles, advertising his Wikipedia services on social media and using the NPR right to exclusively pass articles from one UPE editor who's since been blocked. After he was caught, on initiative from enWP, his global sysop and global rollbacker PERMs were removed. However, he continues to edit here, under no restriction against, for example, participating in marginal AFDs or the project space, and he remains admin at Commons, meta, mediawiki, neWP and maiWP, and irl agent for WMF and WMF scholarship awardee.
DIVINEs interactions with other editors leave much to be desired; ANI and threats of ANI are constant.[87][88][89] And they continue to waste volunteer time with the likes of Sandip Bista (Mr. D), Paul Hernandez (musician), Sangita Swechcha[90], Scott Woodward (marketer) (we're starting to look silly with this one)[91], Luca Schnetzler and Pudgy Penguins. After I posted here earlier, I received a cryptic message from Bangkok[92], a city which has no conceivable reason to care about me except for the fact that Prakash Neupane goes/went to university there[93][94] (DIVINE has created Bongkosh Rittichainuwat, Ozar77 had created 2019 Bangkok bombings). Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANI and AN are the options where we can go through. This is not your first attempt to link with me to that above gentleman in your own words and SPI has been closed. You requested that ANI to be closed fast and still you’re behind me after 4-5 years. DIVINE 03:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: just few days back you concluded me with YFJR now Tulsi & i request you to file SPI again it might work with your personal assumptions. Run Xtool and check the pages that i have created (in your own words it might be like i have COI or UPE) with them all? DIVINE 03:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2019, I tried without knowing much about how anything works. This time I've got the problem that much of the evidence is in deleted pages. DIVINE, I promise you, if nothing comes of this one, I will leave you alone, I might even leave Wikipedia. Twice in 5 years isn't too many to raise concerns about paid editing, I'm hoping. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: FYi: you are really good editor here in Wikipedia which Nepalese community needs and i request you not to leave Wikipedia and this is not any personal attack and you don’t have to leave me alone neither you have to favor me of anything here. Last year/two years back i was about to leave Wikipedia and still i can leave as i do have many works and many things with my own personal life where i am too much busy. I asked User:Primefac to block me and asked them can I start fresh and they said they cannot do anything later if i will face CU. Let me clarify Dansong isn’t me. So below i would state my personal opinion or debate as per your above personal opinion.
I am into the research field, and I never wanted or want to reveal my identity. Now, thanks to you, my path is clearer. You might know me as your professor, your boss, or someone you've disliked for a long time (none of which is me). Someone dragged me to SPI just because of voting to AFD, whether it was my AFD or previous AGD, both are one. You also voted on Mr. Gentleman's delete discussion, even though User:Suryabeej argued that I was Mr. Gentleman. Looking at your links above, Mr. Gentleman's Facebook profile indicates that he also studied at Harvard Medical School. If you received a cryptic message from Bangkok or Mars, I cannot help you with that. And what's the difference between Mr. Neupane, Mr. Budhathoki, and you? They discussed their own personal assumptions a few years back according to the aforementioned link provided by you, and now you're discussing them here on Wikipedia, mentioning their names multiple times. Why don't you email them to let them know they are being discussed here? Is Wikipedia/AN a public forum? And still, your reliable source list hasn't been approved by any of Wikiproject Nepal and WP:RS. In this whole conversation, what I can agree with you on is that yes, Wikipedia Nepal does have a gang, they have their own groups which they apply in their own communities, something I complained about before if you research in more depth. DIVINE 04:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DIVINE, none of your story explains anything in the evidence I presented above. But maybe it will convince others, because you should have been blocked in 2012, more so in 2013, and absolutely, definitely by 2014, yet you're still here. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look how you much rage you have against me i wasn’t even here in 2012 and i didn’t even knew what Wikipedia was. Review,revise your own texts above before you concluded me as SPI of YFJR now you’re providing many things which i don’t even know and i am just laughing here (which i can only do). I will rest leave it to admins and i would like to request @UtherSRG: please provide them with deleted materials for their in-depth research against me. And @Usedtobecool: please take time to check on User:Bibhuti too they also appeared like same as you appeared few years back if someone will check on your history. Hence i have requested admin to help you with your research here. If someone wants something please ping me thankyou. DIVINE 05:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in this. Please stop mentioning me. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's something definitely going on with Prakash Neupane. I noticed in the 3rd AfD a respected editor voted keep in part because sources said Neupane had 2 million YouTube views. There is one song he did with others that has 1.4 million views but the links to his social media accounts go to accounts that no longer exist. Looking at his YouTube channel today, he has 46 subscribers and the video with the most views is only 1.5k. He says "This is the new channel of Prakash Neupane as the old channel got deleted". The only link to his other social media accounts listed, which are different from the ones in the song above, that works is Facebook. The others go to accounts that no longer exist. Also, his website in Draft:Prakash Neupane, which is a different address than the one used on his YouTube channel, does not work. S0091 (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Man after reading all of this I can see how much of a problem @DIVINE on this space breaking guidelines and continuing to get away with it. And no administrators doing nothing about is, soon his day will come. 2601:589:4E00:BE40:AD42:7786:D3A0:9ED7 (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: I am your Mr. Gentelman and i am Prakash Neupane. Admin please take action against me. DIVINE 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DIVINE I noticed you just now requested G7 deletion (since reverted) for Justin Jin (entrepreneur) but that was created by @Deondernemers: (will also leave them a note). Are you saying you are Deondernemers?
For those following (or trying to), see also WT:Administrators' noticeboard#I am Prakash Neupane. S0091 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No but there is huge UPE farm out of wikipedia they asked me to join them which i denied an i do have proof of it. I am Prakash Neupane but leat me clarify i have never used any additional account. DIVINE 17:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the above, either DIVINE's account has been hacked, or they're a long-term self-promoting editor with possible UPE and sockpuppetry as well. Either way, an indefinite block is appropriate recourse, so I've done that. I have not closely investigated accusations against any other editors at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 17:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Rosguill. I have no idea what's going on here but I think this was a sensible call on your part. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to edit-conflict with Ivanvector while applying the block; separately, Ivanvector ruled out the possibility of a compromised account, and also identified a salient legal and outing threat by DIVINE. So we're still in indef-land. Because the legal/outing block can easily be appealed with a simple disavowal, it bears mentioning that DIVINE's admission of being Prakash Neupane is tantamount to an admission of extensive amounts of undisclosed self-promotion, and likely collusion with UPE farms and/or less organized sockpuppetry, and that a successful unblock appeal must address all of these concerns. signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This also raises some serious questions about @Tulsi who clearly knows Prakash Neupane but has not yet responded. S0091 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the ANI filing that just keeps on giving apparently. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone opposed to just indefinitely blocking Tulsi for the essentially-unresolved UPE concerns, described on meta where they resulted in a loss of global rights, and at User_talk:Tulsi/Archive_2#Paid_editing where they were left hanging other than Barkeep49 following up on everything to remove advanced permissions here. Now, strictly speaking, no one has presented new evidence of UPE since then; the collaboration with Prakash to add new photos of him to wikipedia projects carrying an article of him is relatively tame as far as actual editing goes, even if it is evidence of incredibly poor judgment. But, given the past behavior and the wikiflu, I don't know whether this much benefit of the doubt is warranted. Even if we decide against blocking here, we should notify the various projects where he still holds advanced permissions once we come to a decision here. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill I'm not opposed to this based on everything you just described and the above. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I'd like to hear what @Barkeep49 thinks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to review too much information to say what I think. I do remember being quite upset at the time, which is why I took the actions I did around their NPR patrolling and their permissions. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the history and ongoing concerns, I support blocking. Indef is not forever if they can make an convincing unblock request. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely support blocking indefinitely and don’t change it. This guy has been creating paid articles for years thinking he was going to get away with it, and then being cocky about creating sock accounts and then making remarks like “I can literally get you banned off of Wikipedia”, And looking at his history he has many current paid articles that needs to be in the process of deletion because none of the articles there are reliable. 2601:589:4E00:BE40:8946:F528:3975:8678 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His page curation log should have been entirely enough for an indef, as far as I am concerned. But we had divided concerns then, and no threads at AN/I. He also comes here in bursts. And other projects have no interest in doing anything about him. Even the WMF seems to be flying him off to their conferences still, so... rot from the head or something. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the above discussion, I've blocked and opened a discussion on metawiki. Based on past experience with metawiki admin recalls, I expect that it may be beneficial to write a Signpost article about this to encourage participation, as the other RfC about other-project admins doing UPE currently hasn't received any participation other than from involved parties. signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah @DIVINE has done so much unfaithful contributions to Wikipedia with doing undisclosed payments under the table making articles that have no reliable sources. His actions were so pathetic and glad that justice has been served for those that has been involved because I have been seeing everything these past days and no one should be accused of false wrongdoings. Great job on the administrators for the consistent effort for making this a better place for editors. 2601:589:4E00:BE40:8946:F528:3975:8678 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just catching up with the twists and turns of this long discussion thread. And now I'm very depressed. But I do applaud the diligence of editors like Usedtobecool who somehow kept track of all of this misconduct that occurred over years of editing. I'm sorry for what you've had to go through. I've been doxxed (twice) and it's not an idle threat when it is directed at you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear that happened to you, Liz! I feel like quitting even contemplating the possibility. And thank you, it did take me a lot of time; I rarely investigate and write up ANI reports so long (you can probably tell). I have been careful about my anonymity from the beginning, but of course there are no guarantees. It caused me irrational stress for a moment when they said they'd reported me to the Police, because in Nepal, they arrest first, investigate later. But I don't think WMF will betray me that easy; I hear good things, at least regarding this particular issue. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt...

  1. Contributions from an anonymous IP who suddenly jumps in to WP:AN smacks of someone who is blocked trying to inject their thoughts. Whether it is someone who is block evading stemming from actions prior mentioned in this section or from somewhere else, I'm basically going to discount those opinions, but I'll listen to anyone in good standing who agrees with those thoughts.
  2. An SPI for DIVINE would be appropriate to see if there are problems elsewhere. I concur with the block as well based on the aforementioned notes; if nothing else, it is preventative and a break will not hurt things in the long run. Buffs (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree on both points. I am especially concerned about the IPs contributing to this conversation with little or no prior editing at all. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • UTRS appeal #87097 is open. For your consideration, DIVINE is requesting unblock on UTRS. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In their first UTRS appeal which they pretty clearly did not write themselves, they mentioned that they emailed me. They did not. In their second one that's linked above they mention emailing an admin, that also wasn't me but I'm not sure what they meant, their English is not great. I have not corresponded with them off-wiki, anyway. I did not see evidence of socking when I checked yesterday, but checkuser cannot prove a negative. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He's said, he's reported me to the Police. So, that needs to be resolved. He needs to explain his relationship with Arun Budhathoki, his friends and businesses. He has claimed to be Prakash Neupane—who's borderline famous—and done a lot of things that may be unflattering, so he needs to get verified, or we risk BLP harm through impersonation. He's claimed to have received payments for AFD votes, so he needs to be topic banned from mainspace and AFDs. His threatening behaviour needs to be addressed. He needs to explain quid pro quo editing with Tulsi outlined above. He needs to make many COI/PAID disclosures. He's claimed he knows multiple other editors are UPEs, and has evidence of such. It would seem important to get that evidence from him, and not unblock him until we get proof for every accusation, or they remain aspersions and harassment. It would also be important to make sure he doesn't OUT anyone if unblocked and uses private channels. Why does he want to get unblocked? We didn't arrive to a block here from my evidence directly. He imploded before others had responded. Clearly, he wanted to quit then and was burning bridges on his way out. Has he decided within days that undisclosed paid editing is bad, and now he is a complete convert to our mission? If he starts writing more articles that look paid, what will we do, wait for definitive proof that he's been paid again? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I told him in a UTRS ticket to email any evidence of UPE to the PAID people. If someone could look and see if there are replies on the UTRS 87097 ticket that need attention, I'm off for the weekend. Or maybe someone could action the 87097. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Much has transpired since last I posted. I will carry over from their talk the most recent and perhaps from the UTRS ticket. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal threat is resolved on user talk. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request carried over from DIVINE's user talk

edit
There is consensus to decline DIVINE's appeal and to impose a six-month moratorium on future appeals. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"Please check UTRS appeal #87097 too as my TPA was revoked before. Just to note that most of the users to whom my tagged at COI notice has been found using multiple accounts and has been blocked by CU. About legal threats I have personally apologized user:usedtobecool about my actions and behavior. About their all concerns which they mentioned on AN I have made them clear that I haven’t filed any official complaint against them anywhere and will not do that also you can verify that in my talk page. Also, I request you to note that whenever I get into AN my anxiety level rises too much which I had also mentioned in AN. While user: Bivhuti45 was dragging me off being a sock puppet and was making personal attacks at me, I requested admins to check them out multiple times but finally rogusill has blocked them too due to their UPE and ignoring multiple COI warnings. Also, I cannot deny that I haven’t made mistakes. I Have done many, but I want to contribute further to keep those mistakes in my mind and disclosing all of my previous coi/upe editing which I have done. Please consider my unblock request thankyou. DIVINE 4:53 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #87097. It's too convoluted to carry here and rehashes ground already covered. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UTRS appeal #87097 pasted contents, only minimal formatting
I want to request my account to be unblocked because: 1. I have accepted my mistake of self-promoting myself (which i consider as a biggest mistake which i ever made but i tried to hide because i didn’t wanted to reveal my identity) but creating autbiography was my bad. 2. I have created few UPE articles, few COI articles which i accepted but to show the proof or verify them i don’t have much evidence so i can’t blame me much but during off wiki communications with a admin who didn’t reveal their identity, they suggested me to keep those in my mind. 3. I am willing to disclose all the paid works or COI previously done by me which are just few in numbers and most of them are already deleted or about to get deleted anyway. 4. I didn’t threatened to post public information on User:Usedtobecool but i mentioned that i might/know them but i wont dox their identity as doxing is big no which is OS’d now but can be checked by any reviewing administrator. To note: 1. I have never missued my previous rights being NPR, Rollbacker or PCR and my efforts to fight vandalism should be atleast remembered/recognzied. 2. We all make mistakes and the mistake was a legal threat but that only came in my mind because User:Otucha used word killing and User:Usedtobecool mentioned my facebook profile, my university name on ongoing discussion multiple times at AN to the public which i felt was doxing. 3. I quited arguments and accepted that it was me with all of myself where the topic was quite different about the connection. 4. My connection with user:Tulsi has been shared to the admin who communicated with me on off-wiki via email which i provided on User:Usedtobecool talk page which was OS’d and i created their draft only because they used to ping me every time to create their draft which i ignored most of the time but at last i submitted on Draft space. 5. I have been on wikipedia since 10 years at the age of 16 and i tried to learn but i started being active with contribution mostly and the starting articles which i created were the act of learning phase and i have never ever missused or use multiple accounts or has violated Sockpuppet policy. I have been reported to SPI multiple times but nothing has been proven yet but still checkusers can re-check from depth. To conclude myself: I want to apologize to the community for my numerous mistakes which i did, i had done before and i will try to avoid or not to do in future but cleaning up draftspace, checking upon new articles, fighting with vandalism were my favorite work if i get a chance i will be back and continue doing that. I also think in deep about Spicy comment before and declining suggestions but we all learn from our mistakes, we are human beings. Please also check the articles which i have created for the community and the time and effort which i have given to the community. I have given my almost half of the age while volunteering here at community and i would like to continue doing that without any afraidness of getting caught or without being afraid of revealing my identity which has been already done by others and by me myself. Thankyou very much for re-considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIVINE (talk • contribs)
No one threatened to kill you. Perhaps your ability to understand English is insufficient.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs)
Additionally: User:Tulsi personally requested and ask my photos to send them for commons purposes. I sent them with my willingness before. I also want to clarify that i have never met them in personal life but yes has communicated via social media.
In my first UTRS appeal i wrote it myself than asked ChatGPT to rewrite it in grammatical order which i often does to make my grammatical error clearer. I got the email same time after getting blocked from name Suka Ratom which was quite different but this was it and they claimed to be an investigator and they also mentioned they cannot reveal their identity but while they sent me email it was written IVAN so i thought it was Ivanvector.: Hi, Thank you for providing an avenue to discuss with you off-wiki. I'm curious — could you submit any and all evidence to me here? Appreciated. Ivan
Additionally here is another part of their email who called themselves Suka Ratom on email: By gang, do you mean a UPE group? Could you provide evidence that User:Otuọcha has threatened you? Otuọcha has brought on issues but that is a problem for a different forum. The reason I am contacting you via email is to remain anonymous. I'm sorry, but we can't disclose much as this is an on-going investigation.
Just to note that most of the users to whom my tagged at COI notice has been found using multiple accounts and has been blocked by CU. About legal threats I have personally apologized user: usedtobecool about my actions and behavior. About their all concerns which they mentioned on AN I have made them clear that I haven’t filed any official complaint against them anywhere and will not do that also you can verify that in my talk page. Also, I request you to note that whenever I get into AN my anxiety level rises too much which I had also mentioned in AN. While user: Bivhuti45 was dragging me off being a sock puppet and was making personal attacks at me, I requested admins to check them out multiple times but finally rogusill has blocked them too due to their UPE and ignoring multiple COI warnings. Also, I cannot deny that I haven’t made mistakes. I Have done many, but I want to contribute further to keep those mistakes in my mind and disclosing all of my previous coi/upe editing which I have done. Please consider my unblock request thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIVINE (talk • contribs)
You have an open appeal of this block on your user talk page on Wikipedia, which means your appeal will be handled there. Please be sure to monitor your talk page for updates on the status of your block appeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamla (talk • contribs)
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.
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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed

edit

The Arbitration case "Conflict of interest management" has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • The Arbitration Committee requests that a new VRT queue be established to accept reports of undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing, where reporting such editing on-wiki is in conflict with WP:OUTING. The queue membership is to be decided by the Arbitration Committee and is open to any functionary and to any administrator by request to the Committee and who passes a functionary-like appointment process (including signing the ANPDP). Following the creation of the queue, the existing checkuser-only paid-en-wp queue will be archived, and access will be restricted to checkusers indefinitely. Functionaries and administrators working this queue may, at their discretion, refer a ticket to the Arbitration Committee for review; an example of a situation where a ticket should be referred to the committee is when there is a credible report involving an administrator.
  • For posting non-public information about another editor—after a previous post by Fram in the same thread was removed and oversighted—Fram is admonished against posting previously undisclosed information about other editors on Wikipedia ("outing") which is a violation of the harassment policy. Concerns about policy violations based on private evidence must be sent to the appropriate off-wiki venue. Any further violations of this policy may result in an Arbitration Committee block or ban.
  • For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure, Nihonjoe's administrator and bureaucrat user rights are removed. Nihonjoe may regain these user rights via a successful request for adminship and a successful request for bureaucratship, respectively.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed

Murder of "Linda Anderson"

edit

I was banned for no ther reason than wanting to add the real names since Canadian law does not apply to the rest of the world. Daniel is an abusive mod. 2A02:A212:A583:5980:93B6:AAA7:8A66:717A (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, Please review User talk:Myrealnamm (messages from 2A02:A212:A583:5980:93B6:AAA7:8A66:717A. This is making me feel like I have done something wrong, and if I have, please let me know. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the IP - they were violating IP at the Linda Anderson article, were part-blocked from editing that, and then came here to continue the nonsense. I will also revert and redact your talk page to be on the safe side. GiantSnowman 21:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2A02:A212:A583:5980:F635:52:AA7D:81A7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also blocked. GiantSnowman 21:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin review the discussion on Talk:Cass Review

edit

Hi

Please could I ask an admin to review the discussion on Talk:Cass Review, I have seen some examples of Wikipedia:Assume good faith being ignored and at least one threat. I just want to flag it so that someone can review it and hopefully steer it in a better direction.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is singularly unhelpful. It's not clear which discussion on the page you want "reviewed", and you have provided no diffs of the supposed misconduct, particularly the claim that there is a "threat".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bbb23, is it possible to send this info in a non public way? I don't really want to get into an argument with anyone. I just want someone to check it, I can see several places on the page with issues. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't address issues non-publicly unless there are issues of privacy that compels it, certainly not because you "don't really want to get into an argument with anyone". Either explain what's going on properly, or drop it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to create Portal:Portal sandbox

edit

I was told by a popup to come here after trying to create it. Also, why isn't there anything in the public logs about it?

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The error message is from the local WP:TITLEBLACKLIST and says Portal( talk)?:Portal( talk)?.* <errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-repeated-namespace-prefix>. I think whoever wrote that filter wants you to create Portal:Sandbox instead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for completion's sake, since your suggestion makes sense:
The broad version was added to the blacklist in Special:Diff/744108976 and linked to the following request as justification (which is from MER-C's talk page): Special:Permanentlink/744103964#Double_namespace_prefixes_blacklist_entry – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have Template:Template sandbox... RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I think the current blacklist might have a typo? All the others are Namespace:Namespace:~anything else~, but the portal one doesn't have a colon after the second Portal.
It's currently Portal( talk)?:Portal( talk)?.*.
If the colon was there Portal:Portal sandbox would have created fine, I think? – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about filters to be honest. But if you've spotted an issue, I'm sure someone would answer a request to fix with extreme promptitude. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have experience with the titleblacklist, with filters and the language sure, but a lot of filter logs are visible to IPs, the blacklist logs aren't, and that particular one is admin-only(?).
I think it's a typo, because it was never mentioned in the request, all others have a colon and it was already like that in the request. MER-C would know, since they did that edit, and maybe they will come here if they got pinged in my comment.

At any rate that's separate to what Novem is saying (including in the new comment), which I say again makes a lot of sense. – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Queries about filters and potential issues with them are more likely to attract attention from editors with appropriate expertise at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title blacklist is a distinct concept from edit filters and people at WP:EFN will have no familiarity with it. The error message displayed when someone who doesn't have the rights to overwrite it says to go here if you think the request is legitimate, which is wrong IMO and should point to the edit request process.
The title blacklist has no logs at all, not even visible to admins like myself.
143.208.239.27 is technically right that the blacklist entry for portals is overbroad and should have an extra colon since it currently stops all portals with names beginning with "Portal" from being created, but I'm disinclined to fix it since the chance of a legitimate portal having a name starting with "Portal" is basically nil, and the current content at Portal:Sandbox is something I would probably support deleting at MfD, regardless of whether it were called "portal sandbox", "sandbox", or something completely else. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: Supposedly those logs would show up at Special:Log/titleblacklist, you do have a right called 'titleblacklistlog'. When I go there I get a permissions error, which at the bottom says The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Administrators. – 143.208.236.57 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see "No matching items in log." there. The logging feature is deliberately disabled on WMF wikis per T68450 * Pppery * it has begun... 03:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who would create a portal in the year of our lord 2024, though? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a reason for the consensus to keep them…for people who use it as an encyclopedia, rather than as the semi-official wiki of Real Life, the concept has value. The problems with portal creation in the past seem to have been mainly because people were creating niche portals better handled by a sidebar, rather than “proper” portals.
In answer to your question, I would, just because I can, provided I can think of a valid topic for one. It’s deep in my to-do list.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That page keeps getting deleted to remove the history. I was thinking using subpages for the sandboxing would be better. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the simplest solution would be to create Portal:Sandbox. Rather than modifying or overriding the title blacklist, which I imagine is there for a reason. I think Template:Template sandbox is an exception because Template:Sandbox already exists and is for something else (is not a sandbox). There are other sandboxes that follow the normal naming convention such as Draft:Sandbox. Please also consider if we need another sandbox, or if we can just reuse an existing one or use a userspace page. FYI, certain sandboxes are set up to be automatically cleaned by a bot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Will do. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute between User:115.188.122.67, user:2407:7000:A29C:4400:358B:D6F0:186D:EC16, User:60.234.194.217, User:Ukboxingsource and User:bennyaha over Dean Lonergan

edit

This is not the first time I have make this request as you can see here [95]. These four users have been making regular edits on the Dean Lonergan which I believe to be WP:SNEAKY and not with WP:NPOV. I made regular edits to revert with explanation trying to keep it WP:NPOV. There has been a previous semi protection which expired in 1-1-2024. Since then the four users has been persistent in their edits which has gotten User:331dot involved to make regular reverts. The four users have made accusations stating I am being paid by Dean Lonergan and have been for the past 3 years which is not true. you can see the accusations on Dean Lonergan: Revision history. [96] The four users wants there to be an investigation about me which I gladly would do. Bennyaha (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page needs to be permanently protected as well. Bennyaha (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are not "permanently protected" as that would defeat the purpose of this project. They are only protected to the extent necessary to prevent disruptive behavior. For some articles that may be a long time, but not "permanent". Editors can also be blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Th whole protection part is new to me as I generally only make new pages and edited existing ones. I thought indefinite was one of the options. Bennyaha (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised different IP addresses could be same person all made edits and negative comments
  • 115.189.95.57
  • 115.189.89.33
  • 115.189.95.42
  • 115.188.122.67
Bennyaha (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company inappropriately moved

edit
Discussion on title is open at Talk:Indian_Motocycle_Manufacturing_Company#Requested_move_14_April_2024. Star Mississippi 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company was inappropriately moved during a move discussion. It should be relocated to Indian Motortcycle Manufacturing Company until the discussion is completed, or snow closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677, you moved it to a title with a typo: "Motortcycle" Schazjmd (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it was moved to the title with a typo only yesterday by Boberger. The long term status quo is Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company. There is no need for a move discussion to revert the introduction of a typo into the name. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^Confused^ I put the page where it should be. If you don't want the move request to Indian Motorcycle, just remove the request. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Motocycle" is not a typo? —Alalch E. 15:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E., it's not; "Motocycle" was part of the name of the company for some time. (See multiple discussions on article's talk page.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. When you identified a typo above indicating that the letter "t" should be removed from "Motortcycle", leaving "Motorcycle", this was an also incorrect rendition of this word in the company's name because this old name used the dated form "Motocycle" instead of "Motorcycle". Unaware of this I move the page from "Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company" to "Indian Motorcycle Manufacturing Company", believing the latter to be correct, and the former to contain yet another typo. Apologies —Alalch E. 16:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

stale unblock request on a CU block

edit

Unblock request open for 4 weeks for Hazooyi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) if anyone wants to action/comment. Meters (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That almost seemed procedural given that zzuuzz blocked another sock of theirs earlier today. I've denied their latest request. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock/unban request from Shoot for the Stars (2024)

edit
Successful community ban appeal, showcasing an overwhelming consensus to unblock — welcome back! El_C 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Carried over below--

I am wanting to appeal my ban implemented in August 2021, nearly three years ago. At the time of my ban, I was still a teenager in high school. My main mistake was uploading low-quality images, many of which were mugshots. Despite repeated advice and warnings from different users, I ignored them and continued to upload these images. Almost three years later and through my current studies in the US criminal justice system at college, I realize that these mugshots can unjustly criminalize individuals, which can potentially damage their reputations (WP:MUG). Another significant factor in my ban was my behavior back in 2019, when I was just 16 years old. I repeatedly added fabricated music album covers to articles, again ignoring explicit instructions from editors not to do so. A lot of editors tried to (WP:assume good faith), but I consistently persisted my disruptive actions. My biggest problem was that I didn't have any (WP:COMPETENCE) when it came to Wikipedia's policies. And because of how uninitiated I was of the rules and couldn't accept them, I was banned by the community. Following my ban, instead of trying to stay away and contribute to other projects, I engaged in (WP:Sockpuppetry), using only these two accounts: user:TheCleanestBestPleasure and user:Beatlesfan210. I also engaged in sockpuppetry by using various IP addresses. During my previous unban request a year ago, it was pointed out by another user that I had created several articles on Simple Wikipedia that broke the (WP:BLP) policy. While I initially believed these individuals to be notable under (WP:Notability) based on the sources I found, I was told by Simple Wikipedia admin Ferien that they were not notable and didn't apply to (WP:BLP1E). I want to clarify that my intentions from creating these articles were never meant to be malicious; I was honestly unaware of these specific guidelines until they were explicitly explained to me. Additionally, the same user brought up that throughout late 2022 to early 2023, I submitted more than ten (WP:UTRS) appeals, highlighting a concern that my issues off-wiki were not resolved. I want to admit that during this period, I struggled significantly with impulse control, and instead of stopping and taking a (WP:Wikibreak), I continued to do these disruptive actions. Following that, the comments from opposers left me feeling very discouraged. I was so stressed from it I made the decision to request a self-block on both Simple Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, needing a break to focus on myself.

During that time, I maintained communication with Panini! off-wiki. Panini! has served as a mentor to me, providing guidance, insight into what I did wrong that lead to my ban, and offered constructive feedback about what I should do. Panini! is an excellent editor and has truly helped me realize my mistakes. I then realized the user on my appeal last year was right. I truly didn't understand the extent of my disruptive behavior. I took a break from creating BLP articles until I truly knew the rules better and limited myself to submitting only one UTRS appeal in the past year, specifically to request access to my talk page for the purpose of this appeal. I want to acknowledge that my actions in the past were not in line with Wikipedia's policies and standards. At the time, I was a young, naive teenager not fully understanding just how disruptive my behavior was towards Wikipedia. My understanding was limited, and I failed to stop when others told me I was disruptive. Since then, with guidance from more experienced editors and a deeper dive into Wikipedia's policies, I continued to edit at Simple English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, learning way more about the guidelines, like what makes an article notable for BLP. I am open to any questions regarding my incompetency back then as well as what I can do to improve. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 12:43 am, Today (UTC−4)

Carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it brief, but a quick analysis: SFTS has been overall a net positive for the Wiki project. See the table I made below.
Holy good articles, Batman!
If anything, his only past problem has been pulling the trigger too soon; taking things personally and getting flustered, or second-guessing his abilities in the first instance of pushback. Wikipedia is all behind walls of text, so it can be hard to read someone's good intentions incorrectly as times. When I was new, I once put a wikibreak template of my own on my user page after one of my first articles got overhauled and cut a lot of my content. I can't find the edit in my history right now, but it was sometime in early October 2020.
That, as well as ignorance, to take blame for a mistake. I have done this before as well. I Bring these two up because me and SFTS began actively editing around the same time, and the same age as well (we were both teens in the ~2020 year). Teens can be volatile, and change in a person is very rapid and ever-changing at this time. My first good article, which I wrote at the beginning of tenth grade, sucks. "Overpowered" is not only used in this article but it is also hyperlinked to game balance. Nevertheless, I was still a net-positive to the community, hence why I'm still here.
As noted above by Deepfriedokra, SFTS is still here, but is forced to carry this unfair baggage of poor judgement and short temper in his teens, hence why I feel another chance is in order. To judge someone based on their habits in their teens is not the best judgement. Of course, I do plan on helping him out further after this point if he were to be unblocked, and he can consult me for a second opinion if anything is to arise. I would also support a temporary ban from FAC for a grounding period. Panini! • 🥪 23:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(There are a few old collaborators of STFS that I would like to hear opinions from out of curiosity, but I think that's some kind of canvassing) Panini! • 🥪 23:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

1rr Arab-Israeli conflict warning

edit

There is a message you can send users that edit Arab-Israeli conflict articles. To follow the 1rr. It is needed before an arbitration enforcement request.

Can someone send it to User:Galamore ?

He has recently violated the 1rr and is claiming at his talkpage that he hasnt (he has) Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote you on my talk page. In the first edit, I didn't think it was a revert. If you look, you will see that the number of characters that I removed is not the number of characters that the editor before me added.... Anyway, after you brought it to my attention, I self-reverted this eddit. Thanks. Galamore (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} it can be sent to anyone who has edited in the area regardless of whether they have violated 1rr. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added it here. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a useful shortcut: T:DSA — scroll to the bottom where {{Contentious topics/list/single notice}} is transcluded. HTH. El_C 14:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VoteRiders

edit

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

It will likely come to nothing, but if it starts getting vandalised I'm sure there are now a half-dozen admins watching the page that can assist. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is highly promotional in tone. I see that an advert tag was added in April 2020 and almost immediately removed. I will add it again. Donald Albury 16:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please block this user

edit

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

  Done I've blocked for harassment. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of RS material

edit
At this stage, this is a content dispute and doesn't require admin intervention. This should be handled on the talk page of the article and WP:RSN, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 @Makeandtoss has removed content on Mohammed el-Kurd sourced to the ADL initially on the grounds that Perennial Sources lists ADL as "not reliable for IP matters especially in a BLP" [is].

That is not the case. While there is a RSN conversation on The ADL currently, it has not closed, and as of present, the ADL is still listed in perennial sources as generally reliable.

The edit was reverted, and then subsequently undone by user @Selfstudier on the grounds that the ongoing RSN conversation should constitute a change in RS status of The ADL (specifically "Per ongoing RSN discussion it is crystal clear that ADL is not reliable for IP matters")

Requesting administrative clarity on the matter, as my understanding is that until a result is determined from the RSN, there is no active change in the reliability of The ADL per perennial sources. Mistamystery (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute being discussed at ADL as RS. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) As reliability is ultimately always contextual, this should be discussed as a content dispute on the relevant article talk page. RSP is a log of past discussions for sources that have been extensively discussed, and it should be expected that it lags a bit behind actual practice in articles when sources shift in reliability. signed, Rosguill talk 17:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perennial sources clearly state: "Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all." I have no idea why a content dispute has been taken to AN; this is pretty much an abuse of the noticeboard. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Infobox television

edit
Not an AN matter. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Infoboxes keep shrinking on mobile view. Can someone please fix. Key limes (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Key limes: Not sure why this report is at the admin board, try WP:VPT instead. RudolfRed (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Television

edit

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

Note that this user has added fake topicons to their userpage, including admin. FWIW. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OP is clearly new and fumbling. I added a standard welcome template to their talk page to hopefully steer them toward something productive. Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fumbling, yes. New, no. LTA blocked and global locks requested.-- Ponyobons mots 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How strict should we be with ARBECR?

edit

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

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

In my experience it hasn't been enforced when new editors don't cause problems in ECR areas. Maybe the restriction exists as a pretext to revert edits that don't very closely align with guidelines, and to prevent SPA's in the area. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on that, duh, but have an edit request:
Please move the talk page to Talk:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. To match the result of the move (I guess) at the top of the talk page.
Clicking 'article' from the talk page redirects and clicking 'talk' from the article redirects again, I'm surprised the edit request button in the article still works under these circumstances.
– 143.208.236.57 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. Talk page moved to match the mainspace article name. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience link -> Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_sanctions_upon_related_content
I'm interested in this question too. The following remedy seems clear.
Non-EC editors can make edit requests. What I've observed, in practice, is that talk page comments that generally resemble an edit request with specificity will be treated as an edit request. Not sure how many non-EC editors actually notice or care about the instructions in the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} template. The EC restrictions are fairly strictly enforced for article content (unless it is something like a typo fix), mostly by editors rather than article protection (for reasons that have never been clear to me). Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
enforced ... mostly by editors rather than article protection (for reasons that have never been clear to me). Yeah, that doesn't seem ideal to me either. It's quite bitey to let someone make an edit then revert it, if we could instead just blue lock things. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. When I do it, I try to use an informative edit summary along the lines of
  • "This is not an edit request. Editors must be extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except for making edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY."
But this kind of action is probably often interpreted as Wikipedia editors supporting Hamas barbarism/sadistic IDF war criminals etc. Non-EC editors who excitedly rush to truth-bomb the topic area can be a bit feisty. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where talk pages are concerned I see it as a "helper" for implementing WP:NOTFORUM. If non-EC editors are making useful contributions on the talk page that actually helps improve the article, it would arguably be detrimental to clamp down on that, so IAR comes into play a bit there. But if there's loads of discussion and it's taking up lots of your time just to keep up with it, then the EC rule is a helpful way to limit the volume of discussion and hopefully keep it on topic. WaggersTALK 08:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

How does one make it clear that it is an edit request without using the template? Do they have to suggest something in a "change X to Y" format? In your estimation, do any of the 4 sections I linked above qualify as edit requests? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the four sections you identify (note the page it now titled: Talk:Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus):
  1. "Addition of Indian reaction to incident". This appears to be a good faith request to improve the article. One of three things should happen:
    • An ECR editor adds relevant content to the article
    • An ECR editor explains why the content shouldn't be added to the article. This could include it already being there, but should not be related to the non-ECR status of the requester
    • A request is made for the OP or someone else to suggest a specific wording to be added.
  2. "Legality". This is unambiguously an edit request.
  3. "UK response to the attack could be added" is the same as #1.
  4. "Consulate NOT embassy in title". This is a move request rather than edit request (but we cannot expect non-editors to know the difference). It should have been answered in a much less bitey way, but saying "this needs discussion before being implemented" is correct.
So these are all good faith requests to make changes to the content of the article and so should be responded to as if they were made by ECR editors. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was discussed at ARCA, the template is not strictly necessary and obviously there is some editorial discretion involved but personally, I would allow #1 (assuming that's an RS), remove #2 and #3 (with edit summary "not an edit request") and remove the opinions in discussion (or strike them if already replied to). Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Consulate NOT embassy in title" looks like quite a good example of what often happens when the edit request only rule isn't followed. It can get a bit chaotic, especially if other non-EC editors join. One question is whether non-EC editors can participate in that kind of discussion. I think they should not for a variety of reasons, their involvement should be limited to their own edit request and necessary clarifications. This opinion at ANI might be of interest. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two most important rules here are:
  1. Any good-faith comment must be answered in a civil, non-BITEy way. Rejection is sometimes correct, but rudeness or even BITEyness isn't.
  2. If it looks like a request, and accepting the request would invilve editing the article, it's an edit request. The templates help attract the desirable attention to it, but are not necessary for it to be a request.
Animal lover |666| 17:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your second point. I also agree with avoiding rudeness and biteyness, not because it is right, but because it has no utility and can be counterproductive. It is often the kind of response that ban evading/fire starter editors who exploit the naivety of the assume good faith policy (rather than assume nothing) in ARBPIA want. In Wikipedia's system, which prioritizes civility over unbiased editing and honesty, an impolite adversarial response provides leverage. There is, in my view, little to no evidentiary basis for people's confidence in their ability to distinguish between good faith actors and bad actors using deception to tunnel through the 500 edit barrier. Another important rule is that any lack of strictness in the enforcement of rules is, and will continue to be, efficiently and effectively exploited by bad actors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent about creation of articles

edit

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

I WP:CSD#G5 if there has been no significant editing by an extended-confirmed editor and it isn't immediately obvious that the article is notable, doesn't fall foul of NOTNEWS, or is otherwise problematic. If I don't delete it I immediately ECP the article. I have restored some of these to draft and user space at the request of EC editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You absolutely should not be nominating or deleting such articles per G5 unless the creator is a blocked or banned user, because there has been no consensus in any of the discussions that G5 applies to ECR enforcement. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have this argument yet again, and it will continue to be the common practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can have the argument as many times as you want, but unless and until there is a consensus to amend the speedy deletion policy then your and others' actions are going to be in breach of it and discussion of desysoppings for wilfully acting contrary to policy is going to happen sooner or later. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And honestly I don't think we should even be deleting an article by a banned or blocked user simply because of who created it. If I saw such an article in my own area of interest, I'd want to fix or whatever. If I saw someone else delete it, I'd want to recreate. It just seems silly to be so glued to this rule that we can't relax it for a reasonable contribution just because of who created it. I feel like this rule probably was intended to make such deletions easier if needed, not to delete useful articles. Valereee (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any benefit in deleting a promising article simply because it was created by a non-EC editor. That particular article looks like it's a BLP1E, though. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a gotcha because as soon as the article is given (for AI area), the talk and editing templates, then via WP:ARBECR, the creator will no longer be able to edit it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's a problem, though? If the article is worth keeping, let's not delete it simply because of who created it. Fix, draftify, whatever is the right choice. Delete if that's the right choice. But automatically delete without assessing seems shortsighted. Valereee (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uhuh, who is making that choice/doing the assessing though? The submission for approval process seems the best way so draftify + submit for approval might work. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No real objection to draftifying and submitting for approval, but in theory the person considering deleting could assess or move along. If you aren't a good enough judge of the topic, maybe the next person along will be. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will depend on the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators. Levivich (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far looks like endorsing ScottishFinnishRadish modus operandi as did, as far as I can tell, a prior RFC from about a month ago. More complicated than I had thought, though I cannot readily see why we are happy to limit new editors to edit requests on talk pages but are willing to permit whole articles to be created (by the same group?). Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "willing to permit whole articles to be created" is really an option that anyone is entertaining, and limiting new editors to edit requests doesn't mean that we automatically and every time revert any and all edits by new editors that are not edit requests. If a non-XC editor made a good edit to an article that is covered by ECR but not actually ECP'd, I don't think we'd always in every case revert that edit. Similarly, I know that when a non-XC editor makes a comment on a talk page that isn't an edit request, we don't always and in every case revert those comments. Sometimes, call it IAR if you want, we let them slide. So even if we do not permit non-XC editors to create new articles in ECR areas (and in I/P there is an edit filter designed to technically prevent that from happening), but if one slips through, I'm not sure it follows that deleting the article is always in every case the right approach. And that doesn't mean that leaving it alone is the right approach either, there are other options (draftification, userfication). But hey, I'm in the minority on this. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and it's worth noting that WP:ECR explicitly says "administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations," so ECR already contemplates the idea that article creations in violation of ECR might not be deleted. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW for a concrete example, see Palestine studies. That's an article that I'd long thought Wikipedia needed and had contemplated someday writing. I'm glad someone else did it. That person happens to not be XC. It's a violation of WP:ECR. Nevertheless, I don't see how Wikipedia benefits by having that article deleted, though. That's a concrete example of a good ECR article creation violation. Levivich (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the discretion part, the rules need not always be strictly applied, although I think they should be most of the time. Still, why can't the new articles just go through the submission for approval process usually recommended for new editors. If they are good, they are going to get approved, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I totally agree with you (and AFC is how the Palestine studies article got published). But that would be impossible if we went about G5'ing or otherwise CSD'ing such articles. In fact, this is why I voted for draftification in the RFC, and why I'm strongly opposed to CSD'ing them. Levivich (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was draftify + mandatory submit for approval I could go along with that. A couple I encountered before were articles just showing up in mainspace (and with POV titles), which can still get sorted out but is just a pia to do. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look to me like SFR's approach is being endorsed, certainly the misuse of G5 is not. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rough count is 11 of 17 responses endorsing the use of G5, even if not their preferred method. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing RFCs aren't a vote because almost none of those responses even attempt to address the explicit opposition to expanding G5 (and in at least one case has not given any explanation for their opinion at all). Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian Input on Community Values and Research Ethics

edit

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

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

Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

edit

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

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

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

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

You were warned to stop adding links to those two websites to every hall of fame inductee, but you did not stop, and so now you are blocked from editing any article. Please familiarize yourself with our guidelines on external links and on link spamming. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, IP! I'm happy to unblock once you understand that this isn't something Wikipedia considers constructive. Valereee (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so eager. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User unhappy with the AfC comments on their draft

edit
Nothing to be done here, so am closing to avoid the OP digging a bigger hole. The draft has been declined multiple times by multiple editors, none of whom are admins. It does not require admin tools to reject a draft, and admins have no special authority over notability requirements. Rather than posting at AN with claims of "abuse of power" and human rights, the correct venue for the issue is somewhere like Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk where help is available on improving notability and referencing before resubmission. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Warning to all Wikipedians! The user DoubleGrazing is a grandmaster editor who does not respect the rules of wikipedia and makes false statements about the identity of the users! He doesn't know how to use IP identification tools! He does not respect the work of other users! He does not respect the notability criteria of wikipedia, ignoring important sources brought to the articles! I consider it an abuse of power on his part! Take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maria-Ana_Tupan 2A02:2F05:820E:7000:DCE9:17D7:220C:E739 (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing their job. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the inappropriate content from the draft that made it very hard to read. Noting the draft was then declined by @Theroadislong: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I will suggest that if one requires Google translate to edit here, then perhaps one should edit on a Wikipedia in one's mother tongue. And that perhaps the AfC reviewers know more about article creation than the one. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I expected, you defended a colleague who commits irregularities and deleted all the evidence and arguments brought by me. Congratulations for practicing censorship and breaking Wikipedia's rules!2A02:2F05:820E:7000:DCE9:17D7:220C:E739 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hogwash. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't put stuff like that in a draft. And I certainly did not remove the commetns you dislike. And I will ask you to calm down and stop ,making presonal attacks. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep going in this vein and I foresee a EE topic ban or worse in your future. We have zero tolerance for nationalist editors who're only here to pick fights. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 06:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
28 sources brought to the article were ignored without an analysis of them, false statements were made about the identity of the draft editor, my work as an honest user of Wikipedia was mocked. And you defend an grandmaster editor that commits so many irregularities. I repeat, this is not democracy, but censorship. And the threat of blocking, because the evidence provided does not suit you, is a clear sign of censorship and solidarity with a user who breaks the rules. I express my displeasure with these practices that undermine democracy and human rights!2A02:2F05:820E:7000:DCE9:17D7:220C:E739 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no. It's all right here and linked above for all the world to see. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy ping: DoubleGrazing

Noted, thanks. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Religion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard

edit

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

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

Arbitration motion regarding Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

edit

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 3.1 of the case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 ("Topic ban (Olympian)") is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting eighteen months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Backlog at SPI

edit

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

I've been waiting on an SPI on a pretty routine set of socks for over a week. It does seem like a pretty bad back-log. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it does...and there seem to be a number of SPIs that have been attended-to but haven't been cleared from that noticeboard. Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried my hand at 2 and unfortunately picked to the problematic ones. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My sympathies. The sock master/puppets that I & a few other editors have been battling continue to be obsessed with changing a sourced from impeccable reliable sources circa/approximate dates (like say just a year or an "either this year or that year" date) to a specific date and he/she/they seem obsessed with changing circa/approximate dates to specific dates in November. This behavior has been going on for at least months on a range of articles. Lately they've stepped up the funfunFUN and I am wary of somehow getting inveigled into a 3RR situation. This is not a content dispute, this is a situation where this editor has engaged in repeated reverts, changing referenced information and always using as their source user-edited sites like FindAGrave. There's also some circular sourcing going on where they cite wikidata and when I dig down on wikidata it actually says the circa/approximate/year-only dates are correct. Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skitash violating the Neutral Point of View of Wikipedia under articles about Maghreb civilisation, edit warring when objected

edit

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

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

Skitash uses connotated language, e.g calling Tamazgha a "fictious entity", when other similar articles like Akhand Bharat don't use this connotated and biased language against it. We can see in revisions like [97] that the user undermines even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source, assuming all censed speakers of Arabic speak it natively, while ignoring the 25% Berber speaking population for which it is almost systematically a native language (the census is not about nativity at all by the way). He also removes Amazigh language names in articles, even when it consists of Amazigh toponyms such as Souss-Massa and in Souss-Massa-Draâ (see revision [98]), where he removed the Amazigh writing of name the region that is the cultural heart of Moroccan Amazigh (particularly the Shilha people), plenty other examples of this erasure of mentions to Amazigh people and languages can be found in the history of his contributions, but he reverts every correction, threatening an edit war, and discouraging most amateur Wikipedians.

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

You have a lot of really good points, and the fact that colonial peoples often bury the histories of indigenous peoples on Wikipedia is and has been a major concern for a long time, but your tone is not great and will turn many people against you. Try calming down and explaining again in concise, neutral language, instead of just attacking Skitash.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. After going over Skitash's history, there is a lot of whitewashing the history of Arab imperialism, colonialism, and their abuses against indigenous peoples of their conquered lands, but that is a matter for ANI, not here. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I redirect the post to ANI? Taluzet (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"colonial peoples" Are you referring to me as such? If this isn't a personal attack, then I don't know what is. Skitash (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack, it's an observation. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOOMERANG. This appears to be a continuation of this ANI from last year. An ethnic dispute being dragged to Wikipedia is never going to end well. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I took the initiative to report them only after seeing numerous other contributors to Maghreb related articles have had the same issues of erasure whenever they mentioned Amazigh people or gave the Amazigh term for something, some asking for a report to be made, so I tried taking action to assure admins are at least aware of the connotation of User:Skitash 's articles and the biased perspective of Maghrebi history they give off Taluzet (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations lack merit and are merely unfounded aspersions. I have always contributed to Wikipedia with widely accepted sourced content, and accusing me of discrediting Amazigh/Berber culture or being an Arabist is baseless.
"calling Tamazgha a "fictitious entity", when other similar articles like Akhand Bharat don't use this connotated and biased language against it. I am assuming you didn't bother reading the article or any of the cited sources there, but I will present them here. The following sources explicitly state that "...its replacement with multi- dimensional entities: a domestic region (the Rif, Tafilalt), the external region (North Africa) or a fictitious entity (Tamazgha) whose borders transcend states and nations?",[99] "They imagine a Tamazgha land that transcends the current nation-states that they live in." and "This nation lives in an imagined geography in Tamazgha, a region that stretches from ‘Touareg lands in Niger to Siwa in Egypt to Kabylie in Algeria and, of course, to Morocco’".[100] That is simply the very definition of Tamazgha according to reliable sources. Even the body of the Tamazgha article explains that the term is used "to imagine and describe a hypothetical federation spanning between the Canary Islands and the Siwa Oasis, a large swathe of territory including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Egypt, the Western Sahara, Burkina Faso and Senegal."
I have no idea what your point about "nativity" concerns but that makes absolutely no sense. The content you deleted in Culture of Morocco is sourced and backed by official census data. Your point about it being "illogical to think the that 18% of the 25% censed Berber speakers acquired it as a second language" is merely your unsubstantiated personal opinion. There is no contradiction between 92% of the population speaking Moroccan Arabic and 26% speaking Berber, as Morocco is a multilingual country. I have no idea why you would accuse me of undermining "even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source" for reverting your unwarranted and unjustified sourced content removal.
The Berber names you mentioned were not only removed by myself, but also by others as they were complete WP:OR. A discussion is currently underway on this matter, and there are plenty other editors who agree with my perspective and have expressed concerns that IPs have been going around and arbitrarily changing these unsourced Berber names without an explanation. As we know, Berber is not a single, unified language, and there are no existing dictionaries for the various Berber languages that exist.
Speaking of neutrality, I find this ironic as it appears that the sole purpose of your account is to use Wikipedia as an ethnic WP:BATTLEGROUND, focusing solely on pushing an agenda in Berber-related articles. Going through your contributions, all you have been doing is deleting sourced content you don't agree with for nonsensical reasons and replacing it with whatever you like[101][102][103] and adding unsourced content.[104] Nothing more. This pattern is evident on your talk page, which reveals that you disregard all your warnings regarding sourced content removal.
Furthermore, I'd like to draw attention to this ANI from last year in which I reported Taluzet for edit warring, misinterpreting sources and a lack of willingness to engage in constructive discussions, in which many editors argued that Taluzet is clearly WP:NOTHERE (interestingly, Taluzet harassed one of these editors on their talk page for participating in the discussion). Skitash (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You used a source that states the percent of Moroccan Arabic speakers overall, including L2 speakers, interpreting it as the percent of native (L1) speakers, especially in a comment that just serves to say that only Moroccan Arabic speakers really make a significant portion of the speakers.
About the names, why do the Arabic names not require sourcing? Are names in different languages treated differently?
I don't understand how using my account on a specific category is wrong, I don't push any agenda aiming to undermine the existence of another people.
I would like to apologize for the behavior on the ANI mentioned, I was new to the website and this was my first dispute with any user, I haven't even contributed to Wikipedia all that much this year, just mostly helping in the French Wiktionary, the issue of you contributing to the whole wiki with a clear bias is what brought me to return and file a report in the name of all Amazigh and Maghrebi wikipedians concerned about how this negatively affects the article. Taluzet (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"interpreting it as the percent of native (L1) speakers" When exactly did I do that? The sentence simply states that "92% of Moroccans speak Moroccan Arabic" and "About 26% of the population speaks a Berber language". These are straightfoward, objective facts according to the 2014 Moroccan census, and nowhere does it specify native or L2 speakers in the lead. Besides, this sourced content has been present in the lead for several years and was not added by me. Arabic, as the fourth most spoken language globally, is easily verifiable, unlike Tamazight, which consists of several mutually unintelligible and uncodified languages. Skitash (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly says "92% of Moroccans speak Moroccan Arabic as a native language". If you didn't write it then why did you immediately revert it when I made the correction?
All titles are written in an orthography that was standardized by the Moroccan IRCAM, it's pretty easy to verify if you simply ask a Wikipedian that writes it. Taluzet (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to realise that WP:NPOV does not mean that all points of view should have equal billing, but that those points of view represented in reliable sources should be covered "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". Without the sources being presented we can't tell whether Skitash has been following this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have included all the sources in my response here. Please take a look if you will. I am puzzled as to how my reversion of Taluzet's removal of long-standing sourced content backed by government census data constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV and "undermines even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source" as they have claimed. Skitash (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was directed at Taluzet, who doesn't seem to be arguing on the basis of reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you, the census is not about native languages, it's just about spoken languages, seen by the fact the percentages in each column don't add up to anything close to 100% Taluzet (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, you will get a lot of conflicting sources on the Maghreb, mostly due to the fact that those sources achieve different goals. For example, on that ANI concerning the usage of the word Tamazight/Amazigh and th self-identification of Berber people using that word, Skitash presented a source that states "Historically, these groups did not call themselves "Berbers" but had their own terms of self-referral. Kabyles, for instance, refer to themselves as "Leqbayel," Shawiyas as "Ishawiyen," and so on"[1], which is a true statement (apart from the 'Historically', since it's a point about modern ethnonyms, and not ancient ones which were more likely to be the widespread Amazigh and Tamazight), because these 2 groups, as well as most groups in Algeria, do use these newly adopted ethnonyms traditionally, but the point he references that in which is "Historically, Berbers did not have a collective term of self-referral but had their own terms to refer to themselves." is not correct, as the names Tamazight and Amazigh are widespread today in traditional use and even more widely attested in pre-modern times, through ancient sources, toponyms and expressions[2], but the article Berber languages as presented in this version [105] uses a language that suggests it wasn't used in the Berber world prior to modern linguists' promotion of this term.
So I blame Skitash of nitpicking and extrapolating these sources to achieve a goal of discrediting Amazigh language Taluzet (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're referencing a content dispute that took place last year, but what you're contesting is a sourced objective fact that is present in multiple Berber-related articles. The statement you mentioned, "Historically, these groups did not call themselves "Berbers" but had their own terms of self-referral. Kabyles, for instance, refer to themselves as "Leqbayel," Shawiyas as "Ishawiyen," and so on", is found word for word in the source.[3] What you're bizarrely trying to do is dispute the findings of the author, a cultural anthropologist who conducted research in Algeria, by saying that you're right and the author is wrong and replacing this well-sourced information with a dubious unreliable source from 1986. Skitash (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the "dubious unreliable source" is Salem Chaker, one of the founding fathers of modern Tamazight linguistics, anyone in the field should know him, as well as the famous "encyclopédie berbère" he directs. Taluzet (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is dubious and unreliable. Your source is WP:UNDUE, it's nearly 40 years old and does not warrant replacing the already established credible RS. We've already discussed this previously, and your misinterpretation of sources has been evident. The source you provided doesn't support your claim at all, and you have consistently made WP:OR assumptions and ridiculous claims such as "Mazax is obviously the same word as amazigh"[106]
Anyway, this noticeboard is about behavior rather than content disputes. Since you accused me of not being neutral, then why did you hardly respond to any of the the counterpoints I made in response to your baseless accusations? The only thing you addressed was the issue on Culture of Morocco. If your concern was solely about the "native language" part (which was not added by me and was present on the page for several years), why did you delete the whole paragraph along with its reliable sources rather than just those two words? This is highly unusual, and suggests that you're distorting my edits to portray them as non-neutral when this clearly isn't the case. In fact, you're the one using Wikipedia in a non-neutral manner, as evidenced by your clear intentions to edit war with the goal of pushing a POV, your persistent personal attacks and your warning-plastered talk page (indicating a disregard for them). Given this pattern of behavior, I believe you should be blocked for being WP:NOTHERE and violating WP:NPA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOR, WP:EW and possibly even more. Skitash (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the source you are using for Tamazgha is very clearly biased and violates the neutral point of view rule, the author states "These contradictory attitudes contribute to a growing sense of cultural and linguistic alienation and exacerbate feelings of exclusion among Amazigh, thereby complicating national integration." and also "The royal initiative is an encouraging one provided the king shows stronger political will to enforce it in face of a hostile administration and an outdated vision of national unity that still prevails among influential Moroccan elites."[107] clearly showing the author is addressing the issue of Tamazgha in a hostile manner, as he deems it to be a challenge to the national unity of Morocco and the kingdom, presenting the situation with a lot of bias for the Moroccan state. Paraphrasing such articles in your definition of Tamazgha as 'fictious entity' I believe is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia
Surprisingly all the warnings in my talk page are from you, and every other contributor in Berber related articles I've asked have had the same issue of you fighting against Tamazight representation in the Wiki, I have not had any issue in my other contributions.
Here are various examples online of this issue, where you can see User:Skitash is known by many for his political tendencies and him acting upon them in Wikipedia, by using and paraphrasing dubious sources that go against the consensus of the geneticists and linguists of the region, apparently even removing Kurdish town names too to replace them with Arabic :
[108]
Talk:Maghreb
[109] Taluzet (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the only source present in the article. Multiple reliable sources corroborate the exact same perspective. If you took a brief moment to read the Tamazgha article, you would learn that it describes what Berberists see as "the geographic embodiment of a Berber imaginary of a once unified language and culture that had its own territory". This is essentially the definition of Tamazgha, which has been agreed upon by scholars and other Wikipedia editors[110][111] and has been present in the article for over a year at least. Are you suggesting that Tamazgha exists, and is a real political entity stretching across the entirety of North Africa and encompassing 12 modern-day sovereign states? I don't see what you find so "hostile" about the author's tone, but this further underscores my point that you often baselessly label editors, authors and scholars as non-neutral based on your own viewpoint. I challenge you to provide a source that asserts Tamazgha is a sovereign nation state that exists.
Regarding those links you attached, I have no regard for what like-minded POV-pushing individuals that promote disruptive editing and an ethnic agenda have to say about me and the various other Wikipedia editors they have targeted. What I find interesting is that this has given rise to several recently-created meatpuppets and sockpuppets such as AmazighAcademic, Elyelm, Rumihoney, SaraWiki123, Yassaa.m, Aniguran and Algerien berber (I wouldn't be surprised if you were among them) who all share things in common: to use Wikipedia as an ethnic battleground, delete sourced content and stir up edit wars, behaviors that largely mirror your own. Were you not aware of how these several meatpuppets disruptively edit warred against me and other editors until admins stepped in to protect Tamazgha and Abd el-Krim? Skitash (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with your edits in Tamazgha is calling it a fictious entity right at the beginning of the definition, by paraphrasing a biased article. Your objective is clearly to discredit the concept of Tamazgha, and discrediting Berbers seems to be the objective of a lot of your edits in the Maghreb Wikipedia. I am not asking you to call it a righteous nation-state or anything, just to be treated as any other unofficial 'great' homeland is like Kurdistan or Akhand Bharat, that are called concepts or geo-cultural regions, because that is the neutral term, that does not send a biased message to the reader.
But it is only one example of you misusing sources in order to skew the message given by Wikipedia articles so that it can fit your personal narrative of erasure of Berbers in the Maghreb and replacing indigenous names and mentions by Arab ones.
Your reputation among Maghreb circles is not to be ignored, and even neutral observants can clearly see you are pushing a colonialist and arabist agenda into Wikipedia, that - as others said - is trusted and used by a lot of people afterwards as a 100% legitimate and objective source.
I have no responsibility in the actions others have taken against you, it is sad that these people take the situation irresponsibly which ends up in the favour of your quests of erasure of Berbers simply through your knowledge of Wikipedia etiquette and taking advantage of their ignorance, I decided myself to take the matter to the admins Taluzet (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument seems to be entirely based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. "Fictitious entity" is what RS describe it as, and has been in the article for over a year, with agreement from other editors. "just to be treated as any other unofficial 'great' homeland is like Kurdistan or Akhand Bharat, that are called concepts or geo-cultural regions, because that is the neutral term, that does not send a biased message to the reader." Why don't you present sources describing it as such? Kurdistan is distinctly different, being a geographical location united by language and geography. Tamazgha isn't a geographical location, it lacks a clear geographical definition and whatever lands it claims do not share the same language and culture. If you have any concerns, go ahead and take them to the talk page of the respective article.
The rest of your argument largely echoes your initial accusations me against me and ignores my responses to your unfounded claims and personal attacks which you have failed to address, and regarding "neutral observants can clearly see you are pushing a colonialist", no reputable, established Wikipedia editor expresses this view. On the other hand, I know Wikipedia editors who think you're clearly not here to contribute constructively as seen in the previous ANI.
Moreover, I contribute to articles pertaining to the entire MENA region and revert vandalism in a broad spectrum of topics, not solely focusing on Maghrebi-related ones like you do. Portraying my account as solely dedicated to the Maghreb is misleading and dishonest. Skitash (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed all the points above, I apologized for my behaviour in the ANI that happened a year ago, and I was unexperienced in Wikipedia etiquette as it was my first ever such interaction in this website.
As for "not solely focusing on Maghrebi-related ones like you do", first of all I only really contributed in Berber related stuff, not the whole Maghreb as long as it was political (as you do), and are you really blaming me for that, because you literally do the same to the Arab world, the difference is I chose to keep myself to a subject I am familiar with (Berber linguistics), not acting as an authority on every minority in the region by misusing biased sources and avoiding sources of experts that tackle the subjects in question directly, like when you used the work of cultural anthropologist Jane E. Goodman which is exclusive to Algeria to tackle on a universally Berber, complex linguistic question, and then proceeded called the work of the notorious Salem Chaker "dubious and unreliable".
You're showing this ethnic bias you're blaming me for to Arabs much more than I do, and you're extending it over to minorities under the Arab world.
I didn't say your account was exclusive to the Maghreb, but I have heard many complaints about your actions in the Maghrebi Wikipedia. Taluzet (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, feel free to continue reiterating same unfounded accusations you've been repeating for the past several hours, without offering any revision links or meaningful points. Clearly, you must be the real expert here, knowing more than all those cultural anthropologists, scholars, credible authors and editors you disagree with and accuse of bias. My job here is done; we'll just have to wait for the administrators to come to a conclusion. Skitash (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ {{Cite book |last=Goodman |first=Jane E. |url=https://books.google.dz/books?id=By1aJGHz8rwC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA7 |title=Berber Culture on the World Stage: From Village to Video |date=2005-11-03 |publisher=Indiana University Press |isbn=978-0-253-21784-4 |pages=7 |language=en
  2. ^ https://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/2465
  3. ^ Goodman, Jane E. (2005-11-03). Berber Culture on the World Stage: From Village to Video. Indiana University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-253-21784-4.

|

RFPP backlog

edit

Don't know if this is really considered urgent at this point, but I've seen people post things like this before: there's a backlog of about twenty requests at WP:RFPP right now. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't describe it as urgent. Many of these requests are inappropriate/not going to result in protection. -Fastily 00:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. In any case, it has now been cleared. (Thanks, Callanecc!) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing

edit

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For violations of their topic ban and for continued editing which violate the conflict of interest guidelines, Rp2006 is blocked for 1 month. This block may be appealed only to the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing

Arbitration motion regarding Sri Lanka

edit

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion, in resolution of a case request, that:

This case request is resolved by motion as follows:

Sri Lanka, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 14:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Sri Lanka

Need help at WT:WHITELIST

edit

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

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

More generally I would appreciate not being the only admin regular there, which I have been for months. I only started doing it because requests were being archived without reply prior to that. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't comments on your thread because I'm not inclined to whitelist per your request as I'm not convinced it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I notice you also tend to get rather impatient, PhotogenicScientist, and you seem to forget that administrators are volunteers who are not required to respond on your timetable. Or at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you seem to forget that admins are volunteers I'm not sure where you're getting that from, considering I said "admins are volunteers" right here. And I waited 4 days actively on RSN, 7 days actively on WT, and another 7 days with no action on WT - does that seriously qualify as someone who tends to get rather impatient?
Look, feel very free to continue to ignore my request, Dennis Brown. I'm not holding it against you, or anything. Just asking here for support from any other admin. (Which I was advised to do from the RSN thread, by the way) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

posting COIs (actual/potential) under TBAN

edit

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

The TBAN is considered to be imposed by the community so there's not really an "admin in charge" of it. It's always good to ask when you're unsure; personally I don't see an issue with the specific task of adding COI disclosures to talk pages. DanCherek (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I guess then read this as a more "is this okay?" then "I'm going to go do this now." *smiling sweat drop emoji Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see adding COI tags to previously-edited articles as a violation of the tban, and in fact I think we should be encouraging it as an indication that Rachel is operating in good faith. Valereee (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:RD1 severely backlogged

edit

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

Looks like there has been someone (or multiple someones) taking a pretty big chunk out of it -- there were only about eighteen when I looked -- but I worked through a few of what was left. jp×g🗯️ 05:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appealling topic ban & 1RR

edit

Hello everyone. In 2018 I was topic banned plus 1RR. I've been off Wiki for several years. The Admin who imposed the topic banned & the 1RR has been super kind and fair, and helped by pointing me to the relevant policy regarding topic ban, to which I am grateful, but that now leaves me even more confused as to whether I should mention the topic here or not. Since I'm not sure what to do, I rather not mention it here just in case I am not allowed to as per policy. Sorry guys, some of you maybe confused. I'm confused myself as it's been years away from Wiki and I forgot a lot, my Wiki brain is not working. My apologies. I'm not trying to play ruse here, I am honestly confused. I don't even know whether this is the right format for appealling this, and I'm weary of asking or mention something I shouldn't and gets a telling off. I have been blocked before, but have never been topic banned until the 2018 one, so the appeal process of this type of sanction is pretty new to me anyway. It has been 5 years (2019) since I came off Wiki returning back in March this year. During those 5 years I've learned a lot. I had been extremely difficult, driven by my passion for this Wiki project, but which sometimes got me into trouble. I have apoligised for that before and I would like to apologise for that again here. As a human being, I make mistakes too. Learning from those mistakes to be a better version of myself is what I do now. The 5 years absence had given me opportunity to self reflect, especially when I now have another grandson. My mentality is totally different from when I started over a decade ago. Yes, I have done some bad stuff over the years, but I've also done some good that helps contribute in a small away towards the advancement of this great project –which is what I am here for. I therefore urge the community to consider this appeal in the spirit it is written and lift the topic ban and 1RR. Thank you all for your time, and apologies again if anything is confusing. I am equally confused, but did not want to mention the topic's name just in case I'm not even allowed to mention it by name.Tamsier (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions, "Tamsier is topic banned from all edits related to the Serer people, and is also under a sitewide 1RR restriction. Both restrictions are broadly construed. They can be appealed to the community, for instance at WP:AN, but no sooner than 12 months from now, and are enforcable by blocks." Tamsier, when contesting the topic ban, you are allowed to specifically mention the topic ban. Thanks for being cautious! --Yamla (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the banning admin, I'm not going to opine on this appeal, but I'll provide a few courtesy links for clarification: please see my recent warning here, the 2018 discussion which led to the ban (the header says 2015, but don't let that worry you), and the formal notice in 2018. Bishonen | tålk 13:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Also see the ANI discussion here. I'm clearly involved and although Tamsier has been more than civil with me since I discovered he was back that's a 180degree change from when he was last editing. User:Drmies was also a target. Here is what I wrote in 2018:
"Tamsier, I'm going to be blunt. I have always been in favor of more representation of African subjects and have even spent money on sources besides of course time to improve some of them. Your enthusiasm for improving these is great. But I had a serious problem with your sourcing and content, which I think comes from your sincere belief in the old Serer religion and its truth, that the Serer have been in Africa forever, etc. This has made it difficult for you to follow our policies and guidelines when editing Serer related articles. I think that any unblock request needs to be made at WP:ANI via your talk page - there will be people who will repost comments you make here to your ANI request. I'm sure nobody, including you, wants a repeat of what happened that led to your block. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)"[reply]
I've got no time to spend on examining current edits, but I would like to know, Tamsier, if your belief in how long the Serer have been in Africa has changed. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Yamla for doing that. Much appreciated. Hi Doug Weller, I think there has been misunderstanding regarding those people (I'm trying not to mention their name here as this is a Wiki page too, just in case I'm not suppose to) being in Africa forever. This might be due to the different styles of using the English language (and/or writing style) by people from different cultures. However, I have not purported and do not purport that group "has been in Africa forever." The only think I can do is report on what the sources say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's were a lot of our disagreements stemmed from. To answer your question directly, absolutely no. If we are to go with the scientific view that humanity originated from Africa, it would not make sense for me to advance that group of people have in Africa forever. Do I believe or have I ever held the view that they have been in Africa forever? Absolutely no, because they couldn't have by sheer logic. If that is the impression I gave in any of my edits or comments, then I'm sorry about that, because that's not what I meant to do, but only reporting what the sources say as it pertains to their own history and the history of the region they settled in. I hope that helps in clarifying any misunderstanding. I noticed an editor (I can't remember who it was as I was on the move at the time) posed some important questions but later deleted it after looking at my talk page which were answered there. As mentioned on my talk page, I totally forgot about this topic ban and 1RR as it has been 5 years since I came back. The edits were not in anyway of me trying to game the system. To the contrary, I genuinely forgot. The fact that I logged on and edited rather than using an IP demonstrate that it was genuine forgetfullness (I'm not young anymore, lol). I have not been on Wiki for years, and totally forgot. Had it been an ordinary block, the system would have alerted me, and would have jogged my memory. However, as it was a topic ban, it totally escaped my mind after all these years. That is the honest answer. I just thought I take the opportunity to mention it here as well.Tamsier (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When reporting what sources said about an ancient existence of the Serer, which you can mention here, did you always attribute their statements? Doug Weller talk 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I’m sorry if you took me literally when I said forever, I thought it obvious that was hyperbole. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Non-administrator comment) I think it's plausible that, after five years absence, Tamsier forgot about the topic ban. However, they have an unsettling block history, and some of their edit summaries since returning are concerning:
If Tamsier can edit actively for six months while complying with the topic ban and avoiding past problems, that might demonstrate that the topic ban is no longer needed. Schazjmd (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Schazjmd, the links you've posted was me addressing some concerning editing, adding references, and correcting issues, one of which pertaining to an ethnic minority group, who are a minority anyway and how dangerous it could be to lump them into a wider dominant group just because they speak the same language. The editor and I had actually had fruitful discussions on the relevant topic page and reached concensus. Another issue which you missed was me reverting an IP who changed the population size of the group from 1 million to 5 million without sources: Restored revision 1216800884 by AnomieBOT (talk): Reverting IP POV when discussion is still going. Also, they have increased the population from 1 m to 5 million without sources. Take it to the talk page. With regards to your six months proposal, as I have stated earlier, I am here to help in a collaborative manner. I have also not been on Wiki for 5 years as stated, and took responsibility for my actions and apologised for that. I have never had a topic ban before so this is all knew to me as stated above. I didn't even appeal it a year after the ban. Yes, it is true that I want the ban and 1RR lifted, but I also want to be treated fairly here, and not having to be doubly punished for a sanction imposed several years ago. I hope you would agree that sanctions are not punitive or designed to humiliate editors especially when they have taken responsibility for their actions and agree not to do it again, which I have and still do.Tamsier (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Doug Weller, I didn't see you later comment. Sorry. When the statements or accounts are supported by multiple sources/scholars, I simply add the inline citations so the reader can examine the sources themselves. If I am not mistaken, and do correct me if I'm wrong, I believe what you are asking is if for example source A says so and so.., whether I add in the article in quotation marks source A says so and so... rather than just paraphrasing and providing the inline citation. If that is what you are asking, yes, sometimes I do quote the text and attribute it to the author and provide the inline citation, and sometimes I paraphrase it and provide the inline citation. If quoting is your preferred option, I totally accept and respect that. However, as an active editor, and I have lot of balancing act to do. I have to be weary of copyright violations; and making sure an article is not full of multiple quotations thereby making the article more like a copy and paste rather than an encycolpedia. By paraphasing and adding the relevant reference as an inline citation to the claim, I believe that would help the reader to examine the source the claim referred to. You have been on Wiki for many years, and are more experience, and I do appreciate that different people have different way of doing things, and I have no problem adopting your technique (which I've done on many articles anyway) if that is the community's preferred way of doing it. Which ever method is best to help the general reader but also balancing copyright violation and piling quotations after quotations on an article which in my view comes off as copy and paste. Perhaps 1 or 2 quoations in an article is fine, but multiple quoations rather than paraphasing, in my judgement as an active editor, could end up doing more harm. However, I do believe that providing quotations in some cases rather than just paraphasing is crucial. As I edit, I try to make that judgement call. Sometimes, of course, I may make the wrong. However, by adding the inline citation to the claim being supported, at least that would give the reader the opportunity to examine the source themselves. I hope I've answered your questions, and if you think I've missed anything or misunderstood your question in the way I answered it, please clarify. Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said I wouldn't opine on Tamsier's appeal, but I will say something, in view of the shocking edit summaries that Schazjmd quotes above, and which are only a few days old: "motivated by anti-Serer sentiments and hate"... "motivated by hat[r]ed of the Serer and tribalism"... "Take your hatred and POV elsewhere"... "Removing silly tag motivated by hatred and anti-Serer sentimens"... "Please do not bring tribalism and religious hatred on Wiki". What a lot of hatred and what a lot of assumptions of bad faith. It's much too similar to the attacks and the bad faith assumptions that Tamsier was indefinitely blocked for in 2015 (the block that was eventually converted to the topic ban we are discussing here). I'm sorry to see it. Is this really the user who says above "My mentality is totally different from when I started over a decade ago"? Tamsier, those edit summaries were written by you on 2 April, 12 April and 15 April. This April. So is it your contention that you are now a reformed character with a totally different mentality, even though you were still an aggressive bad-faith-assuming battleground editor a week ago, as seen in those edit summaries? I don't really care if that was you "addressing some concerning editing, adding references, and correcting issues", which is your defense above. I care that you seemingly can't address issues without ascribing bad motives and attacking others as being motivated by "hatred", a word you keep using. That's terrible in my opinion. It's completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. I don't see anybody speaking to or about you in that way. I'm also not impressed by your reply to Doug Weller: Do I believe or have I ever held the view that they have been in Africa forever? Absolutely no, because they couldn't have by sheer logic. Your literal reading of what Doug said looks evasive — merely a way of changing the subject. Surely you knew what he meant? Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • What Bishonen says. I remember that it was precisely this zeal that led to various admonitions and finally the topic ban--it seemed clear to me that when it came to Serer matter, the editor simply could not be objective and detached. That's a real shame, of course, since we need editors in those topic areas--but what we do not need is editors who, the moment they are invested in a topic area, disparage the motivations of editors who make edits they don't agree with.
    So the big problem I see is signaled by this edit, and its edit summary, and I'll quote part of it: " I can't with the Wolof Pov pushing. This is just too much! Editors should really take a deep look of Wolof Pov pushing on the Wiki project. The problem is bigger than I thought". Now the article is fairly recent, but the subject wasn't Serer (in our article) until Tamsier. Fine. Maybe he is. Maybe the sources are good. And it's certainly true that there's not direct, sourced statement that said he's Wolof. The problem though is the thought that this article would have been created/edited to make a man a Wolof and deliberately leave out that he's Serer. User:BastianMAT, who created the article, is a Wolof POV pusher? So, no, I don't think lifting the topic ban is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 22:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Hi @Drmies: I believe you made the above edit but couldn't reply direct as it was unsigned and the name is not coming up on my computer. It was not the creator of the article who added that. How do I word pov on the same topic area, on multiple pages - a problem which is bigger than both you and I? Most of which (as per what I've seen so far) has nothing at all to do with the Serer either (first time I'm writing it here since I'm told it is okay), but bigger than I I initially thought, and some of whom are IPs drivebys, meat or socks, etc. The article did not even have a source for that. I was the one who sourced it. If we are adding cats for something, surely the topic must be discussed and sourced. It's like adding Category:Yoruba people to the King Charles article when nothing in his biography mentions he is Yoruba and certainly not sourced. When you run into too many of these - most of which I've seen but have not even touched, what can one say/do? Some of course would be innocent mistakes, but as an active editor who work on these types of articles, I am more likely to come across them than someone who occasionally edits these types of articles. I didn't even mention the editor by name, just the problem and highlighted the fact that it is a major issue - having seen so many - most of which I haven't even touched. The article's creator you mentioned was not even the person who added that. When is the correct time for me to call a spade a spade especially when I see the same issues on multiple articles? All I'm asking for Drmies and @Doug Weller: is to be given a chance rather than throwing the book at me.Tamsier (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Tamsier: No one is throwing the book at you, you have to do what anyone appealing a topic ban would do, prove that your behaviour has changed. You obviously haven't done that. But you did get the book thrown at you when you were sanctioned five years ago, and yet you say you forgot? I find that surprising to say the least given how important a topic this is for you and the drama that surrounded your editing that led to the sanctions. I'd also like a direct answer to my question. When do you think the Serer tribe emerged? I'm sure you have an opinion on that. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so one little category edit is enough to suggest that there is a huge POV problem, a major issue, bigger than the editor initially thought. So I'm going with no: if Tamsier is going to rant in edit summaries rather than start a decent discussion, with diffs and arguments (they could have done that given that they forgot about their topic ban), then this collaborative project is not for them. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An edit summary like this to me demonstrates a battleground attitude not compatible with editing a thorny topic. Even if we look past the TBAN violation as accidental, I would oppose lifting the restriction at this time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent copying without attribution

edit

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

Hello, I was made aware of this by Iveagh Gardens, and will now clamp down on making unnecessary pages going forward. Quayshires (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response. And also more specifically, remember to attribute any copying within Wikipedia. Copying within Wikipedia should probably be limited anyway, as each article has its own purpose, so it's better to let them develop in their own organic way, rather than copying text that was crafted for a different article. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a small addendum, can I urge you to read your talk page notices. I see there was a comment on your talk page about copying without attribution, with a warning of a block if there was continued infringement. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quayshires, I know you have been given a lot of articles to read, but copyright is taken very seriously here as it has legal ramifications. Making unnecessary pages is a lesser matter than copying without attribution, so please read WP:copying within Wikipedia again and make sure that you understand it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CCI is the usual venue for reporting mass copyright violations, in case you need it in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosting & constantly reverting

edit
Duplicate of WP:ANI#Ghosting_consensus_&_constantly_reverting. Please don't open same issue on multiple forums. Schazjmd (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 noticed hoax references and copy-pastes on the Chuvash page. I made changes to rectify them, but user @Artem Petrov CHV reverted them without providing any explanation. Subsequently, I created a section on the talk page, outlining all the reasons for the removal while tagging him and requesting his opinion. He didn't respond. (until literally this day)

I then created another section on his profile, inquiring why he continues to revert and suggesting that we collaborate to customize the page together. Once again, he didn't respond. Despite this, he continues to revert the changes. I kindly request any moderator proficient in linguistics to assist us in reaching a consensus. Auzandil (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 request

edit
Rev Del'ed by Muboshgu Star Mississippi 01:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.


[112] O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - done
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.

Appeal to remove topic ban on politics and 0RR restriction

edit

Dear @331dot, @ToBeFree and other noticeboard users,

I am appealing for a removal of the topic ban and restriction arising from a ban first enacted by @ToBeFree on 18:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC) and removed by @331dot on 23:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC) with my agreement on a topic ban and 0RR restriction.[reply]

I now wish to return to making productive (and not disruptive) contributions and do better in terms of collaborative posture and behaviour on wikipedia.

I also understand that there are various procedures and venues to mediate disputes or differences without resorting to edit warring.

I fully intend to seek such guidance from the Teahouse or from other applicable information pages if needed.

Thank you for reading and considering this request. Bcmh (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bcmh, your block was lifted on 28 Sept 2023 since when you have made just TWO edits in mainspace. On what basis are we supposed to be assessing your appeal? Cabayi (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi my impression, which is totally open to correction, was that my former behaviour warranted a period of being restrained in totality, regardless of other topics that are available for editing, especially so because there were many articles that I wanted to edit but thought that they could be approaching the bounds of what the ban was about - politics - and I honestly thought that it was better to just be restrained, would I now be correct in understanding that an appeal to remove a ban should include a longer list of edits? Again, I do not deny that I have only made two edits but it was borne out of a good faith but possibly mistaken intention as outlined above which is open to correction by yourself and others Bcmh (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how we can determine if you’ve changed. A topic ban is given as a sanction in expectation you will edit elsewhere, if we knew you wouldn’t we could have just blocked you completely. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to see edits from you so we can determine if you have changed and that the behavior that led to the topic ban will not repeat. Two edits isn't enough to determine that. I'm sorry you have been operating under a misunderstanding, but the point of a topic ban is to redirect your efforts elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sigh, could I ask how many edits are needed if more than two? is it 20 or 200? and does the six months restart again from today? or is it a more subjective assessment than number of edits and time? just trying to ask for some help and clarity here, thx Bcmh (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
could I also seek some clarification on whether it is permissible for me to edit an article that I created and have made many productive contributions to, and have many more to make: Reserves of the Government of Singapore; as well as other related articles that I did not create but are related to the one that I did, such as: Central Provident FundHousing and Development Board, GIC, Temasek Holdings, Monetary Authority of Singapore, Post Office Savings Bank, Singapore Land Authority - these are topics of Economics, Pension Funds, Public Housing and life in Singapore that I am familiar with, had made productive (and not disruptive) contributions prior to my ban and were not subject to my former behaviour which only took place in these two articles President of Singapore and Next Singaporean General Election which I do not seek permission to edit at this time.
I understand that a topic ban on politics is to be widely construed, but politics is so wide-ranging that it could be possibly linked to anything under the sun that has any involvement or interaction with elected politicians, furthermore, adding to these articles was not at all where my former behaviour manifested, so I'm hoping to be granted permission to edit these articles (except the election and president articles) since I need to show more edits and that I have changed. Thank you for your consideration. Bcmh (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic ban does not affect your ability to edit articles that you created, unless they are about areas you are topic banned from.
As for how many edits, the number is "enough that we can determine that you have changed". It certainly isn't two but I can't give a specific number, nor is it about a specific number. Probably at least dozens, if not a hundred. The ban was appealable after six months; there is no time limit on when you can next appeal, but it will likely take you a few months to build up the edits to show that you have changed. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the topic ban is from "articles about politics", I would certainly stay away from editing an article called Reserves of the Government of Singapore. If you want to appeal a topic ban in the future, it's best to steer well clear of anything which might reasonably be considered as being covered by it; looking like you are pushing boundaries or toeing the line of acceptable behaviour generally isn't considered favourably by people assessing an appeal. If you are interested in Singaporean topics, surely there are articles in, say, Category:Culture of Singapore or Category:People from Singapore which you are able to improve and which stay well away from your TBAN. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revoking the autopatrolled user right of The Anome

edit
Reason for filing has been addressed, and conversation is veering in an unproductive direction. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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.

We don't seem to have clear instructions on where this should be discussed... I noticed last week that User:The Anome seems to create too many problematic articles in mainspace (later moved to draft), e.g. Draft:Community Database License Agreement about a completely non-notable licence, or the completely unsourced Draft:Znanie (educational organization, founded 1947), Draft:Group insult, or Draft:Lyneal, which looked like this when it was moved to draft three weeks after creation. There are also recent BLP issues like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arend and Anneesa Feenstra or Takeshi Ebisawa.

So I asked them on the 18th if they would consider removing their autopatrolled right, but got no response. I then saw Draft:Final (C++), which looked like this when I moved it to draft space (sources are a wiki and a blog). I restarted the autopatrolled discussion (User talk:The Anome#Autopatrolled), which only gave me more concerns.

I would like to propose that the autopatrolled user right of The Anome is removed, so his articles come in the NPP queue and get more scrutiny from different editors. Fram (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see the problem with all of these articles. Draft:Community Database License Agreement and Draft:final (C++) are sourced stubs. Whether they're notable or not is something good faith editors can disagree on, but if you don't think they are, then take them to AfD – what's the point of keeping unsalvageable articles around in draftspace? That said, I definitely would not grant autopatrolled to an editor that had recently created unreferenced articles (though in fairness Draft:Group insult technically does cite Article 137c of Title V of the Dutch Criminal Code, and Draft:Lyneal could be easily verified even without a citation). I would like to hear if The Anome has an explanation for them before considering revoking it, though. – Joe (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a side note, we really could have avoided issues like this if the majority of admins hadn't immediately re-granted themselves autopatrolled after it was unbundled from sysop. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this is an admin issue rather than an NPP issue, as Autopatrolled only exists to reduce the eternal NPP backlog. Iffy★Chat -- 13:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because assignment and revocation of the autopatrolled user right is managed by administrators. – Joe (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a personal spat on Fram's behalf because I missed their request on my talk page; there are a lot of automated posts to the talk page, and it's sometimes easy to miss one, which seems to me to be start of this saga. As far as I can tell, and Joe Roe notes above, most of the articles Fram is complaining about arguably already pass Wikipedia's notability criteria for stubs, and they seem to be taking policy enforcement to the extreme. (I'd also point out that I create a lot of articles, the vast majority of which have not received any complaint at all, generally because they are multi-sourced in great detail.) Taking this directly to WP:AN seems like an excessive reaction to what seems to be an editorial dispute, but I'm very happy to improve my citing if that will make people happier, and taking me here to removing the autopatrolled bit seems excessive.

I've already told Fram I would do this, but they seem bent on pursuing this to be bitter end, instead of resolving it on my talk page.

At the same time, I note that Fram seems perfectly happy for there to be tens of thousands of articles about sportspeople which definitely do not meet the notability criteria. I've offered my assistance to start on policy enforcement on those articles; they seem strangely uninterested in doing so. This seems highly selective. I would like to WP:AGF here, but I'm curious as to why Fram seems keen to make an example of me instead of working on removing these. — The Anome (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already tried to discuss this with The Anome in the linked discussion, but they rehash the same arguments here, with some personal comments added. No, this is not just about notability, this is about sub-par articles for a number of reasons, sometimes notability, sometimes being completely unsourced or sourced solely to unreliable sources, sometimes BLP issues. And I guess anyone who knows my editing career here will see the folly of statements like "Fram seems perfectly happy for there to be tens of thousands of articles about sportspeople which definitely do not meet the notability criteria". Fram (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Anome: Nobody enjoys being frammed, but if you'll put up with me passing on some advice that was given to me when I was in the same position: it's best to ignore where it's coming from and how it's delivered and focus on the message. In this case, I think the thing that you might have missed, since your articles have been autopatrolled for—correct me if I'm wrong—ever, is that when we're assigning it today we don't just look for a record of creations that aren't deletion-worthy, but of an essentially unbroken record of flawless creations. And honestly, as someone who handles a substantial proportion of WP:PERM/A requests lately, I wouldn't even think of granting it to anyone with unreferenced articles in their recent creation history. That'd be basically asking for a framming for myself. I really think you should consider cutting this off here and now by self-revoking the right and having your articles reviewed for a while. When you feel you've recalibrated to current sourcing expectations, you're an admin so you are free to reassign it to yourself. But if it's revoked from you for cause here, you'll lose that option. – Joe (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Joe. I've removed my autopatrolled bit, as suggested, and will follow your suggestion of re-assigning it in a few months when I'm happier I'm compliant with the current rules. I'm very interested, though, in the fact that this experience actually has a name, "Framming". Does Fram have a history of this kind of tendentious complaining?

And, Fram, I'm sincere about the offer to help remove non-policy-compliant articles about sportspeople; are you still willing to take up my suggestion on this? — The Anome (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi, I'm insulting you, deliberately misrepresenting what you said, making things personal instead of actually looking at the merits of your complaint. Oh, and do you want to work together?" Fram (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I've now cleared the bit in a policy-compliant way, resolving the issue to, presumably, your satisfaction. Why are you still posting here? — The Anome (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that I needed your permission to (checks notes) reply to a question you asked directly of me??? Unbelievable. Fram (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem very angry. Perhaps it is better this conversation ends now, as it neither improves the encyclopedia or achieves any policy goal, and this is just cluttering up WP:AN for no good reason. Goodbye. — The Anome (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You seem very angry Way to lower the temperature, TheAnome. Oh, wait, I forgot—you were deliberately trying to raise it, by provoking Fram. In your eyes, an editor has complained about you; that complaint has been upheld by at least one of your colleagues, but you still think the original filing was tendentious. Rather myopic, tbh. ——Serial Number 54129 15:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Conflict of interest editing by Dennis Brown

edit
AN and ANI are inherently obnoxious. They cause otherwise sane humans to act like you kicked their dog. If you aren't trying to get someone in trouble, but instead just want to have a calm reasonable discussion, please open a thread at WT:COI or a village pump or maybe WP:COIN or something, and don't address any one editor as a particular example. I would love, just once, to see one thread at AN/ANI that did not result in someone suggesting blocks, bans, boomerangs, or desysops. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

During the recent conflict of interest management arbitration case and related discussions, Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) has repeatedly made reference to the fact the he owns stock in AT&T but has edited articles such as History of AT&T.[113][114][115] As I understand it, Dennis' intention here is to demonstrate that behaviour like this is therefore not "paid editing" or otherwise a conflict of interest that requires disclosure. What I and others have taken from it is that Dennis has been editing with an undisclosed financial conflict of interest, but has gotten away with it because it's a minor infraction and nobody wants the hassle of reporting a long-time administrator who's otherwise in good standing.

I don't think this is a really big deal, but I also don't think a newbie editor saying the same thing would meet the same blind eyes and turned faces. Dennis has stated that his financial interest in AT&T is not trivial (you do not know how much I earn from these stocks but I will say that it exceeds what an average paid editor would earn for going in and changing a few articles) and that by his own admission anything [he] wrote could have affected the stock price or dividends of any of these stocks.[116] He has also said that this is just one example of his making edits relating to companies in which he owns stock.[117] This raises issues because he has not made the formal disclosure required of paid editors and requested of all editors with a conflict of interest, nor has he (too my knowledge) followed the guidelines in making changes via edit requests instead of directly. He is also an administrator, and I believe the community has historically had a very low tolerance for admins engaging in any form of conflict of interest editing.

Since he himself seems intent on pushing this issue, going so far as to goad me into blocking him over it, I think it's only fair to hear whether the wider community considers this a (financial) conflict of interest, what disclosures Dennis is required to make, or if any other action is appropriate. – Joe (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a stretch of WP:COI. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI states that an editor has a financial conflict of interest whenever they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. I would say that owning a stake that pays dividends that exceeds what an average paid editor would earn is not at all a stretch of that definition though, as recent discussions have highlighted, editors seem to have a wide range of understandings of that same text. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feels like this should be at WP:COIN, not here. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It concerns conduct by an administrator, hence the administrators' noticeboard. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no record of Denis Brown editing AT&T [118] and only one record of an edit to History of AT&T [119]. While I am open to saying that if you own stock in a company you may have a COI, I'm not seeing any examples of a problem here. Am I missing something? - Bilby (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further, the best I have found is some minor edits to AT&T Corporation [120]. Joe, unless I really am missing something, I think you are being played. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look, honestly, just took Dennis' word on it. I'm really puzzled as to why he would keep bringing it up if his edits were unambiguously uncontroversial, given that this is an explicit exception to COI. – Joe (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose I have invested in a total stock market fund. Do I have a conflict of interest with Economy of the United States? Why or why not? What about the fund's constituent companies, which are numerous?
Many people have small investments in numerous stocks. I would not consider stock investing a COI unless it is most of a person's net worth, or something that meets SEC reporting requirements (which IIRC is owning 10% of a company or more). MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I—and I assume most editors and readers, if they reflect real-world demographics—don't come from the kind of background where people own shares in big companies. What I see here is Dennis saying "I own part of this company, I get a lot of money from it, and I might have made edits that affected its value", and that makes me think that he probably shouldn't be writing articles about that company. – Joe (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is closer to MrOllie's here, though I'd personally declare a conflict of interest well before a single stock was "most of a person's net worth". Joe, keep in mind that many people own shares in big companies through the nature of having a pension (even a state pension). They just don't necessarily know about it. It's also pretty easy for holdings in a particular stock to pay out more in dividends than the hypothetical average paid editor would get. --Yamla (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be interesting. I will stipulate that I own at least one share of AT&T stock somewhere in my retirement account, just to make it easy. By all means, provide all the evidence I was intentionally trying to benefit myself financially by editing any AT&T article. Since this is a necessary step to go to Arb and obviously your goal is to get my admin bit removed, this would be conduct unbecoming of an administrator on your part, and harassment, unless you present at least some evidence that demonstrates I have edited contrary to policy on COI. Instead, I think you are trying to use this as a cudgel to silence me on COI policy issues. THAT is conduct beneath what I would expect from an administrator. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: You admitted you had thought about blocking me "I've considered it, more than once..." Exactly what would you have blocked me for? In that same discussion, I told you "Your stance on COI smacks of politicking." and this report demonstrates that I was correct. I assume you did your homework before you came here. You should not be working at WP:COIN. You really shouldn't be an admin if you are that incompetent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't block you, obviously — that would be a massively inappropriate. I'm sorry that you see this as me trying to get your admin bit removed. I'm not. But you have been repeatedly raising this issue yourself, in multiple venues, over nearly a month now, and just directly challenged me as to why I wasn't hadn't taken admin action over it, so I assumed you were asking for it to be tested against community consensus. I'm not sure what my political motivation would be? – Joe (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, owning a stake in a company can result in a COI in relation to that company. The question here becomes whether Dennis Brown’s stake is sufficiently large to cause that COI, and in part that determination comes down to the user in question and how they see their stake.
Given that Dennis Brown has explicitly stated he sees the amount he owns as "not trivial", I think that this is sufficient to establish a conflict of interest in relation to AT&T that should be disclosed if Dennis Brown wishes to make edits in relation to AT&T. BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems simple enough. Dennis Brown wants to be blocked, presumably to provide him with a platform. So block him. Then everyone can get on with tings. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree there's a compelling case. There's no need for arbcom here - this isn't about administrative actions but actions as an editor. Not sure if a block is the right thing - my preference is a formal admonishment and warning, and a reminder that editing articles on topics you have a financial relationship with (as defined at WP:COI) is prohibited and further transgressions might lead to a block. A topic ban on publicly traded companies could be another decent way of dealing with this. WaggersTALK 14:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well except it is not prohibited (WP:COI does not prohibit editing articles on subjects with which you have a COI). WP:COI is a behavoiral guideline and uses 'strongly discouraged', and like all guidelines which 'discourage' something, is designed to enforce best editing practice, not absolute rule. If it was a rule, COI would be a policy and it would use the wording 'must not'. In this case the guideline would be disclosure of any potential COI (which Dennis has done). The guideline is clear that being an investor (which is what you are when you buy stock in a company) would fall under the COI umbrella. But practically speaking, anyone with a diverse enough stock portfolio will have a COI on any number of companies and no one is seriously suggesting editors look through their stock lists before editing because they might own 100 shares in something. Thats even if they are aware and its not handled by a broker/fund. So before things like admonishments and warnings are bandied about, has anyone actually posted a diff of any edits that even remotely approach the reason why we have the guideline in the first place? Is Dennis skewing articles to pump up/deflate the stock price? As that is the only point where his financial interests could be at conflict with editing in a neutral manner. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good points well made. In which case I suggest we close this as no further action before it turns uglier than it already is. WaggersTALK 14:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be that in all other contexts we expect established editors, and especially admins, to adhere to "best editing practice" and do not worry about whether it's a guideline or a policy. WP:DISRUPT, WP:N and WP:MOS are all guidelines, for example, and we generally don't go out of our way to emphasise that being deliberately disruptive, creating articles on non-notable subjects, or writing articles in all caps is "not prohibited". And let's not forget that the only reason we are talking about this is because Dennis himself started going on about how he owns this and that and how his edits might have earned him money. – Joe (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel somehow the point behind Dennis' comments in the relevant discussions has flown so far above your head its in orbit. But leaving that aside, genuinely, do you want to get into this? Because I (and I am sure others) am more than willing to make the time and effort to do a deep background check on every advanced tool user and find the COI they have failed to disclose according to the wording of the guideline. Granted I could probably stop at just looking up employers, but I would start at the top of the hierarchy and work my way down. Because that's the end point of this, tool users will start getting checks into the motivations of their editing on a level thus far unseen. Because you will have demonstrated thats the way to take people down. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very much in agreement with this. Joe, until you can point to a substantive edit Dennis Brown has made to AT&T (as opposed to hypotheticals for the sake of argument), then this looks like nothing so much as personal grievance. Frankly, all this section has done is given me qualms about your status as an admin. I would implore you in all good faith to let this drop and have everyone be on their way. As ever, though, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to stress from the outset that I don't think this is a really big deal and that my only goal was to hear what the wider community thinks about an issue that Dennis himself brought up himself (repeatedly). I hadn't commented on the issue until today (others have, at length) and don't have any prior 'grievance' with Dennis. If that is reason to doubt whether I should be admin then good grief yes, reasonable minds do differ.
I do understand the rhetorical point Dennis was trying to make with this example. It wasn't exactly subtle. And he has cleverly chosen that example such that it falls into the well-established exception for uncontroversial COI edits, so there was never any real risk of being called on his bluff, and he could get in a few consequence-free personal attacks on the way. So congratulations Dennis, I suppose, and stupid me for taking him at face value when he said that anything [he] wrote could have affected the stock price or dividends of any of these stocks. – Joe (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So... we're talking about scandalous edits like this? For someone who has complied with our guideline-not-requirement to disclose COIs? This "a newbie would get banned for this" stuff isn't persuasive here. It comes up frequently, and just isn't true. First, there is no scenario where a newbie would be divulging that they own some stock in a company whose article they made minor edits to -- that's part of the perils of Editing While Admin. When newbies get banned/blocked for COI reasons, it's because they've been making non-neutral/promotional edits and a COI is discovered. In this case, does anyone have any evidence at all that Dennis made any non-trivial edits, let alone bad edits, to an article with a COI? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like many academics in the UK, I am a member of the Universities Superannuation Scheme and have some investment in their funds. I have no idea what assets they invest in (other than Thames Water that has been in the news). Do I need to abide by COI rules for all the companies my pension scheme invests in? And would it make a difference if I owned the same portfolio directly instead of via a pension scheme? —Kusma (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. COI is not about disclosing what you don't know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given you clearly don’t consider yourself to have a "non trivial" stake in those companies, no. There difference here is that Dennis Brown thinks he has a "non trivial" stake in AT&T. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does DB actually have a good faith question? If you have a good faith question and it is true you are aware you have a non-trivial financial interest in something than, yes you have a COI. It's not really that hard. Although its just odd that some people act like they its always so hard to figure out (and then often go into odd whataboutism), and even if in some situation is actually difficult for you to figure out, just go to COIN and ask. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Backlog at Category:Requests for unblock

edit

Howdy. There's a bit of a backlog (understatement) at Category:Requests for unblock, could an administrator please try to clear some of it out? Regards, 12.32.37.18 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I did one, and it took ten minutes--that's why we have a backlog... Drmies (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Had to briefly process why they would took so long. One supposes the RfU backlog will persist past the extinction of humanity, as Wikipedia's servers (to quote EEng), "...deep in their underground bunders, whirr and hum and blink..." In all seriousness though, it isn't too big of a deal, just thought a few admins might wanna chip away at it a bit. 12.32.37.18 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an urgent backlog. Most of the accounts in the category are blocked with good reason and are unlikely to be unblocked anytime soon. It takes time and effort to decline frivolous requests and that's hardly a good use of volunteer time. -Fastily 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There'll always be a queue; there need not always be someone calling for it to be emptied. NebY (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen it much worse than it is now. 12.32, do you have a particular interest in seeing unblock requests reviewed? 331dot (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, to be honest. I'm a school IP, but feel free to run a CU (there'll probably be no accounts unless some were made and promptly blocked before my time here). Just saw a massive backlog and went "huh, maybe the sysops would wanna know about this". 12.32.37.18 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MapTiler

edit

Poorly sourced and previously deleted page is published again: MapTiler. 85.219.28.182 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible for WP:G4 (which is what should have been attempted first) so WP:AFD is your primary recourse here. This is not an AN issue. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any sort of regional block or larger penalty that can be enforced against a non-IP sockmaster?

edit

Apologies in advance if this is a silly question - to be blunt, I'm not as familiar with the blocking policy as I should be, so I'm not entirely sure if these types of blocks even exist.

The sockmaster ProTaylorCraft has, over the last five years, had 38 confirmed socks, with 39 officially suspected and an additional three not tagged yet (from the latest SPI, last week). This has resulted in 23 SPIs up until now, as well as the previously linked LTA case. The unique thing about this sockmaster, however, is that they (as far as I can tell) don't use IPs for their vandalism, instead continuously churning out new accounts. I know that large-scale permablocks can't be enforced against IPs due to their constantly-shifting nature; however, with this sockmaster only using registered accounts, is there any sort of regional block that can be enforced, or any sort of way to disable account creation from their range? Again, my apologies if this comes off as ignorant. The Kip 18:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By regional block you mean a rangeblock. Yes, this is a thing, and yes it can be set to deny account creation, but no it can't be done indefinitely since it's impossible to block just account creation without also blocking editing from that range. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 20:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yep, a rangeblock may be a tool that could be used here, you would need a checkuser to determine if it is likely to be useful or not. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, a rangeblock can be applied, but only by admins who know this stuff well (usually checkusers). So, while usual editors may report such people, admins will have to judge the measures which need to be applied. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, I've opted to check with HJ Mitchell regarding the possibility. The Kip 20:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, 80 confirmed and suspected sock accounts is nothing! Take a gander at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AlexLevyOne, for instance. Deor (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good gourd. The Kip 21:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"[..]it can't be done indefinitely since it's impossible to block just account creation without also blocking editing from that range"
This is not true? There are active blocks that only prevent certain actions (including ones that only prevent account creation) and don't prevent editing. It isn't done indefinitely because IPs aren't supposed to be blocked indefinitely (though there are some exceptions), that's all. – 2804:F14:8092:9F01:F9F8:9351:41E7:923 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is right. In reality these types of (P-ACB) blocks are only useful if done by checkusers (them again) in some limited circumstances, and the CUs have evidently taken a look here and done some appropriate actions. The technically curious may notice that Wikimedia issues a GeoIP cookie for advertising. Any time they want to make this data available to others would be great. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY is good advice on this matter. Don't turn sock puppetry into a contest for high scores. Don't bold the number of sock puppets someone has created in effort to impress people with how disruptive a sock puppeteer is. It's just going to encourage them, and other sock puppets, to get a higher score. These are generally bored, lonely youngsters who are looking for attention. If you think a sock puppet needs a range block, you can ask a CheckUser. However, if the case is regularly attended by CheckUsers at SPI, one can expect that they've looked into range blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting User Saqib for Harrasing other Users

edit

Dear Administrators,

I would like to report @Saqib as he is being very unprofessional and misusing platform. He has been very unreasonable towards other Pakistani contributors in Wikipedia, he has been requesting invalid article deletion without warning or contribution in article. His actions are against Wikipedia Harassments WP:HA and Personal Attack WP:NPA polices. He has been Wikipedia:Casting aspersions which can be view at my talk pages and when I ask him to be friendly he started harassing by invalid deletion request and invalid tags adding. You may see his actions from his contributions that mostly his contributions are against other editors and he personal attack me by blaming myself for conflict of interest and as I was not able to answer in time frame an article deletion was done. You may check he is more focus on creating new articles without content most of his articles are just one or two liners I offer to work together and grow Wikipedia together he bluntly dismissed and again bulled with deletion requests. Its my humble request to ban this user as he is destroying the beauty and true meaning of Wikipedia.

We are all here to contribute Wikipedia give our precious time to make this place a better place and do the research to improve each other and he also allege me for creating paid and conflict of interest articles. As editors we should take responsibility of each article we create as its our responsibility to continuously improving thus I keep improving my articles I give each day to improve my articles and if I get time I edit or improve or create new article.

As per Wikipedia WP:DRR policy. I hope you will assist me I do not know him personally being from same country he suppose to be supportive and improve articles together, if you review his profile he has doing personal attacks to everyone in his contribution history its mostly these maters. WP:NPA

Thanks Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 01:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show diffs Maestrofin (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Maestrofin i was super busy thus I was not able to reply, now I did. Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 10:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Faizan Munawar Varya, for anyone to assess your complaint, you have to present evidence, in the form of diffs/edits, demonstrating that what you argue is true. I can safely say that no action will be taken without them. You have to back up your claims with evidence or this process could backfire on you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes maam I do understand but due to my busy schedule im replys and if you see contribution history of Saqib and the recent article has been created its just sake of creating it and has no content in it and recently he reported me on evidence Sockpuppet and started requesting for delectation of my pages and also deleted all images uploaded by me on commons evidence, as requested were initiated by saqib He has been accusing me for paid wikipedia editing, I dont need money for editing wikipedia God blessed me alot and known journalist I respect writing for promotion of good literature. Its very unfair to see the admins are being supportive to him without looking at his personal editing history. Does it mean should I stop creating BLP because someone assused me of taking money for it, everyone has topic of contributions I do my research before creating any article related to any place or person or thing. DOES it mean I should stop editing? because I looks like Saqib is determine to block me from my editing rights, and few users are seems to be supportive towards him. Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 10:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
here are some difference and examples for his invalid behavior for example an article of former health minister Abdul Qadir Patel as I said I do my research before creating any of person place or thing article and gather correct information before uploading it, so he has been keep adding [citation needed] however the all article was re-written by me because I think we should take responsibility of article and I edited then updated with correct citations again he did added CN and added tag of unreliable sources it looks like he is not reading it you may check by your self evidence difference 1 that I have provided references. Even on his talk page I told him that we are all here to respect and help each other as one team to improve Wikipedia and he accused me of bribing, if we dont support eachothers in articles updating and adding more content so whats the point of creating projects? evidence difference 2.
Further more, I do agree that I was not able to edit or update or contribute properly but does not mean someone paid for writing and judging and stocking my personal profiles, it looks like harassing and reporting fellow editor all places it does come under that.
Please its my humble request toward saqib that stop thinking negative for people and lets contribute wikipedia together, yes if there is any policy issue you can discus but you can not accused other editor of taking financial benefits without valid grounds. Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 10:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to comprehend how nominating AfDs or applying maintenance tags to pages equates to personal attacks or even harassment. I generally refrain from labeling editors as paid editors or accusing them of COI unless I've strong suspicions. And Faizan's evident frustration only reinforces my suspicions. Take, for instance, this particular BLP he created using unreliable sources, laden with promotional WP:OR. I appropriately tagged it and made necessary removals of WP:OR, only for him to engage in edit warring. And he's done so again today under the guise of having addressed the issues, which clearly isn't the case if one reviews the edit history.

@Bbb23: suggested me reporting Faizan to ANI last month, a step I avoided to take to de-escalate the matter, yet ironically, it was Faizan who ultimately filed the report against me. I believe a measure of boomerang was warranted last time, and so it does now to deter such behavior in the future. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue seems to be that you are too neutral, and don't conform to Faizanalivarya's POV or the opposite. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is no boomerang at all, you started his invalid behavior of reporting other respected editors, I was not able to reply because I was busy so stop judging people based on their real life success yeah. Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 10:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizanalivarya. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this isn't a major concern, what worries me more is that Faizan holds WP:RPC rights , considering their editing pattern and behavior. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen any evidence that he has used WP:RPC rights? I have them too, but have rarely, if ever, used them, and had forgotten that I had this ability until I checked just now. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi there I was busy so was not able to reply, yes I didnt use these rights because I was inactive last year, I have been busy and was not able to contribute. Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 09:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Saqib now you are trying to prove that I am sockpupeet? and you put the claim that I have been getting financial benifits out of editing Wikipedia? yes I did write Editor Wikipedia because i am editing since October 2010. Yes I do meet celebrities because I am a one of them I am digital influencer. I have YouTube, channels with more than 2.7 Million subs as I do YouTube automation and personal youtube has about 16k Subs and I have good fan following because I do business coaching and I have trained many individuals on Blockchain, Dropshopping and Amazon FBA. What evidence do you have to prove that I am taking financial benifits? its just a false claim, I am super busy in some projects I will be free in few days so its my humble request guys can you not see he is trying to report me every where, what is this? do you not see that he is doing wrong. and you guys are supporting him for no reason. Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 09:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guys In the nutshell what I would say that we are here to create wikipedia a good place for everyone clean and support our fellow editors in editing and all terms as team, if we keep fighting on talk pages when we will edit real article ? and today I have decided to create videos to encourage others for editing. Please send me message on my talk page so we all can work together, @Saqib is also my brother. What only thing bothers me is @Saqib is trying to frame that I created BLPs of only famous, and highly notable personalities, and known people who try to improve their invalid information about them Wikipedia. And I strictly follow the WP:N Wikipedia notability guidelines very very strictly even I self request deletion If I found the a person is not much notable.
Mostly I edit to improve pages article on wikipedia. I hope we are peace and please remove this mind set that I charge money for editing, I dont need its purely volunteer work and I have also change my user profile to avoid any COI. Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 11:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faizanalivarya admitted that they're involved in editing BLPs on behalf of subjects and also hasn't been able to provide a single diff that verifies his claims of harassment or personal attacks from me. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An edit by "ip" 194.144.46.223 was brought to my attention

edit

I undid what they added as it was a troll/vandal edit. I'm not very "good" at wikipedia, I mostly stick to is.wiki, but I felt it worth pointing out seeing as how y'all over here definitely have a way of doing things. Just wanted to at least notify someone of it.

The vandalism took place on Norðurmýri, in two edits on April 6th 2021. Lafi90 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin) For anyone interested these are the edits in question.[122] It looks like childish nonsense in the style of "Kilroy was here". As it's now reverted and the IP has never made any other edits I doubt there's anything to be done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism, really?

edit
TheSpacebook has been topic banned from project space; I don't think there's anything else to be done here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Userbox

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

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

100px

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.

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

GThis user is a Grammar Nazi.


Source: User:KomradeKalashnikov/Userboxes/Grammar Nazi

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

Userboxes aren't "approved", and anyone can create one. I'm not sure why you decided to bring this to AN - if you have problems with it, you can talk to the creator or take it to WP:MFD. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should go through WP:MFD. I would encourage TheSpacebook to {{Atop}} this section and file an MFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"if you have problems with it, you can talk to the creator" You want me to communicate and negotiate with someone who creates Nazi-like content? WP:NONAZIS. Plus, I’m not versed enough on the intricacies of anti-Semitism or Nazism to engage in a debate about something, but I can clearly recognise Nazi symbols. TheSpacebook (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While "Grammar nazi" is a common term that is not associated with Nazism, I think that logo pushes the bounds a bit too much. Would be better to use something less suggestive like a book or pen. — Masem (t) 03:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be precipitous, and very likely an overreaction. While in questionable taste, I am doubtful this is some kind of crypto-Nazi imagery and would certainly not support any administrator intervention at this point. I am somewhat disappointed by the OP's shoot first and ask questions later response to this. Perhaps they are unaware that the term nazi is often used as a synonym for a martinet or someone who is very strict in a particular subject area? I also note that there has been no notification as required of all reports at AN. No communication of any kind, no notification (required) and a likely unjustified failure to WP:AGF. You may color me unimpressed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KomradeKalashnikov helps out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas, creating userboxes that other editors request. This particular one was requested by another editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas/Archive 24#Request - February 9, 2024. I don't like the image either, but I'm guessing they just grabbed the first result on Commons when making it. Anyways, not seeing anything that MFD can't handle. DanCherek (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MFD is not needed yet; just talk to the editor about it, I bet they'll be receptive to someone pointing out that the design is a bit too close to actual Nazi symbolism to be in good taste. They'll probably just redesign it to something more grammary and less Nazi. Levivich (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a Soup Nazi userbox? Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see this as glorifying Nazism or Hitler, and it is a common term, "grammar nazi", so not sure what the big deal is. We're a big tent, not everyone has the same sense of humor, but I think we are better off spending time dealing with people who are actually trying to inject bad POV into articles, rather than worrying about userboxes with pop culture references in them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 about the OP

edit
  • @Dennis Brown I agree. I've often seen the term used and have no problem with it. For me it doesn't imply that the person is actually anything like a Nazi. I do have a problem with the OP though as they've deleted their talk page which now reads "Not to be confused withThe Space Book" with two innocuous userboxes. As User:Acalamari said in the declined Arbitration request here., this user shows up at the drama boards to often. Comments there included suggestions that they were trolling and that a ban might be appropriate. It's ok to remove all the warnings etc from a user's talk page, but making it look like a user page just seems to be another example of the problems I and others have seen with this editor. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You prodded me to go look at this: [123], which shows 10% of his edits are to articles. 53% are to WP: and WP Talk: I'm not sure what s/he is here for but it doesn't seem to be to edit articles or build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone's actions are brought to WP areas, it's likely that they will spend a lot of time there. There's also the fact that many big issues are discussed and resolved just so ONE edit can happen. Others contribute in WP in order to enable others to edit. I wouldn't look that much into WP vs mainspace percentages. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the post was about the image, which clearly displays Nazi symbolism, NOT the phrase "grammar Nazi". The ‘not to be confused with’ on my talk page is a clearly a joke, no? And my user boxes are also satire (which is where I came across the userbox), I’m just trying to WP:ENJOY myself. Lots of editors have userboxes on their talk page and I haven’t made a user page as I want one place for everything, people can still leave comments. And the comments were removed as I’ve reflected and had a fresh start. How can anyone have an issue with this as per WP:DRC. What is the problem here? I’m here to build an encyclopedia, if you look at my recent proposal User:TheSpacebook/lifeline, clearly a lot of work has gone into it to make Wikipedia better and solve an issue that keeps popping up. 53% of my edits being backend shows I’m personally more skilled with suggesting and building improvements. And I used the correct avenue to suggest it (village pump). But I do have some drafts on my computer which I’m meticulously fact-checking each cite for mainspace articles too.TheSpacebook (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to the above. My issue was that Nazi symbolism is being used a humorous manner, NOT the phrase "grammar Nazi". And I’m not versed enough on the intricacies of Nazism and anti-Semitism to debate anyone on it, but I can clearly recognise Nazi symbolism. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I’ll also just add my extensive edits on the Where is Kate? article to keep it reliably sourced and free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies (the other editors I was working with to do this also thanked me for helping in the effort) has now been deleted from public view. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I’ve placed all the relevant items on my talk page into a 'talk page banner' (something I just discovered). It looks less like a userpage now. I just want to manage as little amount of pages as possible, to keep it compact. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheSpacebook Of course you are free to remove comments. No one should leave comments on your userpage, that should be yours alone to manage. You might want to read WP:ARCHHIVE and set up one for your talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazing! Thank you for telling me about that. I can see that bots can do this automatically, which saves a lot of time. I thought every user cut-and-pasted the comments into their archive. I’ll get one set up then, thank you! TheSpacebook (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TheSpacebook, please stop modifying your comments after people have responded to them. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry! Currently travelling and I don't have Grammarly on my phone. Just thought the topic was a bit more serious (Nazism and anti-Semitism) that I shouldn’t be misrepresented on. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been told not to do this often enough that you should have learned your lesson. Don't modify if they've been replied to, just reply saying something like "What I meant to say was...". Doug Weller talk 13:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP is clearly taking the piss. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By notifying that Nazi symbolism is being used in a humorous manner (my issue wasn’t about the phrase)? Or that I suggested and programmed a solution to the issue of the inclusion of suicide helplines, which often gets raised, in a manner which is more subtle than a banner or disclaimer (User:TheSpacebook/lifeline)? I have now reverted my comments to the pre-reply state and followed the advice, by replying. It’s just a serious topic. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1: Community ban

edit
Discussion on this proposal has stalled and it seems clear that there is no consensus for a full siteban at this time. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.


  • Propose community ban. I'm sorry to do this and I hope I don't take too much flak for it. I find TheSpacebook immensely tiring. Many editors have made suggestions to them, including myself. Occasionally, TheSpacebook will agree to those suggestions and then rampantly ignore them. They cause an utterly disproportionate amount of wikidrama and rarely contribute constructively to building an encyclopedia. I'm sorry to say, I think Wikipedia is simply better off without them. --Yamla (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest if you are tired of the poster, you skip over his material. I would also advise him, presuming he is reading, to get off this page ASAP. Carrite (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I put this comment in the wrong place, but won’t delete to avoid edit conflicts) The pie chart is inaccurate as the Where is Kate? edits have been deleted. Me, along with other editors worked tirelessly to keep it free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies, whilst it was going through the deletion procedures. It can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider making this sanctions proposal in its own subsection, or it may get too messy to close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since no else has, I have done so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) When I saw the OP's contribution pie chart, combined with nearly a week of radio silence over the Easter holiday, I was concerned that this might be a troll account intent upon creating mayhem for the sake of mayhem and NOTHERE. A respected Wikipedian made the good argument in a thread about him at WPO that pie charts for newbies venturing into controversial areas are apt to be unconventional — particularly when comments on project pages are edited and re-edited, as the OP is wont to do.


OP explained he was on vacation with his family over Easter and has engaged meaningfully, if critically, off-Wiki. My worst suspicions have been set aside, I believe this is a newcomer intent on addressing problems or engaging in quality control of content at WP, particularly in the area of BLP. I've advised him to do some conventional editing here to build some social capital before wading into the next content swamp, but that doesn't seem to have appealed to him. I would advise that people treat this account as a well-intended newbie, however, as I believe that is the case here. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pie chart is inaccurate as the Where is Kate? edits have been deleted. Me, along with other editors worked tirelessly to keep it free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies, whilst it was going through the deletion procedures. It can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment wasn't a reply to you by the way, but I’m not going to delete it as per the edit-conflict-ice I’m skating on being razor thin. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But thank you for this comment, I believe it accurately reflects my intentions, in a way that if came from me would sound suspicious. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the comments were removed as I’ve reflected and had a fresh start. Does not look like it at all. For me, every single watchlist update from AN today has been this editor making minor edits. It's annoying just seeing it in the watchlist. I can only imagine how disruptive it must be to actual attempts to edit the page. I am starting to think they need a ban from editing highly watched, highly edited pages at a minimum. I don't think I'd support a community ban just yet because there have been some good things, I think. Lesser remedies should be tried to encourage the good, and keep the bad in check until they start doing better. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was about edit-warring, contentious topics, and canvassing off-wiki (which I haven’t done for any of my new suggestions) etc. Off-wiki, I have worked to pool opinions on topics, so I’m better informed should I bring it on-wiki. My suggestions were taken to the right place: BLP talk page, village pump etc. I bought this humorous use of Nazi symbolism straight to the Admin noticeboard due to how serious the issue is, and I’m not educated enough on Nazism and anti-Semitism to engage in a debate about it, if I was to put it up for deletion. Admittedly the comment editing is a place I need to work on; to note, I was on a train and some of my comment edits were sent when there wasn’t a reply, but weren’t received by the Wiki servers as trains in the UK are known to be intermittent with the connection as they pass through areas like the countryside. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So what we are looking for is you acknowledge the concerns raised. Moxy🍁 15:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "Admittedly the comment editing is a place I need to work on" in the comment you just replied to. And I notified this noticeboard about the humorous use of Nazi symbolism (not the phrase 'grammar Nazi') as this issue is way above my pay grade to engage in a deletion debate about. I fail to see how I’m not acting in good faith.TheSpacebook (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither I nor Moxy questioned your good faith, but you're not making it easy. You brought your good faith up, then went on to make 20+ more edits, which included appending an unsigned note to Sandstein's close with some interesting edit summaries. I am assuming Carrite did not say lightly that they're convinced you're a good faith newb, and not a troll as it increasingly looks like you are. Good faith or not, you need to stop or be stopped. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my best guess anyway. The WPO thread is worth peering at, YMMV. Mark me down as opposed to a C-Ban and Good Block tossing him from here for a day for failure to listen to pretty much anyone... Will he figure it out? Betting heavily against but we shall see... Carrite (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ll just make one more comment, me taking this straight to AN was reactionary. But in hindsight, I should’ve taken it to MFD. Thank you to those who made me aware of this process. I was just shocked to see a userbox humorously displaying Nazi symbolism (again not the phrase ’grammar Nazi’, rather the image of the userbox), and thought it required immediate attention. I also should’ve made absolutely clear that my issue wasn't the phrase 'grammar Nazi' too (a phrase I was already aware of). If you look at my specific actions (and look past me being unaware of certain procedures and policies) I hope that editors can see that my intentions and the issues I raise are well meaning and in good faith. Thank you for telling me about MFD and the talk page archiving bot too. My talk page is always open to drop a link to policy if I go against it, and it will be always well received. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before Doug tagged me above, I'd already seen TheSpacebook appear yet again in my watchlist on this dramaboard. While I actually agree with TheSpacebook that the image of the userbox was inappropriate (and the userbox itself is questionable, as it can be read as anti-Semitic and / or making light of the Holocaust), the manner in which this was handled suggests that it was meant to cause as much drama as possible. Besides the abysmally low percentage of mainspace edits, the user doesn't take on board feedback, as evidenced by being told yet again not to modify their comments after people have already replied. Support Yamla's proposal for an indefinite block and community ban, with the rationale WP:NOTHERE. Acalamari 17:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said my previous comment would be my last, but I must respond to this. Me bringing this straight to AN was to quickly get the userbox taken down if deemed inappropriate. If I took it to any deletion request (such as MFD), or even WPO, it would’ve caused way more drama than having admins (which is a small group) quickly take action on what I deemed to be a serious matter. There are wider implications of opening discussions about Nazism and anti-Semtism, and with the current climate, it’s best not to open up such discussions due to how nasty they get. The discussion about whether the userbox was anti-Semitic or not would’ve turned sour extremely quickly if a large group of editors got involved, it’s best left to the experienced admins. I’m glad we agree the image in the userbox was inappropriate and could read as anti-Semitic. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll add again, that the low percent of mainspace edits currently doesn’t take into account the deleted article Where is Kate? Myself and other editors worked tirelessly to keep it reliably sourced and free from promoting conspiracies: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spacebook, you've made eight edits to this page in the last 15 minutes despite multiple editors saying this is a problem. Either stop posting or learn to use the preview screen -- ideally both. You are literally digging a hole for yourself at this point. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem raised in this discussion was that the comments that had be replied to but admittedly editing comments in general is something I need to work on. With the discussion being directed at me, it’s important that I’m not misrepresented, so I’m trying to get the responses posted as quickly as possible. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Spacebook, the problem is that: No. No edits need to be replied to. That's you [erroneous] thinking. I'm telling you this: if—instead of rep[lying to all those comments that just needed to be replied to—you ha had said something like, "well I'd like to reply, but I recognise that's not the best response, so I'll step away for the rest of the day", then I could almost guarantee that Yamla's proposal would rapidly lose traction. Because for the first bloody time since you first edited—in between all the noticeboards and requests for arbitration (!!!)—you would have shown a degree of restraint and self-reflection that people want to see. But. ——Serial Number 54129 18:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked TheSpacebook from this page for 24 hours for disruptive editing, bludgeoning, still not using preview or making sure their statement ready to publish, and throwing dirt all over the place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. But I’m not going to put any money on them learning their lesson. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. We don't need unnecessary drama, and TSB seems to have a track record in that department. I would strongly advise them to devote more of their energy to building an encyclopedia and less to starting or throwing gasoline on dumpster fires. All of which said, I respectfully oppose a C-Ban at this time as premature. Let's see if they take any of this onboard. But yeah, there needs to be some changes going forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I agree a C-Ban would be premature. They should be given another chance. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block, too lenient if anything.
    Star Mississippi 01:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many times are we going to have to ask TheSpacebook to preview their edits before submitting? This is a very basic thing to figure out, and their refusal to get it is emblematic of their broader inability to learn from their mistakes. They either can't or won't listen, and at this point the community has expended more than a reasonable amount of time and effort trying to help them. Two pblocks from this noticeboard in a span of less than three weeks is flat-out ridiculous. I realize that several editors whom I respect have stated above that a cban would be premature, but I'm not so sure I agree. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose C-Ban We're going to block someone and not allow them to respond with a defense? "How many times are we going to have to ask TheSpacebook to preview their edits before submitting?" Really? Just wait until he's done. Give it a couple of hours and reply. Is it really so bad that he makes corrections/better states his point? Yes, he shouldn't refactor it AFTER someone replies. I'm not seeing DE, bludgeoning, etc warranting of a block. If someone advocates blocking someone and they vigorously defend themselves, I think that's reasonable. If you're in a trial, you get to have a chance to say your thoughts and respond to EVERYTHING people say. The idea that a person's reputation can be besmirched and people think "Well, he's responded to 5 comments, anything more is too much!" *clutches pearls* is a bit unreasonable IMHO. Let him say what he wants. If he's got a point, let him make it. If he doesn't, then he won't and he'll look like jerk doing it. If he's not defaming anyone or doing anything else illegal, just let it roll. Are we being charged by the byte now? Buffs (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a public noticeboard. It is nonsensical to suggest that we should give an editor a couple of hours to finish editing their comments before we respond. Nobody here is that important. Asking an editor to use the preview button is a reasonable request. Yes, we all make mistakes and need to fix our posts on occasion, but The Spacebook has demonstrated a well-documented failure to improve in this regard despite repeated requests from other editors. But undoubtedly in the future they will quote your ill-considered remarks above as if they negate the concerns expressed by everyone else, so thanks for that. The Spacebook made 80 edits to this page within a span of 15 hours, so the notion that they were not allowed to defend themselves is preposterous. Buffs, the only thing your rant accomplished was that it demonstrated that it is not possible to reasonably defend The Spacebook's behavior. In light of the fact that the only defense that has been mustered so far is incoherent and devoid of substance, let the record show that I support a community ban at this time, just as I will likely support it again when we end up back here in a few weeks. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Point is well taken, I think, that it's not really........ kosher, ethical, what have you ........ to run a c-ban mob here when the accused is unable to respond. I would like to think those who have supported it realize that there won't be a consensus coming out of this particular incident and that we can just put down the executioner's axe for a week or two to see how things play out. If Spacebook is acting in good faith, he will quickly correct course. More shenanigans will be received most unkindly, it should be clear to him. He's been posted on what he needs to do and warned about what he needs to not do, let's see how he responds in action rather than blabber. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a mob. Besides, the prospect of a community ban was first mentioned several hours before TheSpacebook talked their way into a pblock. I don't believe that we should stop discussing a proposed sanction because the editor in question earned themselves a separate sanction. Given that TheSpacebook has not corrected course on issues that were previously raised the last time they were in the community's crosshairs, I see no reason to kick the can further down the road. YMMV, LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A similar issue came up at ANI and I find it fairly bizarre. Even if the block was for the same issue, it's been pretty much standard practice for at least 10 years and I think much more, that a block does not end discussion on sanction of the editor unless it's felt that the block is sufficient to resolve the issue. I mean in some cases it is, but in other cases here may be discussion of a longer block, ban or other restriction be it a site one or a more limited one. Some admins even say (as happened at the ANI) that I'm blocking but not intending to end the discussion on wider sanction. And of course blocks and site bans under discussion, including appeals, generally take place when the editor cannot edit the relevant notice boards. I mean even if we put those aside and only take cases where an editor has just been blocked but there's a suggestion for a wider sanction; I suspect there's at least one case a month where this happens. So I don't understand why there's suddenly a suggestion we cannot do this as editors need to be able to directly participate in the AN//I. I'd note that personally I've advocated that in all such cases including appeals, editors should be unblocked with the proviso they only participate about them provided we can trust them to obey such a condition and they don't do something which makes their editing untenable. (This would likely have worked in the ANI I mentioned.) However this has never gotten community support so standard practice is the editor can post on their talk page and someone copies it over. Also even if we did do that, this seems to be one of the cases where it would not work since the block was largely because of their behaviour here in this AN. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is in response to process. I resent your implication that my response was a "rant" (especially when your response was longer than mine). "undoubtedly in the future they will quote your ill-considered remarks above as if they negate the concerns expressed by everyone else, so thanks for that." Well I guess that all dissenting points of view must bow down to your inherent wisdom and all opposition will lead to "future crime". Are you serious? Geez. I posted my DISSENT with his opinion above. My opinion is my own. If he misquotes me as if to say the entire community believes as I do, you can correct him and an administrator would be well within his purview and capable enough to dismiss such a claim.
    My concern is procedural and focused on the precedent it sets. People should be able to voice their concerns (even inartfully) and make corrections to make their point. While it should be done in a clearer manner than TSB has done, opposing views have still made their points. His changes only hurt his case, not help it. Let it go and this will resolve itself. Buffs (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I guess that all dissenting points of view must bow down to your inherent wisdom and all opposition will lead to "future crime". Are you serious? Geez. I posted my DISSENT with his opinion above. The ranting continues to not be helpful. You seem to have decided that you have the moral high-ground because you are defending an editor under fire, but unfortunately your comments have failed to engage with reality. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support a temporary ban from project space. Let them show they can contribute to the wiki before a cban. Pinguinn 🐧 21:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a community ban at this time, but
  • Support: At the since-declined arbitration request, I said I had no further plans to interact with this user, so I do not wish to go into excessive detail here, but this user has continued to do all of the same stuff that everyone has told them is a terrible idea that will waste time and cause giant amounts of drama, including the guy on Wikipediocracy who doxes people, in one of the several new threads Spacebook has created on there since the last AN thread about them. jp×g🗯️ 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as an overreaction at this point. They've been here four months and fucked up a few times. Who hasn't. Bloody hell, we've got long-term editors fucking up all the time. If they carry on fucking up, then they've fucked up. And not just up, but right up. But that'll be for then; right now, they should be given a chance to adjust literally the single main thing that has drawn the broadest ire: their keyboard diarrhoea. If they can manage that (and yes, not running to ANI, arb com at the drop of a hat would be an added bonus!) and do some basic spadework in article space, then we got a win. And if we are being trolled, frankly, to fuck, then he won't be able to resist coming back for a bit more—the Lokian lust for commotion reveals itself—and we say goodbye. No messing, end of. ——Serial Number 54129 12:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support CBAN. Four blocks and an ArbCom case request all inside in three weeks is too much, and the issues that led to those blocks (disruptive editing x3 and alleged canvassing) are not the kinds of things that are solved with a TBAN. I said at ARC that their behavior was indistinguishable from trolling; the fact we're back at AN again is not doing much to change that. Giraffer (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on principle. I'm not comfortable with the idea of boomeranging an editor that came to a noticeboard to report their concerns about nazi imagery, even if there's some other underlying issues with their behaviour. I don't like the possibility that this might have a chilling effect on other editors with good faith concerns. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think jumping straight to a CBAN is the answer here. Furthermore, I agree with the thoughts by Clovermoss. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Proposal 2: Project Space Ban

edit
There is consensus to topic ban User:TheSpacebook from project space and project talk space, with an exception of responding to complaints about them. At this time I will not enforce this with a partial block, but another admin is free to levy one in appropriate. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 propose that User:TheSpacebook be banned from posting to project space and project talk space, with the sole exception of responding to complaints against them. They have shown that they don't know either how to post to noticeboards, because they edit their posts repeatedly after posting, and that they don't know when to post to noticeboards.

  • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, particularly after their reply to Yamla "I would suggest if you are tired of the poster, you skip over his material.". Absolutely clueless. Honestly, I would prefer an indef block, but recognize that might be a little harsh. This project space ban would cut their current output by over 50% and would be a good start, and the lesser of the available "evil" solutions. A reasonable compromise. We do not need this person in WP: space, at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, point of order: Carrite posted that, not TheSpacebook. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, but I still maintain that they are clueless or they wouldn't spend over half their time in WP space doing these things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A time-sink who is here to drama-monger, not improve the project. We've already lost one good admin over this user, it's time to put an end to the nonsense. Since they seem unwilling/able to stop, a forced one is needed. Note, I would also support a larger block. Star Mississippi 01:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What admin did we lose over this user? Levivich (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GeneralNotability didn't technically turn in their bit but ceased editing after resigning OS and from ArbComm after their block of this user was taken to task. It is just my opinion but the loss of their work is significantly more than Space's. Star Mississippi 03:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you know something I don't know, but I don't know that GN's absence has had anything to do with anything related to Wikipedia (as opposed to RL), and even if it does even partly have to do with the poor way GN was treated by some over that block, you can hardly blame the editor who was blocked for that. I'm not even saying Space hasn't been disruptive or shouldn't be sanctioned, but it seems massively unfair to saddle them with GN's absence. Levivich (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think it was related to being doxed earlier in that same day? jp×g🗯️ 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think GN's absence probably has multiple reasons and maybe that was one of them, maybe it wasn't, I don't presume to know, and I won't assume it (and it's none of my business anyway).
    More importantly, it doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion because Space didn't dox anyone and isn't responsible for those who did.
    If we want to hold editors responsible for that, I could post a list of names. If we want to hold editors responsible for choosing to associate with it, I could post a list of names for that, too. Space at least disavowed it clearly, as have others, but not everyone, including not everyone participating in this discussion.
    If we want to sanction people for harassing GN, I'm all for it and could post a list of names, but Space wouldn't be on it. Let's not blame this person for it while allowing more culpable people to continue editing without blame. Sanction people because of what they do, not what others do. Levivich (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as better than nothing, but still not enough IMO. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest an exception be made for the teahouse (but not other help desks). I was also thinking AFDs but I think they can appeal for that carve out after a few months of writing articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with any exceptions. They can partial appeal as needed, when it is appropriate. If you carve out an exception for Teahouse, we are likely to be back here in a month seeking to add it back. Cut the head off the snake, let them actually edit articles, and grow up a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking they may need help if they start to make significant mainspace contributions; WPO is their preferred help desk currently. But I don't have strong feelings, since user talk space would remain available to them. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with any exception for XFD. XFD is a quarrelsome arena. We have had three ArbCom cases about conduct in XFD in six years. I do not have a strong opinion about a single exception for the Teahouse, but they would be likely to annoy the friendly regulars by editing their typos as the regulars respond to them. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just voicing an opinion here but I don't think a Project space block would be effective as that covers everything from RFDs to AE to AN to to RSN to AFDs to Teahouse to Policy pages. I think if there is a support for this block, it should be a partial block from particular noticeboards where disruption has occurred and it should be limited to, say, 3 months. But after reading through this discussion, I think a specific page block would be better than a namespace block. If an editor starts to game a partial block, that would also be immediately apparent in case the editor doesn't get a clue and there needs to be follow-up. I wasn't aware of the situation with GN but I hope that withdrawal isn't due to conflict over a block. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you are saying, but to me, they need to be removed from the entire administrative portion of the website and limited to actually editing articles. If anything, the restriction should be MORE restrictive, not less. If they can do that successfully for 6 months, they have a basis for a partial appeal. Otherwise, I would support an indef block for NOTHERE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree. They are claiming the block is punishment, I've told them it gives them a chance to edit articles and develop their editing skills. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, do we really want them editing articles? Does it not seem highly likely that they'll just start wikilawyering over article content and talking other editors to death until those editors simply walk away from the articles in question? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better to just give some metaphorical rope anyway, and see if they do. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 11:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this is the conventional approach, but I'm not sure I understand why. When someone repeatedly drains community time and demonstrates a battleground mentality, why don't we simply believe that they are what their conduct says they are? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case at least, their behaviour has only been limited to project space. Jumping to a CBAN/indef would be premature, as it is better to exhaust all possibility of them contributing constructively before considering CBANs and indefs. There are many editors with TBANs that still contribute constructively, would you say "ban all editors with TBANs as they have a battleground mentality and have exhausted the community patience"? That would clearly be at the detriment to the project. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you'll find that I'm saying we should ban this specific editor because they have a battleground mentality and because they have become a drain on the community's time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matrix: Unless you're an admin, you may be unaware that they made extensive edits to the now deleted Where is Kate?, which may or may not have been disruptive, and made an extremely ill-advised move of another article. In their case, partly because they're still relatively new, visible edits don't give a representative picture of their activity. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does change the equation quite a bit, but a full indef/CBAN is still a bit too early IMO. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 07:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a 6 month block would be more helpful, though the judge, jury and hangman seem to have already decided TheSpacebook's fate. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 15:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very strange way of describing our normal consensus-based process. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean it like the process is flawed. I just meant that the discussion is basically over at this point, and TheSpacebook is probably getting TBANned unless a bunch of opposes come out of the shadows (which is unlikely but not impossible). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of it the Wikipedia namespace block is more likely to be implemented than the cban proposal. It's still possible for you to scroll up and voice your opinion on the cban proposal if you wish to. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposal 3: Project Space Ban from starting threads

edit
No consensus has or is likely to emerge for this late-stage proposal. The input is, however, appreciated. ——Serial Number 54129 12:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 think a better proposal than the one above would be a ban from starting threads in project space. This way they can still contribute to places such as XFD and VP constructively but they don't end up starting new threads on righting great/small wrongs or whatever. Clearly they have an interest in contributing to project space, and maybe this would be better for the project.

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.
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.

Racist message on my userpage

edit

Hi all

I recieved a racist message on my userpage from an IP address, please could an admin take a look? I'm hoping an admin can nuke the edit and ban the IP address.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your quick reply Firefangledfeathers. Just out of interest is there somewhere with a list of things users can be banned for and how long they are banned for? Honestly I'm kind of suprised you don't get permanently banned for racism. John Cummings (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We generally don't block IP addresses for long periods unless there's evidence the same editor is using the same IP address for a long period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most relevant thing to read would be Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. Though we might indef a registered user for a blatantly racist comment, it's rare to indef an IP address. They change so often that shorter blocks are common. For the record, I would not oppose any other admin lengthening the block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the link and the reply and explaining why it work like this. John Cummings (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the same bitter human being has been using this IP for politicized POV pushing and BLP violations since November, 2022. Any other opinions? Cullen328 (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure enough. It's been a while and there's so little to consider. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible compromised account

edit

Mikerussell (talk · contribs) appears to be compromised. An account with 7000+ edits that started vandalizing in the past day.[124][125] Would like a second pair of eyes please. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CU data provides no reason to believe there was a recent compromise of this account. I can't rule out a compromise between 2022-03-14 (last time the user edited without vandalism) and a few weeks ago (when CU data would be stale). Thankfully, there's also no evidence of a slew of other accounts operating on the IP address(es) in question. Good block on behavioural grounds by SarekOfVulcan, though. Until the recent edits are addressed, this account shouldn't be editing. --Yamla (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Less good, perhaps, is that there's still no indication on the editor's talkpage that officially they've even been blocked, let alone the steps they should take to attempt to recover the account if they can. I wonder how they can "address the recent edits" when they (presumably) don't know they need addressing. Obviously, the log itself doesn't make that clear (and, of course, ain't intended to). And have stewards been informed? Happy days. ——Serial Number 54129 14:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I stuck template:uw-compblock on the user's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff! You are Roman Emperors; I am merely the slave behind you as you return in Triumph to Rome. ——Serial Number 54129 14:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please block this IP?

edit

A quick look at the history at Sukhoi Su-30MKI shows an IP, User:2402:8100:384e:1beb:ac52:e91e:48d4:a649, which shows them edit warring on said page. Numerous editors, including me, have reverted, but they continue to violate 3RR. Please also RevDel the edit summaries for these edits (as WP:NPA violations): [126] [127] I think this justifies a block of at least 1 week or longer, for NPA/edit warring, so please block for that amount. I will reply here if they keep this up. Thanks! thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the /64 range, and revdel'd one of the summaries (the other isn't that bad). If they continue editing the page using other IPs feel free to report to WP:AIV. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ingenuity   Thanks I thought I would've had to deal with that again. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help — partial blocks and other new things

edit

I was inactive from 2021 to 2023, so I lost my admin rights in 2022 and have just gotten them back. Since I've not had administrative rights in the past year, I've not paid a lot of attention to administrative matters. Could you help me? For one thing, I've heard about Wikipedia:Partial blocks, but I don't understand how to use them; I'd appreciate some assistance. (Yes, I know they came in before I left, but by 2020 I wasn't doing as much with administrative stuff, so I never paid attention.) Secondly, what are some other new developments since 2021, either technical or major policy? I don't want to go around enforcing superseded standards by accident. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partial blocks are easy peasy, you just select a page, pages, namespace, or whatever that you'd like to block them from and block. If you use twinkle it's built in there too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back! The page Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Administrators appears to be a good resource for administrators in your position.   —Sirdog (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial blocks are like - "you know what I could really do with right now? an ability to block someone from a page or namespace". It's quite a rare occurrence, but you may know it's useful when you need it. First you select 'partial block', then select the page(s) or namespace(s) or other actions, then make sure you set the right option for the usual options (you usually don't want to prevent account creation as it's sitewide, and you also probably want anon-only). If it's your thing, you might want to brush up on Wikipedia:Contentious topics, Discretionary sanctions, or whatever they are. I confess it's a bit much for me and I don't think you'll go far wrong with going old school and just warn and indef people if they need it until you learn more :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a new development, but WP:/64 is almost universal practice, now. Though really, it should read "just check the /64", otherwise you end up with situations like this. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I always check the /64 behind a problematic IPv6 editor, it sometimes turns up a long trail of problems. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A p-block is like an article ban, except it's technically enforced, as opposed to leaving it to the user to adhere to or violate. And as mentioned, also across namespaces, and you also get more than one at a time — I believe it's up to ~10 p-blocked pages per user, unless this has been recently changed / expanded. El_C 23:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P-blocks are really fine tuned instruments, extremely convenient to keep SPAs a bit more under control without needing to get out the heavy equipment; I need to use them more, but I rarely block anyway. Welcome back to the moppery. Lectonar (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend I suggest reading though the back issues of WP:ADMINNEWS, it usually has a good summary of month-to-month changes impacting admins. — xaosflux Talk 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial blocks are semi-useful. I tend to use them only with established editors that edit in many areas, but are a problem only in one area. As for SPAs, if they are edit warring (the most common issue), a general block is needed to keep it from bleeding over to similar articles, but others may feel differently. Partial block is a more gentle block, which is why I think it works for established editors with one off issues better, as it "spanks" them a bit less than a full on block and allows them to stay productive elsewhere. ie: it is better tuned to prevent disruption rather than punish them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dovidroth unbanned

edit

Following a successful appeal of his site ban to the Arbitration Committee, Dovidroth (talk · contribs) is unbanned. The topic ban, which was passed at the same time as the site ban, remains in force.

Support: Barkeep49, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Primefac, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree

Oppose: Firefly, Moneytrees

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Dovidroth unbanned

IP 62.31.67.177 is continuing harassment

edit

62.31.67.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) IP was recently blocked for harassment, and now they're right back at it - examples: [128], [129][130]. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They've been reblocked for two weeks. What they were doing was blatant vandalism, in future WP:AIV is the best place to report. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JDiala uses two quotes that I believe to be a userpage violation.

edit
Disclaimer, I am involved. This is a divided discussion, clearly there are editors who feel this must be removed, there are editors who feel that forced removal is not warranted, and there are editors who called for voluntary removal. JDiala has said that I plan to renovate my user page so that it is more than just political commentary. I will do this once this discussion is concluded. Thus I am boldly closing this so that they may do so, as many views have already been aired. If editors are unsatisfied with the renovation result, may I suggest starting a new thread. starship.paint (RUN) 09:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and the two quotes were removed by JDiala within 30 minutes of my close. They were removed after admin Doug Weller asking for removal, with JDiala previously saying they would remove if an admin asked them to. starship.paint (RUN) 23:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 quotes used are by Yahya Sinwar (considered to be one of the masterminds behind the Oct. 7 attack), and (at the very least in context of the other quote) seems to be justifying or condoning violence.

In addition, I believe that it meets and exceeds the bar for offensive content: I would consider it offensive and inappropriate for the same reasons that we should not use quotes from mass shooters or serial killers (particularly of the contemporary kind) on our user pages, both out of respect for the victims and for the benefit of maintaining a cohesive and productive environment.

While I believe that the quotes themselves already are offensive content, I also believe that the quotes together are justifying and legitimising violence.

Therefore, I would like them to remove the content.

Other attempt at resolution made: After reaching out to them, they (understandably) did not remove the quotes, stating that they would address the issue if “asked to remove any particular material on my user page by an administrator.” The administrator I reached out to directed me here. FortunateSons (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is being objected to on the grounds that two of the quotes are from a representative of Hamas.
The quotes are that representative's justification for their actions, whether anyone agrees with them or not.
By putting them on their user page, the editor I assume expresses a certain sympathy with them but that does not in my view mean that either the quotes themselves are offensive and/or incitement, or that the editor is inciting anyone themselves. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to cast judgement on the quotes themselves or either user's conduct, but
The quotes are that representative's justification for their actions, whether anyone agrees with them or not. By putting them on their user page, the editor I assume expresses a certain sympathy with them but that does not in my view mean that either the quotes themselves are offensive and/or incitement, or that the editor is inciting anyone themselves.
In theory, couldn't this precedent be used to justify the presence of virtually any quote on a userpage that does not directly incite/call for violence? The Kip 19:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline says "but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence."
The mere quotes do not themselves constitute a statement of support and as the guide says, "some may interpret", for myself I do not. Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mere quotes do not themselves constitute a statement of support
As you yourself said in your first comment, I assume one who puts those sorts of quotes on a userpage implicitly approves of/sympathizes with said quote sources, but I suppose we can agree to disagree; IMO, the larger question here is where exactly the official WP line stands between mere support for controversial groups or regimes and violating WP:HID, which may be worthy of a larger debate. The "some may interpret" part covers user subjectivity (perhaps including this section), but what's the actual point at which admins intervene? The Kip 19:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes being from Sinwar (the leader of Hamas) definitely contributes to the offensiveness, yes. Would you say that using a quote from a confederate general, a nazi politician, an Isis commander, or a comparable individual would be appropriate in a similar context?
I believe that the implicit approval of Hamas and it’s leader already meets the relevant bar regarding offensiveness here, but this is quite clearly also (directly or indirectly may be disputable) condones violent action and goes beyond support for the organisation, it’s not a quote about gardening or music, it’s about the use of violence: https://electronicintifada.net/content/its-time-change-liberal-discourse-about-hamas/33376 (bad source, but problematic in the other direction, so probably fine here). At least with the benefit of posterity, it’s quite clear that this quote justifies a shift from less violent to more violent methods. Edit: relevant footnote: Treatment such as excusing, trivializing, or normalizing these issues as tolerable or of little importance (for example, by explaining support of vandalism as being 'humor' or edit warring as being valid for resolving content issues) will generally be seen as having the same effect as condoning the behavior, and may also be removed.FortunateSons (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the user in question. I was aware that these quotes may trouble some editors when I decided to include, but I believe I have the right to respectfully share political views (within reason) on a user page, even controversial ones. It is my belief that there is a genocide happening in Gaza, and I support those who resist genocide as a matter of principle. I discuss several points below.
  1. The quotes do not violate policy. @FortunateSons claims that the quotes "[condone] violence." However, WP:UP clearly indicates that "statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence" are acceptable. The quotes fall squarely into this category.
  2. My views are not fringe. Hamas is an elected political party in Palestine and enjoys widespread support among the Palestinian people. Many consider it a legitimate resistance group. It is not recognized as a "terrorist organization" by the vast majority of the countries of the world, including major regional powers like China, India and Russia. Support for the Palestinian resistance is a mainstream political view which has been condoned by numerous heads of state, even Western allies like Erdogan, and is also a fairly mainstream viewpoint in American academia, endorsed by e.g., tenured professors at prestigious American universities.
  3. An order of exclusion here will endorse a tacit double standard. I doubt that users would be sanctioned for having Israeli flags or American flags on their user pages, despite the fact that these states are perpetrating an ongoing genocide in Gaza, and these states have been either perpetrators of or accomplices to other genocidal atrocities far worse than anything Hamas may have done in e.g., Lebanon, Cambodia, East Timor, Vietnam, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Chile, Hiroshima.
  4. While some Hamas members did likely commit atrocities on 7 October, it is not clear that these atrocities were ordered by Sinwar or other Hamas leadership. They have in fact explicitly denied this. As our own article discusses, Hamas claims the high civilian death toll was "due to the rapid collapse of the Israeli security and military system, and the chaos caused along the border areas with Gaza" and that "[if] there was any case of targeting civilians it happened accidentally." There is not, to my knowledge, any evidence that Hamas leadership ordered the killing of civilians. It is also crucial to distinguish between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. That there are war crimes or atrocities in a war does not imply that the war itself is illegitimate per se. JDiala (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Just for the sake of clarification: it is your view that you (and the quotes) support Hamas and Sinwar, but you do not believe that this meets the relevant bar for the incitement of violence, correct?
    2. I have no policy-based objection to your support for Palestinian liberation or any non-violent political solution (note my lack of objection to the flag, per your 3.). I also have no objection to your expression of support for political ideologies which I don't share, as long as it is neither offensive nor violent. Regarding the quotes by the academics, I believe that many of those would definitely violate our policies if included on a userpage. Just on an off-topic note, fringe is not generally a relevant factor for userpages, you're under no obligation to be mainstream on your userpage.
    3. Regarding your 4: There is almost no war without atrocities, and I/P isn't an exception, so far I agree. While Sinwar may or may not have tacitly endorsed any specific violation of jus in bello during Oct. 7, it's quite clear that he himself is accepting of and willing to use violence against civilians, at least to the degree that makes it an almost indisputable violation of the Geneva convention (use of unguided rockets, the taking of civilian hostages, etc.). I believe that this sort of use already meets the bar for offensive (in line with the old Hezbollah-Userbox-decision), but even if it doesn't:
    4. Those quotes are pretty clearly support for "resistance" in the sense of violence (in case of Hamas: targeted attacks against civilians, rocket attacks, the taking of hostages, etc.), though I of course cannot know if you intend to have them interpret as such; however, per the cited footnote above, the bar is relatively low. I would kindly ask you to consider non-offensive content which still expresses your political views without explicitly or implicitly supporting violence: I believe that there are anti-zionist and pro-liberation userboxes that should cover what you intend to communicate.
    FortunateSons (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes I have posted only indicate a support for armed resistance in principle. The quotes do not imply a blanket endorsement of all of Sinwar's actions or beliefs. I think the key problem is that we have a Western-centric bias. There would be no objection to quotes from Obama, Bush, Churchill, Kissinger etc. which express support for Western military conduct, despite Western military conduct being far worse than anything Hamas has ever done with respect to following the Geneva conventions, among other things. On my mention of fringeness, I brought that up because one of the key principles on WP:UP is that we prefer not to have material which could "bring the project into disrepute" on the user pages. If I can show that support for armed Palestinian resistance is within the "Overton window" of academia and global geopolitics, then this greatly undermines the claim that the quotes bring the project into disrepute or are otherwise egregiously offensive. JDiala (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification.
I believe that the support for "armed resistance" (likely in principle, definitely in this case) is covered by Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors: vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence. ("Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.)(clarified as including: Treatment such as excusing, trivializing, or normalizing these issues as tolerable or of little importance). You yourself have stated that it includes armed resistance, which is generally covered by acts of violence, even if one believes that it is justified. Armed resistance (as in: resisting with armed force) is definitionally violent. FortunateSons (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time to start looking up userboxes about the American Revolution then! Parabolist (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading of "condoning violence" simply seems too broad to me. By your definition, taking any side in an ongoing armed hostilities would constitute "condoning violence." This would effectively preclude all wartime political advocacy except absolute pacificism. It would also preclude supportings things like the American Revolution, as pointed out by Parabolist above. Anyways, the main concern I have is that, whatever standard one has, this standard is applied universally. Are quotes from American or British war hawks like Henry Kissinger, Winston Churchill or Elliot Abrams also a violation of policy? JDiala (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write the policy, and am not opposed to some Sherman-Posting myself, if it is off-wiki. If I had written the policy, I would have gone for "recognised as a terrorist organisation" and some variety of "rogue state"/authoritarian, but the letter and spirit of the policy is quite clear about where the line is, and @JDiala is over it.
Obviously, you can put any statement at absurdum. For a more practical comparison, I think we can all agree that some of quotes from or about Lehi (militant group) to be a policy violation, such as: Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: "Ye shall blot them out to the last man." But first and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play: speaking in a clear voice to the whole world, as well as to our wretched brethren outside this land, it proclaims our war against the occupier. We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all. Regarding americans, I would also say that this quote by Trump or almost everything by [131] would not be appropriate for a userpage. FortunateSons (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a "line" being "clear", as you write, is ultimately a subjective judgement. My discussion of the fringeness was precisely to elucidate that this line is, in fact, not clear, in the case of Hamas. Note that in some cases, like ISIS or the KKK or the Los Zetas or Ted Bundy, there would be no dispute. Those would be clearly over the line. There is a dispute here, and the question of the legitimacy of the armed Palestinian resistance is an ongoing and lively political debate, just as there was lively debate on the conduct of the Black Panthers or the uMkhonto we Sizwe. Considering that this is ultimately a subjective judgement at this point, I have no further comment, and I await a response by an administrator. JDiala (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, lets wait for admin/community feedback. FortunateSons (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Wikipedia user pages are the right place for political statements (at least ones that have nothing to do with Wikipedia), but for better or worse we have allowed editors to use them that way, within reason. The sentiment of the quotes seem within reasonable bounds to me, and I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid if they were expressed in the context of a less topical anticolonial struggle (South Africa, for example). If the concern is with who the second two quotes are attributed to, I think we should be aware that equating politicians with "mass shooters or serial killers" because they also have blood on their hands is a slippery slope that would very quickly encompass every major Western politician in modern history – not to mention the opposite numbers in this particular conflict. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with Yahya Sinwar in particular is that he is both a politican/leader of an armed group generally considered a terrorist organisation in the West, and a person who has directly killed/executed multiple people (and likely a lot more that we don't know about). He isn't merely a political figure directing military conduct, but he often is quite 'hands-on'. FortunateSons (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mandela was also classified as a terrorist for a long time. JDiala (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the IRA, look at them now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation does kind of remind me of seeing Gerry Adams speaking on TV with a funny voice when I was a kid. – Joe (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first quote talks about murdering Jews. I think this crosses a line and would encourage its removal. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That quote is by an Israeli journalist, who is Jewish, and who has been covering Israel/Palestine for over thirty years. It is slightly disingenuous to boil that quote down to being about "murdering Jews". It is an analysis of the situation, not some random call for violence. Parabolist (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, a controversial Israeli journalist. It doesn't change the fact that this quote indeed mentions murdering Jews, and seems to justify it. I can't see how that is legitimate. Galamore (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubtless, all journalists with a POV different to your own are "controversial", just as I think she is right on point. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's simply untrue. Please don't misrepresent my words. She is considered fringe even among the left in Israel and is known for stirring great controversy with her views and style. Anyway, it isn't relevant. She may express her opinions freely, but allowing quotes that rationalize violence against Jews, especially in this time, totally undermines this whole project. Galamore (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn’t what she’s saying at all, she is saying it isn’t violence against Jews, it is violence against their oppressors. Maybe try understanding the point instead of waving it off. nableezy - 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get editors who dedicate their entire userpages to their personal politics. What's the point? Who comes across a random editor's quotedump and thinks "Hmm, pretty convincing, I support Hamas now"? It just makes the editor come across as a fanatic out to push their pet cause. – Teratix ₵ 12:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never even knew about it until this complaint was made, I would have thought most editors ordinarily don't bother scanning other editors userpages. Why would they? Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on the merits of this issue, user pages are for the named user to tell about themselves as a Wikipedia editor or user- other editors look at them to learn more about other editors, such as their views, their goals, preferred topic areas, etc. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an absurd attempt at censoring another user's talk page. With that said I'd be open to banning all state-flags from user pages. Israel, USA, Russia, Ukraine, whatever, let's take them all down. It'd be a more reasonable reaction than... this. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think that your suggestion regarding flags could be a worthy addition to the userpage guideline, I would like to clarify that my original request does not include the flag. FortunateSons (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The internet is going to be filled with people who have ideas you dont like. Trying to censor only views that some group of editors dislikes might be acceptable in some places, but last I checked Wikipedia was not one of those places. You dont like what somebody has on their user page? Dont read it. nableezy - 13:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear violation of policy: The quotes are by person who is a designated a terrorist by the United States government, and is a senior leader in an organization that has also been designated terrorist organisations by the United States, the European Union and other countries. Based on WP:UPNOT you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense ... Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor. This is no different than quoting other terrorists and violent extremists such as Osama Bin Laden or Baruch Goldstein - this is NOT what user pages are for. I respectfully ask administrators to intervene against this content, which may cause other editors to feel attacked and unsafe. Marokwitz (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't USApedia, it's Wikipedia and has a global audience. Why should we rely on the US definition of terrorism? 331dot (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. Couldn't have said it better myself. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just the US, it is the EU, the UK, Argentina, Paraguay, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. This organization is responsible for a huge number of suicide bombings, targeting civilians in clubs, restaurants and hotels. Its founding charter has called directly for the murder of Jews as part of a religious end of times vision. Galamore (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So what, the quotes do not constitute a userpage vio, end of. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A. Sinwar is not a "designated terrorist", Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. B. Wikipedia isn't an arm of the United States government. We have a userpage that features an Israeli armored bulldozer, something that has been destroying Palestinian homes for decades. Is anybody asking that to be removed for threatening or making others feel attacked? If somebody wants to propose getting rid of all statements of support for any group or state then do that. But there is no difference between the users with Ukrainian flags supporting attacks against Russia compared to statements like those on this userpage. nableezy - 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen quite a few user pages embracing various nationalisms. I don't see why it's important to single this specific page out because it displays these quotes. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    US terrorism designations have no significance or weight in Wikipedia policy. Nor should they. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is a designated terrorist, [132] and his organization is considered a terrorist organization not only by the US but by many countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, European Union, Israel, New Zealand, Paraguay, and the United Kingdom. Wikipedia is not the place for calls for violence. Marokwitz (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was mistaken on the designation, however the point stands that this is not an arm of the US or any other government. And there is no call for violence in those quotes, that is a straightforward misrepresentation. nableezy - 16:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the excellent comments by the users above, note I have responded to some of these arguments earlier in my discussion with OP. The opinion of the US is not all that matters, especially since it's not a neutral party in the conflict, and doesn't exactly have the best record in terms of its terrorist designations (the US called Mandela a terrorist too). I do not believe it's an opinion which would bring the project to disrepute since support for the Palestinian resistance enjoys widespread support across the globe, including among reputable academics (in the West and otherwise) and several countries like Iran and Turkey which have praised the resistance. I think it's deeply unhealthy for Wikipedia to consider the viewpoints of the Global South illegitimate. JDiala (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from my point below which you are going to address, I don't have any opinion as to what you should be made to do- but at least some people see "support for Palestinian resistance" to be support for the attack that led to the current state of the conflict, and/or support for Hamas's goal to destroy the Israeli state- and whether that's what you intend or not, it's going to generate controversy that won't end regardless of when this specific matter is resolved/otherwise ended. I do think that you should consider carefully if controversy is what you want to bring to Wikipedia and if you want to spend time dealing with it rather than working to improve this project. Again, though, I have no other opinion as to what you should be asked or made to do. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would note that the only purpose of the userpage at issue seems to be to make these statements- it's not part of a more extensive user page where the user tells about themselves. I'm not seeing how these statements are relevant to the project, regardless of whom they are expressing support for. WP:USERPAGE states that "A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material" is permitted on user pages, but not that the entire page be of such material. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that "the entire page [being] of such material" may be a problem in my case. I will fix that by adding in more stuff e.g., biographic details. This will be done as soon as I have reasonable time. Thank you for informing me of this. JDiala (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you on this specific point. Although, if JDiala adds more content to the page, then the issue would be eliminated. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unacceptable. So, you guys are telling me that Wikipedia is okay with explicit praise for a leader of a radical Islamist organization, designated as a terrorist group by a large number of western countries, that have sent suicide bombers to kill innocent people in clubs, restaurants and more, have celebrated their deaths as martyrs for God for doing so, and included calls for killing Jews in its founding charter and public statements?
Yahya Sinwar, the person who is quoted here, started his career by murdering a few Palestinians in his own hands. He is believed to be the mastermind of the October 7 attacks,[1][2][3] including the killings of hundreds of party-goers at the Nova festival massacre and hundreds of civilians in their homes.
The edit summary indicates the editor's intention to praise Sinwar. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJDiala&diff=1199038800&oldid=1197157650
Someone have to say this. It is definitely okay to support the Palestinians, but no, support for Hamas, and Sinwar himself, cannot be acceptable. In my opinion, a red line has been crossed here. Galamore (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support for Hamas, and Sinwar himself, cannot be acceptable according to whom? M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONAZIS Arkon (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can just as easily apply those tenets to those supporting Israel and its army. nableezy - 19:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds familiar...hmm what could it be:
That Jews are the true perpetrators of Nazism, or hold an ideology that is worse or morally equivalent. Arkon (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont believe I used the word Jews, or made the absurd claim that the That Jews are the true perpetrators of Nazism, or pretended that Jews as a people hold some ideology besides Judaism, which very obviously is not worse or morally equivalent to Nazism. Kindly dont make shit up, thanks in advance. nableezy - 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awful misinterpretation, Arkon. If your NONAZIS threshold includes Hamas, then there is a good argument to be made that the mistreatment, ethnic cleansing, and killing of Palestinian civilians by the state and army of Israel would qualify for NONAZIS as well. If it wasn’t clear, I have no issue with Judaism, it is just another religion. starship.paint (RUN) 23:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need more than a link to an irrelevant essay. Feel free to elaborate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I try to stay away from this subject altogether. It is extremely charged at the moment and there are a lot irrationalities on both sides.
In the end this is an encyclopedia and we are charged to remain as dispassionate as possible about any subject. That's extremely difficult given every human being I have ever encountered is biased, somewhat ignorant of many things, and not well informed because of the nature of life, self included. Do I think these quotes should be removed? No, they are factual in the sense they were said by the individual attributed. I find it troubling that these quotes are referred to as "bangers" by someone I should consider a colleague and may have to engage in collaboration with at some point. But I think one should be allowed to have their opinion and points of view on subjects and to some extent express those views.
In my opinion the edit summary was poor judgement. But we all have been there before. In the end, like 331dot, I would just caution the editor the think about their purpose on Wikipedia and if they are willing to invite controversy which is inevitable given Wikipedia has a multinational/multiethnic editorship. I think it's good for all of us to have some inflection on that point. --ARoseWolf 17:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about anyone who's made more than three comments in this section leave it at that so perhaps some other members of the community will provide some input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add what harm do these quotes make. we are over doing our selves. IMO these quotes do not promote violence of any kind we should not be censoring users all i see is two users who have different point of views and one users is making a fuss over someone else’s pov I don’t see a good reason for this to even go to AN. Not to be that person but. I see this as someone being butt hurt •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I see here is that these quotes are perceived by some to be encouraging violence, per nableezy above this is not unusual for a user page. Many people display beliefs they resonate with on their user page and these quotes do not explicitly say "I want to kill Jews" or "You should kill Jews". I agree with 331dot that the user should consider if they want to invite controversy. I don't think the quotes should be removed as part of an administrative action if the user page is edited to make the quotes a small portion of the content as doing so sets a precedent to censor whatever content users dislike. If the user page solely consists of the quotes, that violates the spirit of WP:USERPAGE. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not familiar enough with all of them to endorse that uncritically, but insofar as they call for, excuse or justify violence, I believe we should, yes, (see also my Lehi (militant group) and Trump Quote above). FortunateSons (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a deep rabbit hole. Then there should be no support for the Israel-Hamas War on either side. There should be no support for the Russia-Ukraine War on either side too, and so on… No justification of violence anywhere on Wikipedia. starship.paint (RUN) 00:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One can (in general, barring offensive content, which is the secondary issue) include content that isn’t in some way positively related to violence. I made the gardening example above, but a quote by Kissinger saying something along the lines of “let’s do more Cambodia”, would be an unacceptable use, while a comment on domestic policy is not in violation of the rules regarding violent content per se. FortunateSons (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the quotes call for violence. nableezy - 01:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should go without saying. Picking sides in national and ethnic conflicts has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. It's purely disruptive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... yeah, I wouldn't be opposed to doing so (especially for the first six on that list). The Kip 22:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should remove it JDiala. Is Sinwar really the man you want to quote? Is that the example of Palestinian leadership you want to trumpet to the world? The man leads a group that committed massacres just six months ago. He is responsible for war crimes under his command regardless of whether he gave the order. He is responsible for the holding of over 100 hostages to this day. He is a violent person who is responsible for violence against innocent civilians, even children. I would not quote him. There are many, many, far greater (and more eloquent) Palestinians who have quotable quotes about Palestinian rights, including Palestinian right to resistance, even violent resistance. But there is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. And it's possible to violently resist occupation without raping anyone (or allowing people under your command to do so), without taking civilians hostages, without killing children. Pick someone better than the leader of Hamas to quote. And for very similar reasons, I wouldn't quote a lot of political and military leaders, including the current and several former Israeli prime ministers, or Putin. There are better Israelis to quote than Netanyahu, better Russians than Putin, and better Palestinians than Sinwar. I don't think it's sanctionable to quote such people but I also don't think it's in good taste or effective advocacy. Levivich (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JDiala: - I endorse Levivich's comment and request that you reconsider in this regard. starship.paint (RUN) 08:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the sentiments of Levivich and SP. While technically not policy violations, replacing the Sinwar quotations would defuse the situation. The Hass quotation is fine. JDiala, using someone like Sinwar as your source is a gift to those who wish to attack you for it. Quoting someone else instead would be to your own advantage. Zerotalk 08:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would too, but I wouldn’t be ok with being forced to do so. nableezy - 10:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One can easily envision some observers of Wikipedia scrutinizing for anti-Israel bias, and simply declaring How Hamas supporters are influencing Wikipedia. starship.paint (RUN) 13:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They do that anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh those asshats don’t matter they just need a target •Cyberwolf•talk? 13:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JDiala will be perceived as a Hamas supporter with or without those quotes. There is no utility in trying to appease those kinds of Israel supporters. None of that off-wiki noise matters. What matters is that JDiala does not use deception, that they are not a ban evading sockpuppet, that they are in the same class as other editors who do not use deception and must therefore follow the rules or lose their ability to edit. Claiming anti-Israel bias is one of the devices used to justify deceptive and dishonest behavior prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this debate still going on? Everybody should just go edit a Wikipedia page. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this thread, as far as I can see, are a bunch of people taking moral and WP:RGW-adjacent positions, and no-one referring to the relevant userpage guideline, which states that userpages can contain only "A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material" (emphasis not mine). JDiala's userpage is entirely dedicated to unrelated material, and so per the guideline it should be altered. Of course, many admins don't follow this guideline themselves, so I don't think anyone will be willing to enforce it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was addressed above by a few editors, and JDiala says they'll be adding to their userpage soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was already discussed above. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been discussed, and I plan to renovate my user page so that it is more than just political commentary. I will do this once this discussion is concluded (either by someone closing it, or if it's dormant for a while). JDiala (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting polemic or contentious content on one's userpage is divisive and harmful to the community. This discussion is proof enough of that. It is a net negative, and it is disruptive. I will support sanctions against any and all editors who abuse their user pages to violate WP:SOAPBOX. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer we didn't have statements about political, social, or other issues on userpages at all, really. But since as a project we've decided to allow them, I don't see any grounds in policy to force the removal of these quotes or sanction the user for them. I'll echo what a few others have said, and suggest that JDala might want to consider voluntarily removing them since controversial statements like that often get brought up during conflicts. While it would be wrong to dismiss an argument based on the opinions or userpage of the person making that argument, we all know it probably will happen. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scary and dangerous, To be honest, the whole discussion is extremely frightening. Not just the quotes on JDiala's page, but many of the opinions presented here! The issue is not about Israel and Palestine. I'm totally fine with people here showing more support for Israelis or Palestinians, but this is about something totally different - whether it's acceptable to praise the leader of a terrorist organization here or not.
Just to remind everyone: Hamas is a designated terrorist organization by most liberal, Western countries for a reason—they've carried out horrific attacks, sending teenagers to explode themselves in crowded places, targeting civilians in dozens of suicide bombings, murdering teenagers dancing in a discotechque, families celebrating Passover Eve, people on buses going to shopping, and gamers while playing in game-clubs, and these are just a few examples. The recent October 7 attacks, which saw Hamas massacring almost entire families in their beds, raping people and burning their homes, as well as killing hundreds of young people in a trance festival, is the latest event in a long series of attacks against innocent people. Hamas' founding charter holds Jews collectively responsible for various global issues, including the two world wars, and calls for a religious war of extermination war in the end of times.
Yahya Sinwar himself became known when he murdered a few Palestinians in his own hands. The comparison some editors made here between him and Nelson Mandela is really really chilling. Today he is maybe the person who's behind the worst outburst of violence in the history of the conflict, and possibly the fourth largest terrorist act in history. In this context, the usage of Sinwar quotes, alongside the Amira Hass quote that seems to justify the killing of Jews by Palestinians, is just... mesmerizing...
I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia rules yet, but to me, this is a really red line. It's shaking what I believe should be the foundations of this project. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to remind everyone: Hamas is a designated terrorist organization by most liberal, Western countries for a reason it's probably the same reason that is behind their shameless support of a genocide. M.Bitton (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Estrin, Daniel (2023-12-03). "The shadowy Hamas leader behind the war against Israel". NPR.
  2. ^ Mendick, Robert (2024-01-27). "Tunnel by tunnel, Israel demolishes Gaza underground network in hunt for Oct 7 mastermind". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
  3. ^ "Mastermind of the October 7 attacks leads Hamas' negotiations". The Times of India. 2023-11-21. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
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.

Question to Admin

edit
It's closed with the result sought. If you want to try and establish where the line is for quotes on a user talk page WP:VPP is thataway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Question to Admin: Is it OK for an involved editor to close a discussion on the admin noticeboard? This seems very improper, and I think this action should be reversed. Marokwitz (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? So someone else can close it the same way? The quotes have been removed, there's no consensus that they were not allowed, there's a rough consensus that they were ill-advised. That's the best we're going to do, and now there's one less place to argue about ARBPIA. I think it's a win for everyone involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it’s worth, I as the editor who opened the discussion believe the issue to be resolved. If it’s an issue in the future, anyone can start a new discussion, but as my goal was the removal of the quotes that (I believe) condone violence and the quotes are gone, we can end the discussion here. Thank you to all who participated. :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it's important to note that the quotes were removed because JDiala decided to remove them (when asked nicely) and not because they had to. M.Bitton (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were explicitly asked by an admin to do so. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Asked" Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify what happened, JD said "If I am asked to remove any particular material on my user page by an administrator, I will oblige." An admin asked, and JD obliged. Levivich (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Could you please use this translation?

edit

I translated this page from Portuguese to English (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Tavares_(administrador)) given that the existing English version of the page was very limited. Could you help me posting the translation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fgvwiki07/Rodrigo_Tavares I havent found the correct way of doing it. Thanks! Fgvwiki07 (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgvwiki07: I have moved your userpage into draft space and submitted it into the Articles for Creation program. It is now Draft:Rodrigo Tavares. Be advised, it is unlikely to be accepted at first attempt, if at all; for a biography, there are far too many unsourced and possibly poorly sourced statements.
I note the discussion on your talk where it seems that—five years ago?!—you admitted a conflict of interest with the topic. Have you been in breach of the terms of use and multiple policies ever since? Posting here, rather than moving it yourself, is a start, but I do not see the necessary declarations made anywhere. ——Serial Number 54129 11:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your reply. The English translation mimics the original version in Portuguese. It is just a translation of an article that has been active for many years now. I have actually done my best to add additional sources and references. I will keep adding. Regarding the conflict of interest, well, I can not even recall that. I have no contact with the person if that was the case. Fgvwiki07 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fgvwiki07 The talk page needs a template attributing it. I think it's at Help:Translation Doug Weller talk 06:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A question about edit warring

edit

Hello, I'm unsure if this is the right forum, but I have a question regarding some behavior I've seen from an experienced user that seems to violate Wikipedia policies.

In those two cases (one and two), on two different dates, the same editor (@Selfstudier) has restored a new addition that was reverted twice, sending everyone to "discuss it", when there is no consenus for their re-revert. But from reading WP:ONUS, WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD, that seems to be against the rules.

In both cases, I contacted the editor and asked him to explain their behavior, but they sent me away.

  • On the first time, he answered: "I have made precisely one revert so am not edit warring, nor have I any interest in your irrelevant commentaries."
  • On the second time, he answered: "Discuss it at the article talk page.", and then wrote on my wall that I'm harrassing him.

On the editor's user page I see more problematic conduct, such as telling someone their edit was "lazy, POV, bad faith". The same editor has also labelled me and other editors who voted different from him on an RFC an ""a pro-Israeli POV blockade," but when someone asked them to withdraw their words, their answered "Your edit comment a couple sections above is also inaccurate, I put this down to your being a relative newcomer to WP." To be honest, this feels a bit like bullying.

I'm seeking advice on how to address this issue. Can someone intervene or offer guidance? Thank you.

P.S. I originally posted this on the edit war noticeboard. If this still isn't the right place, please point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance! ElLuzDelSur (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ElLuzDelSur: Although this is framed as a question, it is really a complaint again Selfstudier, whom you are required to notify per the instructions at the top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it sounded like a complaint, it wasn't meant to be, but I do think some of those actions might violate Wikipedia rules. I just want some advice on what's acceptable here, and what's not. I'll let them know of the discussion. Thanks for the help! ElLuzDelSur (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, Bbb23 pinged me. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In both the instances you cited Selfstudier (who I don't believe you notified of this discussion) only made a single revert - both to very large additions of controversial material to articles in contentious topic areas. Per WP:ONUS the onus lies on a person who is adding text to justify it. A single revert, asking for discussion at article talk, isn't edit warring. It's actually pretty much standard practice. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223, in both cases the editor re-added new content that was reverted before. In other words, reinstating a new addition that was reverted twice. From what I read, if someone did an edit that was reverted, others are not supposed to re-revert it. So what I am asking here is if editors can restore an edit that was reverted several times before them. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple editors are going back and forth regarding an edit on a page in a contentious issue it's probably indicative of a risk of an edit war. However that generally indicates it would be a good idea to take the dispute to article talk and thresh out the problems there. And, in such cases, you can hardly isolate the last editor and say, "see that is the one who is edit warring" - especially when they are the one saying, "let's take this dispute to talk." Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ElLuzDelSur Let's look at the history leading up to one of the questioned reverts here: [133]
  • April 11 you added in this edit. Which you called a revert despite being substantially different from the removal immediately before it.
  • David A reverted you here saying it looked POV, also April 11 [134]. In an ideal scenario this would be the point the discussion would have gone to article talk. It's not policy but WP:BRD is generally treated as culturally appropriate and we see B and R there.
  • OliveTree39 restores your version calling it consensus. Based on edit history (and please note I've never edited this page myself) I'd question that statement. [135]
  • Selfstudier then reverts this [136] and, quite rightly, suggests taking up the issue at talk. This is all happening in short succession - so while it is indicative of a risk of edit warring nobody is actually breaking WP:1RR here and, frankly, Selfstudier looks correct in their judgment. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting way of phrasing "OliveTree39 restores your version calling it consensus." is to write "OliveTree39, who registered their account at 2023-12-27T08:53:38, restored the version of ElLuzDelSur, who registered their account 29 minutes, and 28 seconds earlier at 2023-12-27T08:24:10, calling it consensus." Given the vast size of Wikipedia this is an impressive example of a highly improbable event. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta say, I was trying hard not to bite the newbie but, looking at their edit history in greater depth, this isn't surprising. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for your revert either, so instead of accusing them of edit warring, you should have started a discussion on the article's talk page. You "asking them to explain their behaviour", even if framed as an innocent request, is in fact an unsubstantiated accusation of bad behaviour that they certainly don't have to entertain or respond to. Doing it twice, could easily be seen as a form of harassment. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fully protected the article for a week, less than the time this has been edit warred over, which should be plenty of time to get an RFC going on how to frame the lead. Feel free to poke me when the protection expires so I can restore ECP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 'edit warring' on Tom Aspinall's page

edit

Two other editors, one of whom engaged in personal attacks on my talk page after I reverted a couple of his changes and the other of whom appears to be an admin, keep restoring the claim that Tom Aspinall is of Polish heritage on his Wikipedia page and when I provided a source with the names of Aspinall's parents they reverted it, claiming it was an unreliable source, and the admin then blocked me from further editing the page for edit warring, when both of them arguably started it and never made any attempt to guide the discussion to a talk page. There was no warning for this and neither of them has been able to explain why my source is unreliable and theirs isn't. If some other Wikipedia people could weigh in on this that would be appreciated. 164.39.154.22 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse pageblock, brightline edit-warring, and you weren't personally attacked. A warning is not obligatory. Reliable sources are required. Acroterion (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'I get it. You're British, its very important to you that Aspinall is as British as you are.' not a personal attack? He also accused me of googling random sites in pursuit of confirmation bias in the history section of the Tom Aspinall Wikipedia page. Also, what makes the source I provided unreliable?164.39.154.22 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack. You're being disagreed with. You are still able to edit the article talkpage, where you can provide appropriate sources for consideration. Belief that you're right is not a justification for edit-warring. Editors are not your opponents, they just expect you to get sourcing right when challenged. Acroterion (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"its very important to you that Aspinall is as British as you are" is absolutely a personal attack, it's a blatant accusation of nationalist bias. Try substituting "British" for something like "Black" or "gay" or "Jewish," and I think you'll see how inappropriate that kind of comment is. Levivich (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is very much a personal attack, in addition to being a dumb strawman. Bad faith assumptions about the other editor's motives are a poor way of handling a content dispute. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Zanahary (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(from AIV) "Edit warring" is a suboptimal block reason when the blocking administrator made three reverts themselves. Of the default reason dropdown, Persistent addition of unsourced content and especially Violations of the biographies of living persons policy make a less involved impression and clarify the actual justification for the block. Also, unless the situation is really clear, the response to the BLP violations should ideally be limited to removal of the challenged content, without restoring any previously-present material, as that's not covered by WP:3RRNO #7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the central issue is one of conflicting sources. The edit-warring violation is a bright line, but such a justification should be used by someone who hasn't reverted. All that said, Talk:Tom Aspinall is thataway, and a much more productive use of volunteer time, including that of the IP's. Acroterion (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a separate, but related matter, I wonder if we should have a templated pageblock notice that in the clearest possible terms tells new editors to go to the article talkpage to work it out. The pageblock notice isn't much help, and editors who have been p-blocked end up complaining, rather than being helped into productive problem-solving. Acroterion (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What am I supposed to do if they just ignore me though? I've asked on my talk page why the source I provided is any less reliable than the one they use and have yet to receive an answer and it looks like both users have moved on to other discussions judging from their edit histories.164.39.154.22 (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did answer you on your talk page. ... discospinster talk 00:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't respond to my follow-up question though, and speaking a language from a different country doesn't necessarily make you from that country. In this case for example Tom could just speak Polish because his wife is Polish, a fact which I'm pretty sure is easy enough to find so I won't bother posting any references for that fact here.164.39.154.22 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article said his mother is Polish, and he speaks some Polish. It's not a leap. Also here he is on Instagram saying that his family are Polish-English (yes I do understand some Polish to answer your follow-up question). He is not from Poland but he is of Polish descent.... discospinster talk 00:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article did say that but that doesn't make it true and could very easily just be wishful thinking on the part of the Polish authors and if the reference I provided can be believed his parents at the very least have English names. I've never seen a source with a direct quote from Aspinall or anyone related to him stating that his mother is Polish. Like I said before, his wife is Polish and he's stated he has a lot of respect for the country of Poland so it's not a leap to assume he simply learnt Polish to please his wife. References to his having a Polish family could also just be a reference to his wife's side of his family rather than him being of Polish descent (which is also not true as I know for a fact his father was English which is also quite easy to find and therefore not worth referencing here and so is at most of partial Polish descent).164.39.154.22 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
could very easily just be wishful thinking on the part of the Polish authors
is an inappropriate aspersion cast on Polish authors. Zanahary (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, the same exact type of personal attack as the British one quoted above. Levivich (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Open a discussion (a polite one) on the article's talkpage, listing sources. Your talkpage isn't a good place to work that out, it should be where people now and later on can see what was discussed. Be patient, these things take a little time - that's one issue with edit-warring, the urge to make it stick right now. Also, WP:BLPN is a good venue for getting speedier discussion. Acroterion (talk)
The OP clearly violated WP:3RR so should be blocked according to that policy whether right or wrong. Others may have violated it - I haven't checked. The content dispute should be settled at Talk:Tom Aspinall with nobody mentioning the irrelevant nationality of editors. If there are no clear reliable sources then the descent should be omitted. I would add that the name and the ability to speak a language are not indicators of nationality. I speak fluent Polish myself but, as far as I know, I have no Polish ancestors, and I know several people with "foreign-sounding" names who are in fact British. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC 2024 has an RfC

edit
 

Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC 2024 has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for anyone curious that this was speedily closed basically due to a fatal error in the proposal. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting removal of PCR from myself

edit

Title. I honestly can't remember the last time I used the right. Thanks. Deauthorized. (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Spicy. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phase I of RFA2024 has concluded

edit

Hi there! We've reached the end of the first phase of the 2024 requests for adminship review, where consensus was achieved for a ton of significant changes to the RfA process. The following proposals have achieved consensus to be implemented outright:

And the following proposals have achieved consensus, but will undergo further refinement in phase II before implementation:

Phase II will start soon, most likely with open discussion to start. Thanks to everyone who helped move mountains on this, and stay tuned! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup for an import booboo

edit
  Original problem resolved

Hi all. After a mentee had uploaded a non-free file to Commons, I made a request to Explicit (because he is an admin both here and at Commons) to Special:import the file to enwiki and delete the copy at Commons. However, he made {{trout}}-worthy mistake and also imported the templates associated with the file. Some of these files existed locally, in which case we have a WP:PARALLEL history mess, in which case we should probably delete the imported history. Others which did not exist locally should just be deleted per G6 as obviously created in error.

It is currently 12:30 in the morning for Explicit, and judging by his timecard he is probably asleep. Would an admin or two be able to help clean up?

I will be notifying Explicit, but I absolutely do not think he should be sanctioned with anything more than a seafood dinner. Humans, mistakes, etc..

Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TODO LIST:

I've done all of the history splits. Any other admin is welcome to delete the accidentally-created templates. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time someone has made this mistake, and it won't be the last. Filed phab:T363740 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone; I am marking this as resolved. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up thought about preventing this in the future

edit

Pending phab:T363740, is it possible to set the relevant system message (it appears to be MediaWiki:import-interwiki-templates) to something more intrusive? Something like Include all templates and transcluded pages. If checked, this will overwrite local templates with the importing wiki's versions. This should almost always be unchecked. Only check if you know what you are doing. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to verify using uselang=qqx the name of the message? I can then file an edit request. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed MediaWiki:import-interwiki-templates. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and "this will overwrite local templates with the importing wiki's versions" isn't true. It merges the history and whichever wiki happens to have the most recent version controls. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See MediaWiki talk:Import-interwiki-templates. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please block this IP

edit

This IP is deleting content from a page (I can't remember which). When told on my talk page that content cannot be removed b/c of their opinion and told about WP:NPOV and WP:PAYWALL, they are blaming me and User:CanonNi of "supporting a user" who made some changes to the article that they disliked. Please block. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy link: Peter Cain (politician)
Thanks for pinging me. I've requested that the page be protected at WP:RfPP. A block seems like a good idea. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 02:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechie: Your edit summary "Unexplained content removal" (diff) is very incorrect. The IP gave an extremely clear reason for the removal and mentioned certain points which need to be examined rather than reverted. I do not know if the IP's claims have merit but they are coherent and require thought, not a report here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq To be fair, their tone on my talk page, of all places, wasn't very polite. If they don't get blocked, I at least request a stern warning from an admin on their talk page. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An irritated IP posting at the talk page of an anonymous contributor is not a big deal. I see nothing warranting a sanction. By contrast, a living person has had an attack added at Peter Cain (politician) where half the article is a recently added "Controversy" section. The text needs to be examined per WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at NPR PERM

edit

NPP is running a backlog drive starting from tomorrow. Ironically, this has created a backlog of editors requesting NPR permissions (disclosure: I'm one of them). There's about a dozen or so requests that haven't attracted any comment so far. This would be an unusually high-value backlog for administrators to focus on reducing quickly, as it could potentially free up a new spate of motivated editors to help reduce the substantial patrol backlog. – Teratix ₵ 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the NPR backlog coordinator, the person running the backlog drive, and an admin, I can assure you that we make an effort to clear out WP:PERM/NPR the best we can before a backlog drive starts. With watchlist notices though we do get quite a few applications before these drives start, which is awesome, but also makes the situation there look worse than it is. It's also fairly normal (not a requirement by any means) for us to leave requests up for a few days to a week or so to allow those familiar with the subject to chime in and voice any issues they may be aware of with an individual, or if familiar in a positive light, to go ahead and grant the permission themselves. The admins at NPR are aware of the amount of applicants and the impending start for the drive, and we'll be continuing to work at it. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, when I said ironically, this has created a backlog that was intended as a light-hearted tongue-in-cheek remark and wasn't meant to imply incompetence or lack of diligence on yours or anyone else's part. Quite the opposite, I appreciate your work. – Teratix ₵ 12:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, don't worry, I didn't take it offensively and I hope no one else does either. The point is we're trying to reduce a backlog, our advertisement of that created a backlog elsewhere, I get it :P Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't help out much at PERM but when I've been checking out the history a blocked editor who has asked for advanced permissions (not uncommon), it's often other editors who have posted comments to their PERM requests that originally alerted admins that the editor might be problematic, a sockpuppet or has made multiple unsuccessful permission requests in the past. So, I think Josh is correct about it being useful to let a request be posted a few days or week before the patrolling admin responds to it. I've found the admins working there really make good calls to these requests. Good luck with your backlog drive! Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People asking for personal facebook profile

edit

In this, MD Hydrogen 123 asking for personal facebook profile link and communicate with them over facebook. I don't think that's appropriate. If they have something to say, they should communicate via user or article talk page.

Also from the link, i can see they are media Manager of Bikrampur Kings and they have edited and started article related to Bikrampur Kings. They clearly have COI but i don't see any COI declaration anywhere on their userpage. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, আফতাবুজ্জামান,
I'm not sure what you are asking for from admins that you would post about this at AN. Have you or anyone else alerted them about COI policy? It doeesn't look like you've informed them of this discussion which is mandatory. It wasn't that uncommon, especially in the "old days" for editors to want to connect on other platforms besides Wikipedia. It's not encouraged but an editor can always just say "No" (which happens most of the time) or, if they are interested, they can follow up and engage with the other editor elsewhere. But first, please notify them so we can hear their response to your complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a notice on your behalf. Liz Read! Talk! 18:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Liz, i forgot to notify the user. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Never give out any personal information (e.g. name, age, location, school, IP address etc.) on the Internet – even to people that you think you know in real life.". Pls review Wikipedia:Personal security practices....or the simple page Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors Moxy🍁 19:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel request

edit
Resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Possibly RevDelworthy.[137] O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Uploading a lot of non-free images from WWE

edit

All images uploaded by TheVoicelessWriter (talk · contribs) are non-free: [138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149] Speedy deletion is necessary. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images have been deleted, additions to articles removed, and the user warned about uploading non-free images of living persons. BTW did you notify the editor of this discussion? — Masem (t) 03:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I forgot it. Sorry. Still uploading, guess they need to be blocked from file namespace. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leftover --Mann Mann (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the functionaries team, May 2024

edit

Following a request to the Arbitration Committee, the Oversight access of Dreamy Jazz is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks Dreamy Jazz for their service as a member of the Oversight team.

On behalf of the Committee, Primefac (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Icon on speedy deletion template

edit

Hello, I've proposed adding a clickable icon to the speedy deletion tags. Please visit Template talk:Db-meta#Add clickable icon to participate in the proposal. Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making this suggestion @Nyttend. I was literally just talking about this a few days ago on the Wikipedia Discord as something I was thinking proposing. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeauSuzanne

edit

This user BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) quietly drafting BLPs of non-notable Pakistani actresses, then moving them to the main namespace without even attracting any attention. Even though their contributions focus on a less scrutinized area, it's concerning that they've managed to fly under the radar. I stumbled upon this user when I noticed they added WP:OR using a dummy reference to a BLP. Dummy in the sense that upon checking the reference—a 90 minutes-long interview video—I found it did not support the claims made in the BLP, and this is consistent across other BLPs created by this user. They've even cited references that may not even exist, which further adds to the concern regarding the accuracy and reliability of their contributions. For example, see this, this and this. When questioned, they disappeared without explanation. Upon some investigation, I discovered that many of the BLPs they created had previously been deleted via AfD. Most of the BLPs this user re-created were formerly created by a confirmed sock puppet (Dramanrama (talk · contribs)) associated with Pakistanpedia. For example, Amna Malik, Ghazala Butt, Humaira Bano, Humaira Zaheer, Farah Nadeem, Madiha Rizvi, Natasha Ali, Maryam Noor etc. Not a coincidence. And there are similarities in editing patterns between this user and serial sock users like Pakistanpedia or maybe even Bttowadch. It might be worth investigating this user further, possibly through behavioral evidence, as the socks of Pakistanpedia seem adept at evading detection via technical means. I'm uncertain where else to report this issue, as I lack sufficient evidence to conclusively prove that this user is a sockpuppet of Pakistanpedia or Bttowadch. However, their behavior strongly suggests a connection to someone accounts. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you believe the new articles are "substantially identical" to the versions that were deleted via AFD, you could tag them for CSD G4. These tagged articles usually take a little longer to evaluate because the admins patrolling CSD categories have to compare new and old versions of the article and examine the sources used. Be sure to link the the AFD discussion involved because some times the page titles differ in some aspect. The larger question about whether they are a sockpuppet or not would have to go through an SPI complaint. Since you already have identified the sockmaster (which is often the hardest step), I don't think this should be a big problem as long as you list articles that both parties have created. However, know that there are many editors interested in writing articles on pop culture, like films and actors, so editing tastes might have little relation to whether or not the editors are connected. If you have other concerns, such about the quality of the sourcing or OR, then this discussion here might well continue. But is there a reason you posted this complaint at AN rather than ANI? Just wondering. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have already nominated 5 articles they created for AFD discussions so more information might emerge during those discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz - I didn't tag them for speedy deletion because I wasn't sure what the versions looked like before they were thrashed. And yes this discussion should continue because if I can't produce enough evidence linking this user to a serial sockpuppet, a warning or even a block may still be necessary becuase as I highlighted the user creating BLPs on non-notable actresses, then adding blatant WP:OR and in some cases adding promotional content using dummy references which suggests possible paid editing. And these are prohibited, especially since BLPs fall under contentious topics. Fyi, Pakistani pop culture articles, especially BLPs, are infested with serial sockpuppets. I originally posted this on ANI, but I moved the discussion here because I believe ANI requires cases that need imidiate attention. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 23:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see you are mentioning my style is similar to the sock puppets you mentioned but I have no connection with any of them. I was once confused with sock puppet but I told them I don't have any connection or nor I am a paid contributer. I am just contributing to wikipedia. Yes. Some of the articles were deleted when i started writing on them back then I was new and I didn't knew much. I started at Wikipedia in 2020. And for sources I add usually from their interview videos in which they discuss their backgroud back then i didn't add their previous interviews in which they talked now i tried to find it but I didn't found it maybe it was deleted now when I am adding a video interview I try to archive it. I admit I don't explain stuff when I do editing. And about cited references I take it from books which I find in wikipedia in books section.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Now that the user has somewhat admitted above as well on their talk page to adding WP:OR, I leave it to the community to decide on the appropriate course of action. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am honest here. That I don't have any connection and I haven't copied any style. I leave the rest to the community to decide.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
      • The OR issues aside, I can confirm that there is no technical connection that I see that links the editor to a sock master. What I will say, BeauSuzanne, is that you should really stop editing while logged out, esp. if it involves collusion. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Drmies: Not even with Insight 3 (talk · contribs)? And by the way this isn't just a matter of adding WP:OR. The user has been consistently creating BLPs for non-notable actors, many of which were previously deleted through AfDs. Their approach of creating drafts and then moving them to the main namespace raises concerns. They've been using references that don't support the claims made in the BLPs. They've been citing lengthy videos in Urdu language, making it difficult for others to detect the WP:OR. This behavior warrants investigation as it is unacceptable. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see one was previously filed in 2021. Not sure if relevant. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had sufficient evidence to substantiate their sockpuppetry, I would have already filed the SPI. However, lacking such evidence, I chosen to raise the matter here. In the absence of socking evidence, I still like to see this user blocked for violating BLP policies. I believe the information provided above should suffice. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib. I have been saying that I am not a sockpuppet. I have been following Wikipedia rules. I been adding sources from newspapers and books section as well. I have mentioned before that I don't have connection or I am paid contributor. I am simply and purely contributing to Pakistan entertainment industry. You are trying to make me blocked by accusing me a sockpuppeter and that I have a connection with the above sockpuppeters.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
My concern extends beyond just sockpuppetry. You've created hundreds of BLPs about non-notable actors which contain WP:OR and utilize placeholder dummy references. And this practice still continues! —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles of actors which I made are well known actors. And before making article I do my research by watching their interviews on various platforms so I can learn a litte about their background. The sources are fine because ARY News, Geo News, Express Tribune and The News are major international English newspapers also in Urdu. And these sources are also used in other articles as well.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Understood. Looking at the SPI, there may have been technical evidence but it was not pursued. I started to go down the rabbit hole with this one based on image uploads and related contributions but already down enough holes at the moment to continue. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need clerks at WP:Requested Moves

edit

The Requested Moves process needs an active administrator or two (or some non-admin page movers) to help close move requests. It is already listed as an administrative backlog, but more and more RMs have been falling into the backlog section with no one to close many of these "contentious" requests. I've listed some older RMs at closure requests, but there needs to be some active work on maintaining and clearing the backlog. Natg 19 (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

edit

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

  Administrator changes

  Nyttend
 

  Bureaucrat changes

  Nihonjoe
 

  CheckUser changes

  Joe Roe

  Oversight changes

  GeneralNotability

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelogično brisanje

edit

Zašto je obrisana slika Hajrudin_Hadziselimovic.jpg? 21775198.138-dopisnik (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(this request is in Croatian and says "Why was c:File:Hajrudin_Hadziselimovic.jpg deleted?".)
See the deletion request on Commons. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 18:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion on test Wikipedia?

edit
Page deleted. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 don't think there is a adminstrator notice board for the test Wikipedia but I found this strange page on it: https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMS_(rapper) what is this? it has 2 edits by one guy in 2020. 172.99.147.181 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also his username matches the nickname on the page. 172.99.147.181 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think that falls within the scope of English-Wikipedia admin control, and in any case, if it was self-promotion, it would have been pretty ineffective, I'd have thought, since it won't turn up on search engines etc. If it bothers you, you could contact a test site administrator, and ask that it be deleted: [150] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you go on his user page on English Wikipedia he tried to make the page multiple times in late 2020/early 2021. pretty obvious he wanted to make a page on himself on wikipedia, self promotion or not, and then he tried to make it on the test Wikipedia because it failed. Anyway, the purpose of the test Wikipedia isn't make your own page about yourself. 172.99.147.181 (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
does this make me one of the idiots this site is 'overrun' by? 172.99.147.181 (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Carillon

edit

Our article Carillon has a strange line of text on the (and only the) mobile Wikipedia app. In a rather large font, it reads User:CheezDeez ON TOP. I suspect that it is caused by some template, but I can not find it. The user was blocked for sockpuppetry, and I checked his/her contributions, and I could not find a way which could've caused this text in the article. 📊Panamitsu (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might get a more informed response at WP:VPT. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it with a WP:NULLEDIT. That was days-old template vandalism; the mobile apps frequently deliver outdated page versions. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, if someone is describing a problem with the mobile app (not the mobile website), you can find the HTML they're viewing using the REST API, using a link like https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Carillon. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to create user talk

edit

Hello,

Whilst doing AFC patrol whilst rejecting and CSD taggong an article I went to alert the user on their talk page (or at least twinkle did) but I'm unable to create it due to a blacklist. The page in question is User talk:Ri DICKINSON.

CoconutOctopus talk 05:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Resolved It looks like Deb got that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks. CoconutOctopus talk 17:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil user across multiple articles with history of harassment and/or personal attacks

edit

I tried to make an edit at 2024 Women's Six Nations Championship on 21 April 2024‎ and was reverted by User:Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel. I requested on the article talk page that they discuss the matter with me, 2024 Women's Six Nations Championship#Request for discussion, and left a talkback to that request on their user talk page here. When I hadn't heard from them in 7 days, I left another talkback. When they still had not responded in 3 days, I tried the edit again and they only responded after I said i would have to report them here if they kept being disruptive. The user left these edit's but became uncivil on the talk page and began bullying other users in the edit summaries. The user has also been like this on other pages and in deleted revisions on their talk page. I admit I probably could have handled the situation better but I am now wondering what I can do as I feel the other user is bullying others away from articles and claiming ownership. Thanks. LouisOrr27 (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t seen everything. But looking at a few diffs I do see some evidence of behavior falling into WP:UNCIVIL. Judging by [| this] it does look there is some kind of WP:OWNER behavior as well.CycoMa1 (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So they got warned for their conduct in the past, then blocked, then unblocked with cautioning Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel to carefully avoid repeating the kind of behavior that led to the initial block and now you have edit wars with edit summaries like this and comments like this? WP:5P4 is not really something you can ignore. Nobody (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another recent example of a recent edit (here) showing what I think is WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour and an unhelpful edit summary. Also WP:3RR broken. LouisOrr27 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANTAURO

edit
Not an AN issue. Primefac (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

So in a deletion discussion, this got 3 keep votes, 1 redirect vote, and 1 delete vote, yet it was redirected anyways. I don't know much about the subject but I feel like the consensus should be on the voters and not on what the closer feels like doing. Okmrman (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review will be the venue you are looking for. AN/ANI cannot overturn XfD closures. However, I'd recommend you discuss it with the closing editor first if possible. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Not a vote might be a good read as well. – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:51B1:3B13:AB65:F77F (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD was closed three months ago. What is so important about this that you brought it to WP:AN which is a noticboard for important, urgent problems? Go to WP:DRV if you want to challenge the closure. Make sure you follow all of the instructions there. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Editorial War Review

edit

@Shahin Shahin user removes sourced content and editorial war in the article of Esteghlal Football Club. This user also does not have an unbiased view and does not act based on logic in his edits. Please warn Shahin user not to edit Jang's article and not to delete source material. Thanks Apoel4 (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the OP for one week. Any administrator is free to increase the block to indefinite, which I was tempted to do from the get-go. Shahin has not been notified of this thread by the OP.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ban appeal of Billy Hathorn

edit
I'm closing this as procedurally invalid-- Checkuser indicates this is not Billy appealing and that his account has been compromised. This tracks with what happened to his account on Conservapedia at the beginning of this year, and the appeal is contradicted by the editing of Billy's new account on Conservapedia. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Billy Hathorn, who is seeking removal of their community ban. I bring this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been completely inactive on Wikipedia for 9 years now, only uploading pictures of mine on Wikimedia Commons, following a ban by members of this community for copyright violations. Since this event, I have spent time thinking about how to improve myself as a person and how to fix my behavior. My actions came at a time of which, while being my own fault, were encouraged by those around me in the space of conservatives. I was wrong in my belief to trust such a group of people, and my view in part of copyright was as a result of practices on another website, Conservapedia, of which I have been actively editing on until recently. This does not mean that I take no responsibility for my actions, however, as I completely understand that what I did was wrong and not good of any editor to do.

Recently, Conservapedia has banned my account without explanation. This came after I sent an email to one of the site's administrator's questioning their approach to LGBTQ issues. They now say I vandalized the site, but I did not. I use a unique password for Conservapedia, so I can only assume that this allegation is retaliation for my polite questioning of the site's prevailing doctrine, either lying about me or falsifying revisions, I do not know because I cannot see the edits they claim I made and I am not an expert on how WikiMediaWiki works. Such obvious corruption from someone claiming to know all the answers and toxicity from the leader of that same website who are now completely ignoring me for attempting to get in to my account has led to me reconsidering my role as a Republican and my beliefs that I gained from years on Conservapedia... I will no longer cater to those such as Andrew Schlafly and other site administrators who have enrolled me in a conspiracy to discredit my work due to my attempt of questioning of their beliefs.

Due to this incident with Conservapedia, I have denounced my conservative views in favor of a more liberal stance on society. After evaluating some of the things that I have been harsh on others for, I have found solace in the furry community, one of which welcomed me with open arms. Such practices have also led me into the act of cross-dressing, which I have been recently experimenting with. I find my new better self to be better than my previous toxic self that did not think straight, and I think I have made major improvements.I have taken great pains in fixing my behavior towards others and I hope to repair some of my broken relationships with other editors that I may have hurt. I am hoping that I can show this with the help of the community.

I understand that Copyright infringement is the use or production of copyright-protected material without the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright infringement means that the rights afforded to the copyright holder, such as the exclusive use of a work for a set period of time, are being breached by a third party. Music and movies are two of the most well-known forms of entertainment that suffer from significant amounts of copyright infringement. Infringement cases may lead to contingent liabilities, which are amounts set aside in case of a possible lawsuit.

To simplify efforts to find the copyright violations I perpetrated, I hereby revoke the license to use anything I have written on or uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons to-date. Now these pages can be deleted in their entirely without fear of violating my right to have my edits displayed. I promise if I am unbanned to no longer commit copyright violations of this or any nature and I am content with any restrictions that may be applied on me. If unblocked, I don't have a full goal for editing however I will likely go to writing articles again, as well as working on improving other articles but I will do so without violating copyright policies or violating any other policies.Thank you.Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the first line seems contradictory - his user page shows him as being a potential sockmaster, with the last entry for the investigation being in 2021 [151] - yet I don't that being commented on here. It also is in contrast to him being 'completely inactive on Wikipedia for nine years'. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my statement and Extraordinary Writ. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright infringement is the use or production of copyright-protected material without the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright infringement means that the rights afforded to the copyright holder, such as the exclusive use of a work for a set period of time, are being breached by a third party. Music and movies are two of the most well-known forms of entertainment that suffer from significant amounts of copyright infringement. Infringement cases may lead to contingent liabilities, which are amounts set aside in case of a possible lawsuit. is quite literally a copyright violation, taken word-for-word from [152]. Ordinarily that might be amusing, but in the context of someone whose copyright violations created a truly tremendous amount of work for other editors, it's not funny in the least. Strong oppose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Extraordinary Writ.—Alalch E. 19:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was writing a comment only to find my points have already been covered by Fantastic Mr. Fox and Extraordinary Writ, Oppose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Statement shows a weak grasp of copyright, to say the least. Mackensen (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Writ and Mr. Fox. Queen of ♡ | Speak 20:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think I ever heard of this person before just now. I honestly don't believe their narrative that they went from a full-on right winger to a crossdressing furry, but that doesn't really matter because it has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for the ban. That they used copyrighted material in their appeal of a ban for copyright violations and completely failed to address what appears to be CU-confirmed socking is a total dealbreraker. This looks more like trolling than a legitimate unban appeal Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have heard of this person before, in connection with CCI. The number of hours expended by volunteers cleaning up just this CCI alone is enormous. The statement does not persuade me that inviting this editor back would be a good idea.S Philbrick(Talk) 20:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too many hours over several years were spent by myself and many others in addressing the numerous copyvio and POV issues created by Billy Hathorn to ever trust their account again. The continuing problems raised here by Mr. Fox and Extraordinary Writ (as well as the uneasy sense That this unban request is just more trolling) solidify my opposition. — cactuswriter (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This user first repeatedly, insistently, violated our copyright policy and then, when blocked, resorted to sockpuppetry to continue doing the same, culminating in one of the largest CCIs in the history of this project – please see this ANI discussion (which I initiated). If any consensus for an unblock were to develop (which so far does not seem likely), it should be with a pre-condition that before the account can be unblocked, all sock accounts be listed by the user and all copyvio edits made by those accounts be clearly identified on his user talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sentences of the last paragraph (To simplify efforts to find the copyright violations I perpetrated, I hereby revoke the license to use anything I have written on or uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons to-date. Now these pages can be deleted in their entirely without fear of violating my right to have my edits displayed.) betray a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright and how Wikipedia works. You cannot revoke the license you granted to your contributions when you made them; the terms displayed each and every time you make an edit says: By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. (emphasis mine). And even if you could, that would have absolutely nothing to do with simplifying efforts to find copyright violations, for a few reasons. If they were copyright violations, then you did not have the right to release them under any kind of license, so any "revocation" of licenses you did not have the ability to grant would be meaningless. Furthermore, you do not have any "right to have [your] edits displayed", so there was never any fear of violating that non-existent right. The difficulty with cleaning up copyright infringements involves the grunt work of combing through a user's edits and actually identifying what is a copyright infringement and what isn't, not violating any of the user in question's rights. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 now in Algeria

edit

The IP is now behaving with the same behavior as the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#IP from France. I will list out my concerns.

The editor removes other editors' original research [153] while adds their own [154]. The editor seems like they want to promote Telugu i. e. they add Telugu to non-Telugu actors films [155] and remove non-Telugu films from Telugu actors [156] [157]. I'm having a feeling that this person does not speak English and is good with French after one of the French IPs used début instead of debut.

The editor seems to have an ocean of knowledge in regard to older films without articles and adding missing films. If the problematic edits were not done, this editor is doing a fairly good job. If only you guys could find a way to make them communicate. DareshMohan (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy link: Special:Contributions/105.99.197.187 LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edit

As of late we've been seeing a glut of drafts at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk which, on a read, appear to be essays about some aspect of the sales process. A (very likely incomplete) list is:

Our best guess is that this is possibly a class on marketing which is being taught outside of WikiEd's purview, with the end result being the instructor is essentially setting his students up to fail. However, this is just speculation, and I'd rather first figure out if there are any more of these drafts out in the wild and then go from there. I'm not inclined to call for blocks or bans just yet - but if the scale of this is much bigger, there possibly needs to be a discussion on how to more easily ferret out rogue classes like this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New one just popped up at AfC/HD: User:Sravanthi chekka/sandbox. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 06:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

edit

I hate doing this because I know there's a backlog at SPI but seeing this sock-master being so militantly aggressive in steamrolling their POV to the point where it's unsettling, using numerous burner accounts, openly making a mockery out of Wikipedia and manipulating people, time and time again deceiving or attempting to deceive admins in which he nearly succeeded multiple times, and him taking advantage of the long time it takes for SPI reports against him to be looked at, has me extremely concerned. I want to proceed with dealing with some of his more active, disruptive accounts but for that I'd need to deal with the current accounts in his SPI as it would establish precedence and bolster future cases. If possible, can this SPI be dealt with soon? It's been languishing for over a month now. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 others, including 2 admins, have expressed concerns that the first account Historian2325 is a SPA, by the way. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone thought of making the following change to Wikipedia:CheckUser to see whether it works.
OLD - "The CheckUser tool is used by a small group of trusted Wikipedia users (called checkusers)."
NEW - "The CheckUser tool is used by a very large group of trusted Wikipedia users (called checkusers)."
Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure if there's a double meaning behind your comment, but the reason I'm so concerned is because this sockmaster is currently operating an account which is creating an extreme amount of disruption and illegitimately subverting Wikipedia's processes by brazenly vote stacking. He's so incredibly relentless that it's unnerving and to see him time and time again evade accountability is nauseating. It'll become more clear once I file the report. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my perfect world we would all be checkusers, or there would be a very large number of them. Socking in Wikipedia is, for me, maybe one of most important unsolved issues here. Wikipedia's rules-based system breaks down when there are 2 sets of editors, one set that has to follow the rules and the other that does not because they effectively have unlimited number of lives. Using deception as a tool is pretty common in Wikipedia, especially in contentious topic areas, and the resources allocated to deal with it don't seem to match up with its corrosive effects. As you say, important processes that sample community views like RSN, RfC, AfD etc. are particular susceptible to the negative effects of deception. On the other hand, it's quite funny that we are training generative models using content that is partly the product of dedicated pathological liars. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can make that wording change to the policy. A more actionable idea might be asking some admins with spi experience to apply to be checkusers, to help with the backlog. Although in this case, the delay is actually clerk endorsement, which doesn't require a checkuser. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but wouldn't the endorsement of 2 admins be a suitable substitute for clerk endorsement? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do the spi rules say that? I think it's supposed to be clerks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest removing the IP addresses as a checkuser will not link IP addresses to accounts plus most have been inactive for sometime, between one and six months, and no action is likely to be taken because any disruption by these IPs is neither recent nor ongoing. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put the IPs/proxies because I wanted them to be blocked but rather because the sockmaster has many different proxies at his disposal which helped his other accounts like Finmas and Dazzem evade CUs. The former was found "Unrelated" and then "Inconclusive" by CUs. It was later revealed that the Finmas account was exclusively using VPNs, which is what I had originally suspected. I figured that listing some of his proxies that I've dealt with before might help CUs establish a technical connection. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here isn't a lack of CUs, the problem is that you've written a 20,000 byte wall of text that is going to be a major slog for someone to read through. If you want people to read and action an SPI case you need to present the information as concisely as possible. CUs and admins are volunteers and SPI is chronically backlogged - most SPI regulars coming across that case are just going say "TLDR", pass over it and go deal with another, better presented, case.
You need to trim this down drastically to just the key evidence.
  • Rather than listing out a dozen IPs that haven't been used for months you could just write "This sockmaster has used VPNs to evade checkuser detection in the past"
  • Instead of writing massive long paragraphs of background information about how certain edits are POV pushing to inflate certain figures and how this is related to Sikh military accomplishments you could just point out that the edits are similar.
  • Instead of writing out massive bullet points where you describe every edit a sockmaster and suspected sockpuppet have made to a page you could just point out that this new account has returned to a page that they have edited in the past.
  • There is a ton of unnecessary "This is the nail in the coffin", "PS: Maplesyrupsushi is a legitimate and excellent editor/content creator, ..." "Keep in mind this is a small sample of edits, there are hundreds of more edits like this." type commentary that adds nothing to the case but severley bloats the wordcount.
Looking through the page history it looks like you've had issues with wall of text reports in the past [158] and you were asked to cut your reports down to a more reasonable length 2 months ago [159]. Remember that SPI clerks and Checkusers have a lot of experience dealing with sock puppetry and don't need the basics explaining to them. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, I've trimmed some of the details in the SPI. I think the current version is much more digestible. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have also been complaining about the POV pushing from SPAs listed in the SPI. As I've said before, the disruption that this sockmaster is creating is ridiculous. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the SPAs even tried to illegitimately delete an AFD notice on an article-[160]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete incorrectly speedily deleted article (now at AfD): Kalloor

edit
  Resolved

See Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Kalloor and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalloor. The article was at AfD when it was speedily deleted, something that the deleting admin politely apologized for not noticing while also saying they are too busy to undelete right now (errr.... shrug). It is a technicality, I believe we have a rough consensus to not speedy delete but delete through regular AfD. I hope someone here can click the right button instead bureaucratically directing me to another forum, TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Zerotalk 02:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might need to undelete the talk page too, the last edit on the article is referencing it. – 2804:F14:80B2:ED01:19B2:48CF:F504:23F5 (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Thanks @Zero0000 - can you click the undelete button once more? TIA, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Zerotalk 06:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits from The Banner

edit

I would like to request another perspective on edits made by TheBanner. I am uncertain about their intentions, as they seem to be consistently reverting many edits, often citing WP:CIR, I know my edits are not perfet however I have seen problems. For instance, my addition of a military service module on Chuck Norris's page—similar to those on Morgan Freeman and Elvis Presley—was removed with the rationale that Norris is "not known for his military service." Although this is true, the inclusion of such a module can be informative. Furthermore, there have been issues regarding WP:Civility; TheBanner has described my edits as "cringe" and made sarcastic remarks, asserting that competence supersedes civility. This focus on my contributions has been puzzling, and I would appreciate an external review. My editing history is publicly accessible, and I anticipate that TheBanner might respond to this discussion. I am simply seeking additional opinions on this matter. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I have a severe concern about the competency of User:LuxembourgLover to edit wikipedia. The main problem is his failure to judge the due weight of many items, resulting in him writing articles about tiny events. I just point to Talk:Luxembourg rebellions, Talk:Morrisite War, Draft:Battle of Amalienborg and USCG Auxiliary Flotilla 6-9 (and related Talk:United States Coast Guard Auxiliary). The Banner talk 00:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, that response would have been so much better if you'd but the first sentence and a half. You're probably right in suggesting (?) (the diff above must be off) that competence supersedes civility, but that doesn't mean that a lack of civility isn't problematic. I don't think the comments here rise to a blockable level or I wouldn't be commenting, I'd just block, but I wish you'd think twice before pushing "Publish changes". Drmies (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even advice to use a spell checker (done by multiple people) is ignored. AfC-drafts turned down within a couple of hours. Copyvio. I have even requested a third party to take up some coaching (what he agreed to). But see also Talk:Morrisite War and Talk:San Elizario Salt War#Info box. The Banner talk 09:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I have two well done drafts waiting review. Draft:Latter-day Saints Militias and Military Units and Draft:Hector C. Haight. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Drmies on this one. Tempers have clearly run a bit high (or patience has run out) but I'm not seeing any need for admin action this time around.
Regarding long term behaviour in the section below, it's worth remarking that the "February 2023" thread actually relates to activity in December 2022; the other threads listed are obviously from even further back. While it's sometimes important to examine long term behaviour patterns, we really don't need to drag up old threads every time a new one is created. I appreciate that it wasn't resolved to everyone's satisfaction as The Banner was cut some slack due to his computer issues, but some kind of statute of limitations seems appropriate.
One final thing for me to say here is that The Banner and I come from opposite sides of the Irish Sea and both edit in the often-controversial British Isles area. That means we encounter points of disagreement semi-frequently, yet I've always found The Banner to be civil, polite and patient, abiding by consensus and policy in those discussions. Obviously that's just my own experience but I felt it was worth adding some balance to this thread. WaggersTALK 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner history of hounding and disruptive editing

edit
The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has more than several blocks for disruptive editing

There's more. Why are we still here ? Drmies, my friend, it's time to stop defending this editor, who is a bully. It's time for a site ban. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct you on your first bullet: I had a computer crash. It took me months to recover from that. I had never seen that discussion before I came back. The Banner talk 13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have seen it and now you can respond to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I had never seen that discussion before I came back." To be blunt, SG has more AGF than I do. You were clearly informed about it and had an opportunity to respond. If you are going to archive everything so quickly, you need to go back and check your archives. Regardless of others' behavior, yours continues unabated. I side with SG here Buffs (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The case was closed before I came back. And as said, the break was not because of my own free will but due to a broken hard disk. The Banner talk 12:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's here now, and with two responses, you aren't addressing the long-term issues: hounding of Another Believer and SusanLesch, faulty tagging of a most clearly notable article, and your history of generally disruptive editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, yet, you still have not responded, despite being back online for almost a year + being informed of this issue for 4+ days now. You've found the time to make 100+ edits. Buffs (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last chance to reply... Buffs (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to ignore this user for nearly twelve years, since he made an edit in support of the sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salty Fingers (plant). I'm rather surprised that the editor is still allowed to edit, given the long-term disruption shown. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it is your contention that The Banner actually knew he was supporting sockpuppets, I'm afraid I don't see how that discussion from almost a dozen years ago is relevant. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is an attempt to show a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior. Beyond that, I would concur it's irrelevant. Admins, can take the input and assess what it's worth. Buffs (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's inherently disruptive about voting keep in an AfD. I'm sure that the case against The Banner can be made without dredging up grudges from more than a decade ago. Heck, I'm pretty sure I've had a beef or two with him, although the specifics are lost to my memory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my block User:Blaze The Movie Fan

edit
Block has been adequately reviewed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 don't think there is any issue with the block, which was the unfortunate yet inevitable conclusion to an editor having stress issues they could not resolve. Let's leave it at that. As they may themselves ask for review, given their latest posts about "abusive admins", I figure it is better to simply put it out here and let others opine as to whether my actions were appropriate or not. It's not the usual circumstance, and was done as a last resort to prevent further disruption, but in the interest of transparency, I ask for review. I won't post diffs, a look at their contribs should be sufficient when combined with their talk page. As always, any admin is free to modify my actions without my prior permission if they feel I've made a mistake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac closed

edit

An arbitration case regarding User:Mzajac has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in February to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Mzajac requested it within three months. Because Mzajac has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac#Motion to suspend.

For the Arbitration Committee, Aoidh (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac closed

AFD

edit

could anyone start the AFD Artur Orzech on my behalf? 178.164.179.49 (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 178.164.179.49, the page now exists (empty); please go ahead. Next time, please provide the deletion reason too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probable vandalism

edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inah_Canabarro_Lucas

People have made this lady over 1,000 years old, and someone else should look to see what is valid. I tried to sort it out, but it appears that valid edits are mixed in with vandalism. Quebec99 (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was just simple vandalism. Someone has already reverted it. Nothing special. Feel free to revert obvious vandalism like that. I went ahead and semi-protected it for a bit since there has also been some other minor issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Experience closers needed in discussion

edit

There is a need for experienced closers to participate in the discussion at: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

The discussion centers on if it is permissible to return to discussion you had closed, wait (in this case 4 days), then reopen it, change the outcome, and perform a mass move. In this case, it is a WP:BADNAC.

The claim is being made that this is common and within closing guidelines [161].

I think this would be a horrible precedent to set, but either way it needs to be clear if this is acceptable.  // Timothy :: talk  18:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: I'd advise you to reword this notification. Using non-neutral notifications to bring attention to a consensus-seeking discussion is considered an inappropriate notification under WP:CANVASSING. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been closing discussions, to include move requests, for many years, and this is just part of the process. An editor closes an RM, another editor discusses it on the closer's talk page, the closer then makes a decision to leave things as they are or to change things that need to be changed. It is not unprecedented for that part of the process to take several days while I or other closers mull it all over. Don't know why you think it's "horrible", that's just how the process works sometimes. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of potential interest

edit

Administrators and other editors watching here may perhaps be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall#Making the case for need. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion needs closure

edit

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French ship Gapeau (B284) - this discussion needs to be closed please. No idea why it was relisted a 3rd time. Discussion has petered out, with a week gone with no further input. Would someone uninvolved please close this. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's are regularly relisted up to three times. I think this is a reasonable relist, as it may facilitate further discussion to build towards a clearer consensus should additional participation come its way. It will be closed when it appears on (or before, if an admin so chooses) the daily +7 days log, which will be on 12 May. I'm not seeing how this is any different to most relisted AfD's. Daniel (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(For context, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 5 there are six other debates which are on their third relist. Daniel (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Note that this was closed early, reopened, closed early again, then taken to DRV. Perhaps requesting an early closure was not the best idea. We should let the DRV run its course now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

78.11.18.109

edit

This IP continues to vandalize the article Neoliberalism with no end in site, while also acting belligerent in the edit summaries. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 15:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, consider AIV for stuff like this in the future. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Non-RS as per User:Saqib

edit
Any established editor is welcome to raise issues if needed. This is not that. Star Mississippi 15:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, I've mentioned it earlier as well that no matter how WP:RS I or any other user add to the articles, User:Saqib assess them as WP:Non-RS. As per him Pinkvilla, 24 News, Youlin Magazine, Bol News, Aaj News etc doesn't provide WP:GNG. My concern is when it comes to Pakistani media and television, they are covered by these sites so ideally Pakistani TV series and actors articles should not exist as all of them list down sources from these sites. Draft:Pagal Khana (TV series), Draft:Mein (TV series), Draft:Breaking News (Pakistani TV series), Draft:Akhara (series) all have been declined on the same basis. How I and other editors who keeps interest in creating articles about Television in Pakistan should create articles when eventually they'll get declined? It's so discouraging and demotivating. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Reliable Sources Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are, or aren't reliable. I'd suggest raising these sources there (check that they haven't already been discussed first) to get community consensus about whether or not each one is generally reliable.
I notice you haven't notified Saqib of this discussion on their talk page, which is a requirement of opening a thread here. Please do that now. WaggersTALK 10:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
182.182.29.217, Another notice, another day. I guess I'll keep defending notices like these for the unforeseeable future. For the record, this IP only provides vague sources (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuja Asad), just mentioning the names without making efforts to provide specific links to coverage.So, definitely, I will reject it. Did I do anything wrong here? And by the way, WHO is this now? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP range 182.182.0.0/17 has been CU blocked with the instruction to "log in to your account to edit". -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requesting a TBAN exemption specific to my Sandbox, to get input from others on a possible appeal

edit
(non-admin closure) Endorsed unanimously, with one caveat that there should be no GENSEX disruption in doing so. starship.paint (RUN) 00:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 have the opportunity to work on a draft appeal of the TBAN that I received in March 2023, at my Sandbox. I proposed this idea to an admin, who demurred saying that this is a gray area and that I should seek explicit permission here.

The reason I am asking for an exemption specific to that sandbox is that I don't see any way to work on or get feedback on the possible appeal without mentioning the topic the TBAN is about - I will not be discussing issues about that topic within the Sandbox, nor will I respond to any other editors who might choose to comment on the topic in their comments on the draft.

The three elements I do intend to include in my appeal are:

  • a section where I acknowledge why the TBAN was applied,
  • a section where I document my current (less problematic) approach to editing, and
  • a section discussing the neurodivergent blind spots that got me into the mess the first place.

In other words, I will not be attempting to relitigate the ANI in any way.

I have taken considerable time to reflect on this, and it seems clear to me that the largest contributing factor to the outcomes of the antecedent RSN discussion, the ANI discussion that prodiced my sanction, andthie request for a carveout that I made in April 2023, were my failure to be aware of and to take strategies to mitigate my aspects of my neurodivergence, discussed here (and subsequently).

From these experiences, I was forcibly made aware of the extent of "blind spots" which have made it essentially impossible to predict how my comments at ANI or AN and related bahaviour (especially clarification-seeking behaviour) are likely to be interpreted by other editors. I therefore believe that a smooth decision-making process at AN is much more likely if I have the opportunity to "workshop" the filing in draft, and receive input on the filing from editors of varying perspectives.

I can and most likely will file to have my TBAN lifted (while the BLUDGEON ban remains in place), with or without this sandbox being allowed, but I think the net benefit of a smoother appeal process ought to be evident. I therefore hope this request will be positively received. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crafting an unban request in user space, so others can provide input, seems at best promising and at worst harmless. I think SFR's suggestion to come here was wise, as I don't think it meets the letter of the law at WP:BANEX, but I think it probably meets the spirit. I'd have no concerns. I assume it is clear that any GENSEX-related disruption in the sandbox would be extraordinarily damaging, so nothing that even comes close to that, please. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BANEX, bans don't apply to legitimate discussion of the ban itself, and it explicitly mentions appeals as an example of this. I think drawing a distinction between "appealing" and "drafting an appeal" would be splitting hairs to nobody's benefit. – Joe (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this request. It is reasonable and thoughtful. There shouldn't be any disruption resulting from it. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this request because I agree with what Floquenbeam, Joe Roe and Buffs have said. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above, and personally I think it is in line with WP:BANEX. BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - there is no reason why drafting a potential appeal should be considered any different from actually submitting that appeal. Any argument to the contrary is, as Joe Roe says, arguing about the colour of the bikeshed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Ecotechnics and Ecotechnology

edit

Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place, but Ecotechnics and Ecotechnology appear to be two articles about the same thing. I could be wrong because I have trouble understanding exactly what the ecotechnics article is about. The ecotechnology article is easier to understand, but it is almost entirely copied from here. Perhaps someone who understands this subject could have a look? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ecotechnics article is about a philosophical idea, so it's a separate thing from the Ecotechnology article. Someone with better skills for handling copyright issue should look at Ecotechnology, the original version[162] was a direct copy of the link mentioned.[163] However the current article has been substantially changed, with only a small amount of copied material remaining.[164] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The remaining infringing material is still a copyright violation. I have removed it and requested revision deletion of all old revisions. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 20:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After taking a look at these articles, I went ahead and merged Ecotechnics into Ecotechnology. I love Derrida as much as the next guy, but this seems like one of those soi-disant academic fields that seem to consist entirely of four people mentioning a term in papers. You just kind of combine prefixes and suffixes: e.g. I'm writing in an administrators' noticeboard thread, so perhaps we're practicing "semiocybernetics", "cybersemiotics", "sociosemiotics", "semiosociology", "semiocyberpolitics", or "cybersemiology".
In classifying the body as a technical object, Jean-Luc Nancy explained how it works by partitioning bodies into their own zones and spaces, which also allow such bodies to connect with other bodies.
I will admit I don't really know what would be a suitable merge target for this text; at any rate, the article on ecotechnology already had an external links section with extensive mention of "ecotechnics". If I'm going to be completely frank, I'm not sure if "ecotechnology" is really a field either; we seem to have standalone articles for Environmental technology, Appropriate technology, Clean technology, Environmental design, Eco-innovation, Sustainability science, Sustainable design, Industrial ecology, et cetera, and the existing article about "ecotechnology" doesn't seem to explain how it is different from these other things. jp×g🗯️ 22:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect creation request

edit

Hi, please can an administrator create a redirect from On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜 to Stochastic parrot? The title blacklist is preventing me from creating it, but it (including the parrot emoji) is the full title of the academic paper referred to at the proposed target (see also On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜 (Q105943036)).

All the best ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 01:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brigadier Bhupesh Singh Hada.jpg

edit

Unsure how to untangle this mess, Vijaysingh00786 tried to create an article on this file page, as well as on their user page. Thanks, will notify editor of this discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local file deleted. Nthep (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin for sale?

edit
This can't go anywhere unless the OP discloses more information. And it's probably a waste of time, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 got this email today. The message is cropped and the bolding was added by me: "Hi there, I hope this message finds you well. I'm _______, a seasoned Wikipedia Administrator passionate about crafting impactful narratives. With over a decade of experience, I specialize in assisting individuals and businesses like yours in establishing a lasting presence on Wikipedia, the world's leading information platform.

Ever thought about showcasing your accomplishments and contributions on the influential stage of Wikipedia? I navigate the intricacies of Wikipedia's guidelines, ensuring your story meets the platform's stringent standards. What sets my approach apart is the inherent resilience of entries created under the supervision of a Wikipedia Administrator – they stand stronger against scrutiny and time.

I understand the unique challenges of getting pages published on Wikipedia and have a proven track record of guiding experts like yourself through the process. By collaborating, we can ensure the accurate portrayal of your journey and secure its place in the annals of Wikipedia's knowledge repository.

Understanding Wikipedia's communal editing and content standards can be daunting. This is where my expertise shines. As a Wikipedia Administrator..." The aspect that is surprising to me is that this person is supposedly an admin. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new, see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why you're not saying who the e-mail came from?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did they have access to your email address or did they use the form to contact you? M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what AndyTheGrump was saying. In the scam reading, a line says ...some of the scammers falsely claimed to be Wikipedia administrators or employees of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). You should be thinking why admins? Then another says it all: If someone contacts you with such an offer, it is a scam. I don't see any much purpose why an admin will do something like this, of all such, have time for that. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

User:Robert7277 impersonating as an administrator

edit
Already INDEFFed by NinjaRobotPirate Star Mississippi 18:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Just thought I'd put this here... User:Robert7277 is impersonating an administrator on their userpage and moved a draft submission to the mainspace with absolutely no permission to do so; they've improperly used the "Misspell" reason to state that they "approved the page to the mainspace." Probably worth mentioning that the subject of the article, who seems to fail WP:NBLP, paid for the article to be created as disclosed by the creator's talk page. Requesting for somebody to take a look. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5 days and already an admins! Impressive! EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very! 🙂 B3251 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page, blammo-nuke Robert7277 (if not for their mercenary editing than for disruption from impersonating an administrator) and watchlist the article and draft titles for more of this chicanery. That seems to be the best route here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to consistently use the potted edit summaries incorrectly, as almost all of their edits have consisted of ill-advised wikilinking in articles (perhaps to become autoconfirmed). Deor (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly ten edits before going on to make problematic edits. Bingo. B3251 (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Post-close comment. There are several reasons to block this editor but moving a page to mainspace without permission is not one of them. Nobody has to ask for permission to do anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, neither is having "I am an admin" on one's userpage when one is not an admin (removal generally suffices). Primefac (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it disruptive if they're using it as an appeal to authority in an attempt to get their bad edits to stick, as appears to be the case here. The individual problems aren't an issue for blocking; them combined is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about edits consisting in content removing

edit

Hallo. I have got a question for administrators. I have noticed that since a while a recently registered user has started removing tons of text from the pages about Star Wars. Have a look at the histories of the pages about: Darth Vader, Chewbacca, Yoda, C-3PO... I am fearing for Luke Skywalker's page at this point. My question is whether reducing the content of such important pages to less than half or even to a quarter without any preceding discussion by a new user has to be considered constructive or not. I think it is not but I may be wrong, so now that I have made administrators aware about this I am letting them make their own considerations. 62.19.148.47 (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... what? Some links to what you're talking about would help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any clue of what you're talking about. However, removing contents from an article is to improve it especially when it contains WP:WWIN, etc. I have viewed the page history and can't find anything related to content removal without explanation. Even if your statement is justified, they could have appeared in WP:RC and any patroller will take care of that. This is not a big deal though. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harassing Editors

edit

This user @Saqib is constantly removing the articles that I have created without citing any reliable reasons. Just now, he has moved my article in the draft space Draft:Kashan Admani - Wikipedia. If I have COI, he should prove it. If there is some information that is not reliable, there is Citation needed template available. Perhaps, he is having some agenda to remove the pages that I create. I humbly seek an admin support and guidance in this matter.

P.s. he has a history of being accused of harassment and this time, I believe it is important to look deeply into his behavior and put a stop to it. Aanuarif (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I concur. It's become imperative for someone to intervene and examine my edits and conduct. I've been facing numerous attacks across various forums lately and truthfully, it's becoming quite bothersome. I can either defend myself against these accusations or fix articles. This needs to be addressed promptly. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, you shouldn't draftify old articles, so please just self-revert that one. You'll need to make a detailed case for whatever's been happening to you if they don't appear to be independent incidents. However, it's likely also that these are just independent editors bringing cases against you because they have each been emboldened and misdirected by the existence of previous complaints. Working AFC/NPP in high volume is another way you can get a lot of new editors confused and angry with you. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Usedtobecool! Appreciate it.
Hi @Saqib! I don't want to get into a dispute with you. I have respectfully accepted your suggestions and will continue to do so, provided they are in good faith and not based on assumptions. Aanuarif (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool - I moved the draft back to the main NS. I initially draftified it because the majority of its content was contributed by @Aanuarif and the BLP appeared to be PROMO and relied on non-RS. Instead of nominating it for deletion, I thought giving the creator a chance to fix the issues would be more appropriate. However, I've come to realize that draftifying old articles isn't the right approach. I might take it to AfD. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's sometimes frustrating when you come across articles you think are too poor for mainspace but there isn't an easy way to rid of them. Unfortunately, comes with the territory, as you are finding out, especially when working in third world topics, where you rarely find another editor also familiar with the area to back you up. You can remove serious BLP problems and get an admin to help you enforce that removal without much hassle. Most of the other problems, sometimes you can do something about, sometimes, you have to learn to be able to ignore and forget about for your own mental wellbeing. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At what age does an article typically reach a point where it's shouldn't be draftify ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
90 days. – Joe (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Aanuarif, glad to hear you're open to hearing out Saqib's concerns. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not actually an admin, so I fear I've already taken too much space in this thread. But I wanted to leave some parting thoughts.
    To Aanuarif: I would caution that just because there are many complaints on a user's talk page does not necessarily mean that that is a bad editor. Most admins' talk pages are filled with complaints from other editors and all kinds of accusations, of bias, of incompetence, of prejudice, and so on. So, sometimes, it can actually mean the person is doing good work.
    To Saqib: Most COI/UPE editors produce poorly referenced, promotional articles but so do newbies. One of my first articles was speedy deleted as spam even though all I had done was follow Wikipedia's own suggestions in good faith to translate an article from another Wikipedia. So, in your first response, you almost always have to allow for the possibility that it's a good faith editor accidentally producing subpar content due to inexperience. Secondly, even when you're reasonably certain you're dealing with an actual spammer, it's best to keep that to yourself until you are ready to make a proper case backed by evidence in the proper venues. Makes for a more pleasant environment all around. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool Sure, I've just started NPP so I don't have much experience dealing with UPEs yet. I've interacted with COI editors before but UPEs are new territory for me. I'll definitely take your tip going forward. In this case, I haven't filed any complaints against @Lkomdis or @Aanuarif. Actually, they're the ones who lodged complaints against me. OK you might be wondering why I called @Aanuarif a UPE. Let me break it down here. @Aanuarif were adding WP:OR and WP:PROMO to Waqar Zaka's BLP. When I raised concerns on their tp last month, they suddenly became inactive and stopped editing WP altogether. So, was I wrong to suspect they might be a UPE? --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And @Aanuarif has been actively editing this BLP since 2021. Here's the thing. In 2021, they removed well-cited material (probably because Zaka didn't like it) and then added PROMO using unreliable sources. Added his achievements using unreliable sources. Added more PROMO, More, More, More and the PROMO goes on. I removed PROMO and unreliable references in 2017, again in 2020 and once more in 2024. In between, I made several edits to clean up the BLP. The point is I've been neutral back in 2017 and I'm neutral still in 2024. BUT, @Aanuarif and @Lkomdis accusing me of being a UPE. I'm seeking an answer from an admin on how to deal with @Aanuarif who has been adding PROMO themselves and now has the audacity to call me a UPE instead.--—Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Usedtobecool, i just saw this and wanted to share my opinion. Few days ago, Saqib nominated one article Shuja Asad on which i voted keep, then instantly he followed my editings and harrased me. He tagged my article Abu Aleeha with notability tag [165] and for proving his instances, he even tagged other articles which was linked to Abu Aleeha with notability tag although those articles were not created by me. The tag was instantly removed by another senior edior [166] By searching his work, i found out that he is harrasing many Pakistani wikipideans and eventually found out this page where i thought to share my opinion. Libraa2019 (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand pointing fingers at UPEs without strong evidence can stir things up in the community, but honestly, if you take a peek at their contributions, it's pretty clear they're up to some shady business. It seems like they're all just covering for each other. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very interesting that someone who produced Draft:Mohammad Jerjees Seja has joined the chorus of editors with grievances against Saqib. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That promo article does'nt mean that i am not allowed to join such group and if you have not noticed, i have not moved that draft to main space neither urge to edit that draft because i understood my wordings and tone in that article was wrong and i dont mind after its deletion neither recreated it as i am not UPE who will be affected. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib You should present an evidence, not assume. If you are alleging someone of shady business, you should present a proof. Now you are at the receiving end of your stuff, you are Aanuarif (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib! By analyzing your edits i too believed that you are an experienced UPE, just saw the level at which you are defending Waqar Zaka at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (3rd nomination) & other Pakistani politician articles (may be they have paid you) as your area of interest is only Pakistani politics. Anyways i dont want to put allegations on someone without proper evidence like you do. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, as you know, I was the first one to respond to the parallel thread at ANI pointing out that you maybe are being targeted by bad actors. So, you know where I stand. My point was/is, like many new editors, including other editors involved in this thread, your report takes the form "This editor or group of editors are up to something. You can clearly see it from their contributions. Admins, please investigate." The problem is admins are not investigators. You would have to be insanely lucky to get someone else to investigate the issues that you have identified when you yourself give so little to go on. As the person most familiar with the case and the one most affected by it, you should be the one to investigate and write up a proper report that uninvolved editors can easily follow and uninvolved admins can easily action. There is no admin assigned to work every thread at AN or ANI skipping none. So, if there's a thread that's a mess without proper evidence presented, it's likely all admins are going to skip over that section completely, or at least wait for someone to bring something that's easily actionable. That's all I wanted to convey. You have now added a few diffs, that's on the right track. But there are so many threads about this in so many places and multiple editors who've complained against you, multiple editors you've complained against in turn, it's still a big mess. If I have the time, I will try to see if there's enough of a pattern for a sockpuppetry investigation. But at this moment, the ANI thread looks the most promising. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great tip! I'll start making reports as suggested from now on. I never thought about it before, but now I've realised I do need to put in some effort to gather evidence and provide diffs because admins aren't here to investigate. Got it, point noted. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember how backlogged SPI usually is, so when you present them with a case that has really strong diffs (ABC made the same edit here as prior sock DEF, or same edit summaries repeatedly), or multiple examples for behavior. Remember that some things will be common across lots of accounts, for example the mobile edit or mobile web edit tag - those usually aren't anything definitive. CU's will absolutely help, but when you give them everything on a platter, it's an easy one for them to look into. When it's going to take time (and I'm certainly guilty of making filings where I know it will take time), they might skip the case and instead take 3-4 easy ones in the same timeframe.
Also, consider that you don't always need to reply to every post, especially if you're making the same (or almost the same) point you made earlier. Trust admins to pay attention to that - you look better sometimes for knowing when not to reply, especially if it just increases the drama level. And to second what others have said, you're doing good and you're listening and improving. Keep it up! Ravensfire (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OP has been directing toddler-level comments toward Saqib at various AfDs: [167], [168], [169]. They should probably just be indeffed per NOTHERE or CIR or something like that. We don't need to indulge such foolishness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, isn't there a sockfarm going after Saqib for their work with new page reviewing? It could be one of those again. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LilianaUwU, Yes it is. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang

edit
I've indefinitely blocked Aanuarif. – Joe (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 have discovered that Aanuarif is an undisclosed paid editor. I have sent the evidence by mail to Rosguill because they have actioned my reports in the past. If another admin is interested or willing, I would be happy to share it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef: No surprise here. @Saqib, don't get discouraged by the harassment, you're doing a good job. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly reminder that per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. and private evidence of UPE should be sent to the paid editing queue (paid-en-wp wikipedia.org) or an individual checkuser (if appropriate) who would then need to send it along to the queue if acting on it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's enough publicly available evidence of harassment of Saqib to block without consideration of the private evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OUTING lists admins multiple times as a group to send private info too. I guess the way to consolidate the two then is to say that editors can send evidence to admins who should forward it to functionaries rather than act on it.
I have forwarded the email to Firefly but since they've not edited since before I did that and the policy appears to say they would have to forward it again to paid-en anyway, I have now sent it to that queue as well. The most pertinent bits don't even need to be private, I don't think, but will wait for functionaries to make the call. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to the absolute surprise of nobody, emails sent to nebulous mailing lists get lost to the void, while Saqib continues to be harassed and Arif asks where the evidence is. So, here's the non-private part of the evidence:
  1. Aanuarif is Aayan Arif, per their self-disclosure at User talk:DragonflySixtyseven/Archive30#Request for review.
  2. Someone with the same name has published this advertisement for their Wikipedia services: link
  3. Articles listed on that advertisement as their prior work were created by Aanuarif: Dream Station Productions, Carma – The Movie and so on. Some articles in the list were created by other accounts with edit counts in the low hundreds, which is also true of the accounts that have showed up recently to complain about Saqib, including the latest, Fatam50.
  4. Aayan Arif and musiciansofpakistan, the site that hosts the advertisement, have also been cited a bunch of times in our articles, at least some of them by Aanuarif.[170]
— Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool, Now, let's take a closer look. Firstly, all those articles listed on the Blogspot website are about NON-notable subjects. I didn't nominate all of them for deletion because it might seem like I'm harassing @Aanuarif, by targeting all their creations. They even created a page on Babylicious and Waqar Zaka was one of the producers of this film. This suggests that @ Aanuarif and @Lkomdis have possible connections because both are targeting me due to the Waqar Zaka BLP. Moreover, one of the BLPs listed on this Blogspot is Sara Haider, which was created by Renamed user 864c542a23313621 (talk · contribs) and heavily edited by @Aanuarif. I just took a look at their creations, and they focus on the same area as @BeauSuzanne. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the blog page now says the page does not exist so I am assuming it's been taken down but here is the archive. S0091 (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef. I agree with Phil Bridger above me, there's enough public evidence of Aanuarif et al harrassing Saqib that there's no need to even bother with the UPE claims. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Aanuarif was a sock. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger Hi! You can clearly see that Saqib has been harassing users and this is not new for him. If you want to count me in undisclosed paid editor, I would love to see the evidence. However, there is clear evidence available of Saqib harassing users by deleting their pages. Recent being Dream Station Productions, Kashan Admani (which he moved to drafts just because I had created it), Natasha Khan (Pakistani singer), Kami Paul, Wahab Shah and countless others. How would you rate that behavior? I appreciate him for his contributions on Wikipedia but certain actions on one individual does fall into harassment. I would love to hear what you have to say here. Aanuarif (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aanuarif, Don't blame me. It's your own actions that have made it easier for me to catch UPE here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating articles for deletion and moving to draft space is in line with Wikipedia policy. It is not harassment. Saqib is not an administrator, so doesn't even have the power to delete pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef per the UPE evidence Usedtobecool provided above. S0091 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

About the articles

edit

Thanks for blocking Joe Roe. In the past, AN has found consensus to nuke UPE articles via consensus here. Saqib had concerns about the reliability of sources and the notability of topics way before the actual evidence for UPE was found. And he'd already nominated a bunch of them for deletion, perhaps not all. What's people's thoughts on deleting articles created by Aanuarif? I don't think it's fair to put the onus on good-faith editors to prove they are not worth retaining. AFD is also a bit of a lottery, and has even lower and iffy participation in third world topics. Many of Saqib's AFDs already see a disproportionate amount of participation from new accounts and IPs. I will make a list if there's interest. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, If there's a prior consensus to nuke articles created by confirmed UPE, I'd appreciate seeing that. And I concur with your assessment. For instance, take a look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are One (global collaboration song). The article appears to be a clear PROMO created by @Aanuarif. I nominated it for deletion, but some editors, whose opinions I respect, seem to misunderstand how GNG works. I'm concerned that these paid articles might end up being kept. It seems they've secured paid placements in several Pakistan RS, which fail under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Another example is Talk:Maha Ali Kazmi#COI tag (May 2024), created by Fatam50 (talk · contribs), likely a sock of @Aanuarif. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I didn't nominate all of the @Aanuarif creations for deletion. It's not because they meet WP:N, but because these articles have some coverage in RS. I had a fear that some editors may question my rationale for AfD'g these pages when there's already coverage. I remember some editors have already accused me of acting in bad faith in some AfDs. They might not be aware of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Sometimes, @CNMall41: has to explain WP:NEWSORGINDIA to them. I can say for sure that our Pakistani UPEs are gaining expertise. They understand they need coverage in RS to create WP articles about their clients and they're doing exactly that. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can consider mass draftifying the pages created by this UPE that haven't been draftified in the past. The community seems fine with draftifying COI/UPE articles. This may be easier than AFDing each one, and still gives them a chance to be salvaged if the page happens to be notable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae, That would work for me as well. However, I recall drafting a PROMO BLP created by @Aanuarif|, but after @Usedtobecool objected to it, I had to revert my changes. But If it's safe to draftify creations of @Aanuarif, I'm inclined to do so, as they pertain to non-notable individuals and are PROMO in nature, relying on paid placements coverage in RS. And definitely, once refined, we can move them back to the main NS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colmedy and Consistant Disregard of Rules

edit

User:Colmedy has been consistantly warned about their edits on the Mac Tonight Wikipedia page (see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Self-Published and Unreliable Sources on Mac Tonight). Following Archival, I pinged him on his page, citing the guidelines broken and a plea to stop their disruptive editing (User talk:Colmedy#Use of Unreliable and Self-published Sources). Colmedy has continued to violate these rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mac_Tonight&diff=prev&oldid=1222645245) after being warned by users like SounderBruce and myself, who both warned him twice. XCBRO172 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rules are there to be broken. I'm trying to read through the user talk page discussion and previous ANI thread and just seeing a wall of quoted guidelines. Could you please explain, in your own words, why you think Colmedy's edits to Mac Tonight are disruptive? – Joe (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they're being disruptive due to using unreliable sources, rejecting the colaberative nature of Wikipedia and accusing others of instigating edit wars (see Talk:Mac Tonight /Please try not to remove any of the information presented/Overuse of Maintenance Templates/This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources where they are used inappropriately.) XCBRO172 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to the collaborative nature of wikipedia, but i disagree with deleting large chunks of the page, especially without explaining it. Some stuff was from youtube (uploads of commercials and stuff), but those sources and info have since been removed. Im new to wikipedia, and its tough to actively learn how to improve a page without actual feedback on which areas had the issues. Deleting large chunks of properly cited stuff is arguably more disruptive. Colmedy (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a relief to hear, I also don't want this to blow up into a major thing; just please listen to those who know the rules, which as I have stated before are that excessive detail, as well as trivial information should be avoided. XCBRO172 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, User:Colmedy seems to be highly interested in this character and including all the information possible about him. To that end, there is a lot of detail here that is simply not encyclopedic or could be significantly better summarized. There is space however to contain much of the basic information.

For example,

"Between 1997 and 1998, McDonald's sponsored NASCAR Hall of Famer Bill Elliott with Mac Tonight featured on his car. In 2016, the Mac Tonight theme was McDonald's driver Jamie McMurray's Chip Ganassi Racing No. 1 Chevrolet SS throwback scheme for Darlington Raceway's Southern 500."

could be summarized as "From 1997 to 1998, McDonald's sponsored a NASCAR vehicle featuring the character"

I don't see a problem with his point of view, however, something I'm not seeing is any discussion on the talk page. User:Colmedy has asked several questions without reply/explanation. Based on the editing pattern, there seems to be a low-speed edit war in progress. All parties would do well to use the talk page and settle their differences of opinion in a civil manner. Buffs (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, this sounds like the sort of obsessively referenced detail that has made Wikipedia the greatest reference work in human history. It might be trivial and silly, but it's not false, and if it's sourced I don't see why we should take it upon ourselves to cull it. jp×g🗯️ 21:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the information that Colmedy introduces may not be false, they are extremely poorly sourced often being youtube archives of old advertisements by random people with only a couple hundred views on the high end, which fall under Wikipedia:NOYT. XCBRO172 (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, some of the information they added was accurate and I could confirm and possibly significant enough to be added to the "Legacy Section" that being "Mac Tonight was featured as Strong Bad’s Halloween costume in the Homestar Runner cartoon 'I Killed Pom Pom'," which ironically was not sourced. XCBRO172 (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be self-referenced in the sentence, but a link would be helpful (if applicable) to the primary source. I question whether that is notable Buffs (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create protected page

edit

Please redirect glownigger and glowniggers to List of slang terms for federal agents. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of which reliable sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are a few in the article, although frankly, the article itself is kind of terrible -- is there really a reason to have this as a standalone article and not a section in another? jp×g🗯️ 22:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger, this one, already in the /pol/ article. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @JPxG, who commented while I was writing my previous comment. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your source looks fine, but I am here inclined to let someone else deal with the work of creating the article; this week I already had one guy on the internet post a giant angry screed under my real name, on account of my opening a thread on a noticeboard tangentially related to another thread that mentioned a right-wing politician earlier this week. In that case, the administration of the message board was kind enough to hide the thread from public view after a couple days of arguing, but I do not currently feel like futzing around and finding out in re creating a page with the title "glownigger". jp×g🗯️ 21:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect creation request

edit

Hi, please can an administrator create a redirect from Deji Olatunji to KSI#ComedyShortsGamer, as an {{R from relative}}? The title is protected in two separate ways (matching an entry on the title blacklist and also being individually salted); however, there is information regarding him at this anchor in the article, and an RFD discussion for Comedy Shorts Gamer (entertainer) was recently closed as keep based on this.

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 21:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Scottsbluff

edit

In moving Uptown Scottsbluff back to article space, I accidentally created User:Uptown Scottsbluff. Could someone R3 that please? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Love10 is at UTRS

edit

Peace Love10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was AE banned and lost TPA for "WP:ECR violations, canvassing and, (vile) personal attacks". I bring this here to see if there is consensus to restore TPA and carry request here for consideration. Please see UTRS appeal #88074 . Please see user talk for details. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The block reason was "WP:ECR violations, canvassing and, (vile) personal attacks", but the reason for TPA removal is unstated and appears to be along the lines of "just... just too frustrating to deal with". No additional ECR violations, canvassing, or personal attacks happened after the block. They just kept ignoring advice and saying and doing clueless things. Normally I'd say that TPA removal was a bit bitey, and favor restoring it, but in this particular case... I'd probably have gotten frustrated too. After seeing the UTRS request, I don't have high hopes for an unblock. They just don't seem to be understanding anything. Maybe if one admin took time, and other admins and editors left it alone, some progress could be made. But who would be up for doing that with this editor, and how would you even keep kibitzers out? What area would this editor even want to edit until they became extended confirmed? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections if people want to restore talk page access. I strongly oppose unblocking, though. Egregious personal attacks, blaming others, etc. Reading through the UTRS request, I don't even see Peace Love10 retracting their personal attack. They appear to believe it was accurate albeit rude, they just accept that if they make another such attack, they'd be blocked again. I don't believe this user would be a net positive. Again, though, no objections if people want to restore talk page access. Note that ScottishFinnishRadish is the original blocking admin. --Yamla (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, ping @ScottishFinnishRadish: for consideration of restoring TPA for user to request unblock here(or at the AE place for that). -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. No objections here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restoring TPA, at least temporarily, is probably okay, but reading the UTRS appeal, I think it may be pointless. I wouldn't unblock based on that appeal. Seems to be a lack of clue, and a lack of effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annnnnd as user claims to need a translator to edit in English, I advised them to edit in a language for which the do not need a translator. As I already recused due to my inability to be objective, it would be best if someone else decide on bringing over what we've got or closing with the sandard offer. Best.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying the egregious attacks don't exist, but it's hard to assess when they are all blocked from view. Likewise, the talk page appears to be filled with "Wait, what did I do?" kinds of comments. While that is common for people who are disruptive, it's also common for noobs. I'm not at all interested in unblocking without a clear rationale, but I'd also like to know more details. I understand redacting some things, but I find it unrealistic for "us commoners" to make an intelligent decision without the facts. Could we at least be vague about what was said? "removed profane remarks about another user IAW WP:BLP" or "redacted libelous remarks about user:ABC"?
I support restoring talk page access. Buffs (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment:: @Deepfriedokra Just curious, why are you giving us an appeal link if we can't view it?thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. I could have been clearer. I needed more admins to look at that ticket and make a decision. Then I saw where they were using a translator which misstated what they were trying to say, and that's why they were in the mess they're in. Which mooted the whole question. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: I'm fine with them having TPA again due to an unexplained removal, but if they abuse it, it should be taken away again. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 18:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have declined Peace Love10's unblock request on the basis of their stated lack of English proficiency, although I did tell them that I would copy a future appeal to AE if they are able to constructively edit a different language Wikipedia. As such, there isn't any reason to reinstate their talk page access at this time. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about TPA? I'm not seeing anyone objecting to that. Buffs (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banning User:User 28062F033EOF457DC93EEFAABBET2C3

edit

This user is known for creating badly spelled "warning templates" and editing articles related to Windows. In addition, they keep evading their block by making sockpuppets; feels like there's a new one every business day. Does this warrant a ban and/or an LTA case? thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that they should be banned per WP:3X. Not sure what the requirements for a LTA case are but that should definitely be a thing to consider. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would the benefit of either of those things be? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ban is probably warranted per WP:3X, but there would probably need to be lots and lots of sockpuppets with systematic abuse going on for a while to warrant an LTA case (think something like this or this). Not saying it's impossible, but only make an LTA case as a last resort. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 15:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closure by inexperienced editor

edit

Normally I would not do this, but I have concerns over the closure of Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)#RfC: Past or present tense for the bridge by Charcoal feather (talk · contribs), not the least that one of their closure statements is factually wrong, namely that they falsely claimed that a majority of participants agreed the bridge meaningfully exists, when in fact opinions were split 50-50. I request someone much more experienced with closing close discussions like this to take a second look.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly understand what makes this case so unique that it requires you to ignore Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures and open this without speaking to the closer first. Nil Einne (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see that page linked from WP:RFC. Thanks, this can wait until they respond here or on their talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Opinions were split 50-50 I counted 9 – 13 excluding the last participant who I editconflicted with. Charcoal feather (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While Charcoal feather is a relatively inexperienced editor, it is always a good idea to approach an editor on their user talk page before coming to a file a noticeboard complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not count correctly, especially as some of the editors in favor in the original discussion did not explicitly comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a weird closure that should be left to a more experienced editor. It should therefore be overturned. (Disclaimer: I'm involved in the discussion.) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen, Uninvolved editor: Charcoal feather's closure looks premature - the fact they edit conflicted proves that they did not wait for the discussion to run its full course. There were still new comments coming in that could have influenced the decision. The fact that they're an "inexperienced" editor (I wouldn't class 700 edits as inexperienced but ok) doesn't really matter much to be honest, but the closure should have only been done after few or no new meaningful comments were coming in (especially for such a divided discussion). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matrix: Eh, the RFC template had expired, the last comment was made a week ago and the discussion was listed at WP:CR. I wouldn't call it premature. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Facepalm I read all the comments in the discussion with the month "April" as "May"... reevaluating my position with the new information, the closure actually looks fine, I see a rough consensus (13 to 10) for present tense and I doubt the consensus would have changed much more with extra time. I don't see anything that contravenes WP:RFCCLOSE. Endorse, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

edit

Hi, I am user:Lazy-restless ban ID: #17, I want to be unblocked and agree to follow what authority commands me to do. What should I do to be unblocked, please help me. See my contribution, previously I did a lot of good edits and created a number of good articles and templates. I want to contribute more. I believe that I can do a lot of good positive conteibution to wikipedia. 202.134.10.131 (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, don't use any IPs or users as sockpuppets (as you have done here) to edit on the English Wikipedia for 6 months, then you can follow WP:SO to potentially get unblocked. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

edit

@Aliwxz has been consistently making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as he did at Sistan and Baluchestan province (disruptive) and he also blank out and removed portions of zabol contents. He has been treading very close to a full block, i think administrators should look into his behavior and put a stop to it. Balash-Vologases (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it mildly humorous that you lifted the language been treading very close to a full block from the discussion of your own partial block. Also, you have failed to notify the user in question as required in the large red box at the top of this page. Also, two edits you don't agree with, one three days ago and the other a month ago, doesn't seem like it it needs administrative intervention. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you check talk page, he has been warned about his edits but he has been removing contents that related to baloch in almost all his edits. Balash-Vologases (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

edit

Hi all. I would appreciate it if an admin could close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States. It is a sprawling, five-week discussion which has recently been mentioned in a local newspaper, and I think it could benefit from an admin closure (which ideally would make sense to the news organization) before legions of meatpuppets show up. (The semi-time-sensetitive nature is why I am coming directly here rather than WP:CR.) Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to Protect page Wikipedia Page - Kailash Hospital

edit
No administrative action needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Recently someone with the user name @2409:40d0:37:1091:244c:44ff:fe74:7d64 edited out wikipedia page - Kailash Hospital by changing founder name from Dr. Mahesh Sharma to Gujjar. So I request you to kindly apply semi protection on this wikipage so that new user can't edit or vandalism this page. Shubh84 (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shubh84 Page protection is requested at WP:RFPP. One edit is not necessarily enough to warrant protection, there must be a demonstratable, ongoing problem with vandalism or disruption to warrant protection, especially if less broad measures like warnings and blocks of users themselves are ineffective. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
user: 2409:40d0:37:1091:244c:44ff:fe74:7d64, did changed founder name in infobox in Kailash Hospital's Wikipedia page, also remove name from content body of the article. This user also make another changes in their founder's wikipedia page as well Dr. Mahesh Shama infobox, by adding abusive word "randi" or "rand" in spouse name & in children name. If you search these words meaning in country like India you will find out how much abusive these words.
Is that be the evidence for protection?? For atleast to protect their founder's page Dr. Mahesh Sharma Shubh84 (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that might be evidence to block the IP, but not protecting the article from editing, which could affect legitimate editors. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what should i need to do from here? Shubh84 (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the IP returns, warn the IP on their user talk page and request discussion; if they persist, report them to WP:UAA. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! help appreciated! Shubh84 (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - please report persistant vandalism to WP:AIV not WP:UAA WaggersTALK 12:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, wrong wikilink. Shubh84 331dot (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pages aren't normally protected because of a single instance of vandalism; it only happens when there's long-term disruption. Also page protection requests should go to WP:RPP (though, again, it'd get declined for this reason). — Czello (music) 10:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history of the page the result would be:  Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

edit
There is a consensus that no specific findings or stipulations regarding the use of Mondoweiss in BLPs were warranted by the discussion. Editors should adhere to the standard practices for BLPs. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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

Notified: [171]

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

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

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

Uninvolved

edit
  • Endorse close Amend While the specifics of BLPs weren't addressed in-depth, it's a reasonable addendum for clarity. They can be used but people should be careful with each individual article...not sure why that's not a blanket statement for every source on Wikipedia. For example, the NYT has published some egregious "journalism", but that doesn't mean it's always wrong on the basic facts. Every source should be evaluated for accuracy on its merits. If I say "Person AB said in an op-ed '<insert quote here'" and then cite it, there's very little reason to doubt that statement is true, but quoting it for purposes of establishing it as something that's true is inappropriate without additional verification. Buffs (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Amended: This sounds like a WPian hearing what they want to hear. There isn't a need to add additional steps beyond what we normally do if people are going to abuse that to exclude the contributions of others. I'd prefer to keep it as-is, but I certainly can see that point. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow...the EXACT reason I said it SHOULD be included was used...#clairvoyance Buffs (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend Remove the BLP clarification: 1) Regardless of the sources' reliability, we always them with great caution for biographies of living people. 2) No valid reason was given for why Mondoweiss should be treated differently from the other RS. 3) Such an unneeded clarification can easily be misconstrued to mean that Mondoweiss shouldn't be used for BLP. Just this week, one of the RfC participants used the close statement to claim that we should avoid using Mondoweiss for BLP. Obviously, it ended up in RSN again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend to remove the statement about BLPs. If only two editors made an unsupported assertion and nobody else discussed it, then it isn't a valid part of the consensus. I'm all for interpreting arguments to try and pull a consensus out of the flames where it isn't obvious, but "divining within the greater context" in this manner is a left-field supervote and should be removed. The rest of the closure is reasonable. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend per M.Bitton and Wordsmith. We already treat BLP with caution, and this issue was not discussed enough to reach consensus. If needed, a new discussion on how to use MW with regard to BLP can be made. Meanwhile, I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6 to conclude that option 3 should be reached. Note that since option 2 is essentially the middle ground, option 1 and 3 have the same weight, but option 4 has twice the weight of option 1 when skewing option 2. This doesn’t seem very fair, and then rounding 2.6 to 3 because of this is increasing the unfairness, leading to essentially 13 editors overruling 21 editors. starship.paint (RUN) 03:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A-men Buffs (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two minor points of clarification: I have zero problem with amending per above and, while I can't -- objectively -- read the RfC that way, I would personally be glad to see this outcome.
    That said, I am concerned that some editors are reading the aggressive and misinformed arguments of two relatively new editors on the "anti-" MW side who have attempted, very poorly, to summarize my close and assuming those summaries accurately represent the close. The only closing statements I wrote are this one and this explanatory comment, both of which are much more modest than the way in which two editors are summarizing them to make sweeping changes across multiple articles. To avoid the further spread of this misinformation, I would ask, as a personal favor, that editors attempting to describe my close (regardless of where you land on it) reflect only on the source material, and not the apocrypha it's spawned. To wit:
  • "I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6" The "average" of 2.6 was never used for anything (and, yes, I realize the incidental appearance of this meaningless number in the close has been fixated upon by the aforementioned editors to make major changes to articles). As per the text of the close rationale, the number 2.6 was simply noted as "indicative but not definitive as per WP:NOTAVOTE" and then immediately discarded as "not clearly learning toward either option" before the narrative analysis began.
  • "to conclude that option 3 should be reached" The RfC close reached no such conclusion in any dimension of time or space; in this reality or any parallel reality that the mind of man can conceive or imagine. It stated that no "consensus as to its underlying reliability" emerged which, if anything at all, was a "2" close (but, actually, no consensus).
To summarize, this was a "no consensus" close with a relatively modest (and not proscriptive) BLP corollary described by Buffs in this first (now stricken) comment. The fact my loquacious reasoning, intended to promote transparency, instead provided an opening to wedge in battleground behavior is beyond both my control and mandate (RfC closers are not RfC enforcers). Chetsford (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarity...I think... :-) Buffs (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Involved

edit
  • I've archived my discussion with Voorts here for ease of review (versus diffs). For what it's worth, considering the contentious topic area involved, I am in full agreement with Voorts that review of the close is appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend close to read "and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution for biographies of living people." I don't think that the relative silence on the issue should have been construed as agreement with the two editors raising that specific, there was a lot else going on in the discussion besides that, especially since one of those editors appears to have construed the close as a license to remove citations for BLPs. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend close to 3 (Gunrel), optionally clarify the statement about BLP requirements per the qualifiers suggested by Chetsford per the arguments made by @Chess and @BilledMammal, which were not sufficiently addressed; also using the votes as an indicator. Acknowledging that I advanced the BLP arguments poorly (and thanking @Chetsford for his generally accurate deciphering of what I meant), I would suggest the following, in the spirit of his comment made here, @Bobfrombrockley here and as a compromise: used with great caution for biographies of living (and recently deceased) people, and not to be used in cases of (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself. In addition and as a partial clarification, perhaps e) should be content marked as activism and similar would be appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're going to need to bolster your opinion more than "we should do what I want", when support for #2 had ~6.5:1 support over yours. This is not the place to relitigate this RfC, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I‘m pretty sure you’re off on the math, as I voted 4 (which obviously endorses 3 over 2). That option obviously does not have consensus (and just for the sake of clarity, removal of problematic BLP uses is not backdoor deprecation, the overwhelming majority of MW uses are non-BLP or unproblematic). The straight vote count (as stated by Chetsford) has the average at 2.6, and of the counted votes, 14 votes included at least 3 (including 2 or 3), while 21 did not, of which an overwhelming amount were 3 or lower (please check my math).
    I was unaware that we are not supposed to reference specific points when requesting a reassessment of the outcome, and have struck that part, except in context of the phrasing to avoid (light) plagiarism. Thanks for making me aware, this is one of my first contributions to such a noticeboard :) FortunateSons (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When giving a list of options (1. Action A 2. Action B 3. Action C 4. Action D and 5. Action E), saying "the average is 2.6 so we should choose option 3" is a horrible misunderstanding of statistics. You are heavily weighting all other actions other than #1 (Example, 20 people !vote 1, 2 people !vote 2, and 3 people !vote 5, the "average" is 2 despite an overwhelming preponderance of people !voting 1...in other words, a 5 is worth 5x a 1). Rounding up only further exacerbates the issue. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Second attempt at a more policy-compliant argument, please correct me if this one is also wrong:
    The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed, and similar arguments where not fully rebuffed in general; therefore, the section regarding BLP should remain as is, or be alternatively clarified while remaining in the spirit of discussion and close.
    Regarding the status of the entire source, I believe that the arguments made by those voting for „higher than 2“ should have led to a close of 3, and respectfully request that it is amended (as well). FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed" They were addressed. You just didn't agree. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend per The Wordsmith. My own views on the source aside, the issue of BLP use was barely discussed - there was no consensus on it one way or another, so to assert one in the closure seems odd. The Kip 19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't object to the amendment that is being proposed here, because I think it goes without saying that any source where there are serious reliability concerns should be used with extreme caution in BLPs, especially where content is potentially defamatory. While no consensus was reached, given that 15 out of 36 !votes (I think) were for an option higher than 2 and only one editor considered option 1, this is obviously a source with serious reliability concerns. My only worry is that editors will take this amendment as permission not to use extreme caution with the source on BLPs or, worse, that this source has somehow been cleared for use in BLPs, so I hope that editors supporting this amendment will be vigilant in ensuring that we do not use this poor source inappropriately in BLPs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit
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 cut off by involved admin User:Just Step Sideways

edit
Heat>light — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk • contribs)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
 
Just a few thousand more words and it'll be just right. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion was only open for two days and it involved a DYK BLP complaint and AndyTheGrump's uncivil remarks referring to DYK editors as idiots. There were two simultaneous unrelated threads about ATG's incivility at ANI but discussion in this thread was not concluded. In fact just hours ago the thread was active. I think the JSS close was involved because of their critical offline commentary and appearance of a friendship with ATG on an offline site that refers to DYK as a clusterfuck.

  1. JSS and ATG are both very involved in criticism of DYK offline in fact JSS posted there minutes ago.
  2. I went to the JSS talk page but my discussion was also cutoff by JSS.
  3. Here is another relevant discussion of self reflection at DYK "BLP_issues_with_Andrew_Tate_DYK_hook" also ongoing at WT:DYK

I think there is more than just the appearance of a conflict and cutting off an active discussion is not a good idea. I believe that the thread should be allowed to continue and the JSS close should be backed out. Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you are going to claim 'critical offline commentary' as evidence, please provide the necessary link. I don't have the faintest idea what you are referring to, making it rather difficult to respond... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All these three letter acronyms, and "an offline site"—agh! Consistency, damnit! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The off-wiki site is my onlyfans. JSS and Andy are my only subs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh la la, Mr Radish! I demand that you SFR my WPO, if you BLP. ~~ AJM (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Jesus. There was clearly no consensus for a block, nor was any coming. Belonging to the same forum doesn't trigger being involved or mean there's some deeper alliance or I wouldn't have warned Andy that I was going to block him if it happened again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish In my experience we do not close threads that are very active with editor participation. It only serves to create the appearance of a conflict when the closer and the subject of the thread are yucking it up about the DYK clusterfuck on WO. Nobody needs to pretend they do not know how to find that rubbish. Lightburst (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I haven't posted anything on the WPO forum for over a month. Not in the clusterfuck thread, not anywhere. Still, never mind facts if they are going to get in the way of a good honest witch-hunt... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no witch hunt. JSS/Beeblebrox said this at WO, Andy is usually only this rude when he also happens to be editorially correct. Consenesus is not on his side here, clearly, so now that factor is out the window and a number of folks have pretty clearly been waiting for the opportunity. Well the community was cut off by JSS. My own experience at ANI lasted for two weeks, yours was less than two days. WP:DUCK comes to mind. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unsure if something is a duck or not, you could always see if it floats. A very old technique, useful in other circumstances too, I believe... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you started this cluster. How in any possible interpretation can that make it a witch hunt? Valereee (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they mean the WP:BADSITES witch-hunt, where any members of the bad site are in cahoots and yucking it up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, Andy, you're not objecting to this thread as a witch hunt? Valereee (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm objecting to allegations entirely unaccompanied by the 'links and diffs' noted as a requirement at the top of this page. I was under the impression that failure to provide such links was considered potentially sanctionable, even when the charge seems to be heresy. Or sharing opinions with somebody about something. Which is what the 'reasoning' behind this thread amounts to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Andy. This site is just so hard on you! I do hope things look up soon. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best time to close a thread is when it will accomplish nothing but continue to waste editor time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I favored a block, but time passed and there wasn't consensus for it. I don't object to the closure, especially given continuing discussion of the actual issue. Mackensen (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close didn't tell everyone to shut up, it pointed to where a discussion on the merits is already taking place, in the DYK space, which seems appropriate. As for being chummy on WPO, I don't know that agreeing sometimes is chummy. I post there sometimes as well, many admins and editors do, often when someone makes a false claim about them. That doesn't mean much of anything and it certainly doesn't trigger WP:involved. The only reason to continue the discussion at ANI was if there was a snowball's chance that Andy was going to get sanctioned, or there was more evidence, or something was going to be implemented or change somehow. There was a failed poll for a block, there was much discussion, but nothing more was likely to come of it, and Andy saw that many people found him to be too rude. Another day or five wouldn't have made a difference. At that point, moving to focus on the DYK merits isn't unreasonable and likely a good idea if the goal is to solve the issues at DYK. Not every ANI discussion results in sanctions, or clean understandings, or even a desirable outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation of how ANI works for Andy. It was not so easy for me or many others. You said Andy saw that many people found him to be too rude... seriously? That was new information for him? He called me and my colleagues idiots and when everyone begged him to walk it back he refused. As you know, often there are other proposals started when one fails at ANI but JSS arrested the process. I will take a break now DB, I do not have enough street cred for ANI or AN. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about street cred, it's about realistic expectations. Once you see it's not going anywhere, you're just beating a dead horse.. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (alt: Dennis Brown) 05:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, two more editors' real names are posted on that site for no reason other than they disagreed with the regulars of that site. JSS since you had so much to say on that site about this ANI thread before you closed it, are you now going to say something to your friends there about it this time, or will you stay quiet like you did the previous times? Is this the fifth time I've complained to you about the exact same thing, or the tenth or twentieth? Each time it's a different editor being harassed, I've lost count now.

To all of you who tolerate this, who chit chat regularly with the people that harass editors you disagree with by posting their RL info publicly online, are you going to wait until one of those freaks shows up at one of our doorsteps before you realize what fire you're playing with over there? Levivich (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I closed the section on blocking Andy for 24 hours because it seemed clear that was not going to happen, there was neither a consensus to do so nor ongoing disruption of the same type coming from Andy. I closed the thread on DYK because it was not an active discussion any more, the most recent timestamp at that time being 2 days old, and discussion had moved elsewhere. I don't see anyone buying Lightburst's argument that these actions were somehow a violation of WP:INVOLVED, so I feel like we're done here. I'm not interested in having the "WPO is evil and you are evil for particpating there" argument. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 16:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think I could be confused for someone with a lot of sympathy for WPO, but that thread about Andy wasn't going to go anywhere. We don't don't really have a way to deal with "light incivility" by experienced users beyond people getting their objections out of their system at ANI and perhaps closing with an umpteenth tsk-tsk. For the record, I do agree that JSS is involved with regard to AndyTheGrump. The two aren't just two people who happen to use the same website -- they're two of the most active users on a site about Wikipedia. This board would (and should) lose its collective mind if one of the most active members of, say, a Wikimedia chapter jumped in to close a discussion about another of the most active members of that chapter. But the fact that JSS was involved doesn't make it the wrong closure -- we typically allow for a little leeway for relatively uncontroversial involved actions. I think that applies here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I backed out the closure. SN prematurely closed a discussion about premature closures. After they ripped DYK for a BLP issue that they helped cause by asking for a negative hook. You cannot make this up. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: I'll be reverting your revert, of course. Basically, if you want to accuse me of being INVOLVED, in your usual misunderstanding of the most basic policies and guidelines, then you need to buck up or ship out. I understand you need validation, but it should not be at other editors' expense: not just the parties you have tried to incriminate, but those whose time you continue to waste with this foolish posturing.
The only irony here, LB, is calling on "the professionals"; you wouldn't know professionalism if it poked you in the eye. ——Serial Number 54129 18:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're involved because you're a regular poster there, including posting in the thread over there about this thread here. Don't throw your lot in with the crowd over there, SN, you're better than that. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: you are proving to me everyday why my oppose at your RFA was spot on. Nice of you to shit on my concern with your Onlyfans bullshit and a sarcastic image. Maybe go work on your shitflow diagram and take it to FA. Lightburst (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was working on that, but got busy with other things. Gathering sources is coming along nicely though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of Shooting of Robert Fico improperly transferred without discussion to Attempted assassination of Robert Fico

edit

During the development of Shooting of Robert Fico, @Lukt64 emptied its contents and pasted it into their redirect Attempted assassination of Robert Fico which is now the focus of editing. It appears to be undiscussed whereas the user claims it was discussed. @Zzuuzz is the editor that has been reverting my edits to restore the original title and its history.

Far as I know, a copy+paste move isn't part of proper editing (then again I did it), so I'm requesting it to be transferred over to the old title without another admin running into conflict with me while the article is still in early development stage. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain where I said it was discussed. Lukt64 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lukt64 Kindly show me the discussion, I am guessing it is Talk:Attempted assassination of Robert Fico#Moved page to here? If you mean that, absoloutely not a discussion at all. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to have the time today, or possibly tomorrow, to deal with this, so I defer everything to other admins :) I've already placed an attribution template on Talk:Attempted assassination of Robert Fico if you want some details. I see some scope for a round-robin and histmerge, before another move, if that's what's deemed appropriate. Or some variation... And someone needs to keep telling people to stop copypasting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the clean up now is probably going to be messy considering the copy + pasted article has over 160 revisions already. Kindly requesting further admin inputs Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging some recently active admins if I can get them on board, apologies and thank you in advance for putting up with this if you will. I'm not optimistic about what can be done, but better to ask the experienced @Bearcat @Cbl62 @PFHLai @SuperMarioMan @Wbm1058 @Liz
PS: I have this discussion subscribed, no need to ping Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wbm1058, thank you for performing the merge. I just recently learned such functions exist on Wiki today lol Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The earlier, parallel history is now in the page history of the 2024 Fico assessination attempt redirect. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion appreciated

edit
user in question blocked indef by bbb23 per ANI [172] -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

...on User talk:GoneWithThePuffery, where I just dropped a "final warning" for harassment. Puffery has a habit of making things personal already, as their edit history shows, and when they got falsely accused of socking (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoneWithThePuffery) and Talk:Snell's law, they kind of exploded. I don't know about "unbelievable muppet" and "piss off very quickly"--muppet isn't much of an insult, and "fuck off" isn't blockable so "piss off" wouldn't be either, but please see what I just reverted on Talk:Snell's law: that's just over the top. The editor is likely right about content (I agree with them so they must be right), and they're highly educated and smart, but their attitude is not yet right for a collaborative project. All that to say, eh, I hope my "final warning" isn't too much. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piss off very quickly is what I say to my dogs when they make me take them out in the middle of the night. Warning is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh don't they have dog doors where you live? Porter just went outside by himself--but then he's a Good Boy. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dog doors, winters, and bears don't mix. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Woof! Drmies (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been in communication with that user on my user talk page. In my most recent comment, I gave them some blunt advice: if they aren't on their best behaviour toward other editors, they might find themselves blocked. I also put a similar reminder to all editors to focus on content and not contributors. And I hope the dogs are okay and the bears stay away, but as far as that talk page goes, the proverbial horse is long gone.
(And I "wintered over" near Chicago with a dachshund. I had to shovel snow for dogs to go outside to take care of business, and the house didn't have a doggie door, so I had to go out with them too.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies, @C.Fred, @ScottishFinnishRadish, I see here a pattern that I saw so many times earlier on Wikipedia: other users misbehaving and then complaining after they receive a retort. The matter is very simple: I made some perfectly sensible edits on the page of Snell's law and after that an edit war broke out where I had no part in at all. When I went to the page after a week or so, I saw that all my edits had been reverted. On the talk page I asked why, and immediately I was accused of "evading a block" (I wasn't even blocked...), "sock puppetry" and "not contributing to Wikipedia". When one of the users unjustly accused me of sock puppetry on my talk page, I told him to "piss off". And now I'm getting the warning? This is the world upside down!
@Drmies, it's really absurd what you are doing here. You know perfectly well what happened and which users are to blame for this situation. You talk about harassment. Seriously, what are you talking about? This guy came to my talk page, to accuse me of something I didn't do, and now I'm harassing someone? You must be joking. There are now two users specifically on the page of Snell's law, who are consistently engaged in uncivil behavior and are avoiding any form of discussion. But that's apparently no problem? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

User Vif12vf disruptive edits

edit

Could someone please have a look at the nonsensical reversions of user Vif12vf? For example, he keeps on adding content about Nuevo Movimiento al Socialismo on the page of Movimiento al Socialismo (Argentina), even though these are different parties. The Spanish Wikipedia makes this very clear (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuevo_Movimiento_al_Socialismo). Further, he continues with removing content in the lead of the page of the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina), even though the sources are given in the text, its four national deputies are well known, and the infobox states that the party has four national deputies as well. And so on and so forth.

This behaviour is precisely the reason why the atmosphere on Wikipedia becomes toxic. 2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, the IP above makes additions without making it clear where their information comes from. They also removed some information containing a reference at Workers' Left Front as part of this process. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NMAS is not MAS. The PTSU is not a founding member of the Workers' Left Front (thus the reference was misinterpreted and didn't belong in the article). In addition, the articles request the user to "expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article".2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expansions with content from other-language versions of wikipedia still has to be accompanied with the actual sources used, and wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But ... the sentence the IP is removing is completely unsourced? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need a source that states that NMAS is not MAS? Ridiculous.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam If you are referring to the notion from MAS, then this is the case with most of that stub, which generally speaking hardly appears to be notable enough to have an article in the first place! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the spanish article, while containing a fair bit more content, also appear to be poorly sourced. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the fact that you edit-warred to keep an unsourced sentence in the article, while demanding that the IP editor provide a source to remove it. Not really how it works. Also, your first revert you treated like the IP was vandalising, when they clearly provided a reason. You've had a previous 3 month block for edit warring a few years ago, and sweveral edit warring blocks in the past. Were I you, I would take accusations of edit warring seriously, and back away from the edge, before you find yourself banned, or with a 1RR limitation, or something. The talk page is open, as is AFD. What is not open is to disregard a good faith editor because they are editing with an IP, and edit warring. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, you were edit warring too. Please use the talk page section I graciously created for the two of you. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I see that you added a dubious tag. That's good enough for me. But there is still incorrect infomation in the Workers' Left Front page, reverted back in by Vif12vf. The PSTU is not a founding member. In addition, he removed the names of the national deputies of the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina) from the lead of its article.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I would suggest adding a {{dubious}} tag there, too, and open a section of that talk page. It takes about 1 minute. 2 if you're plodding like me. When there is no obvious-to-everyone right or wrong version, we usually default to the status quo ante until it's discussed. The discussion doesn't need to be long and protracted, we just need to see if there's a consensus for one or the other. Or, optimally, one of you actually changes the other's mind. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Can I add back the names of the national deputies removed by Vif12vf on the Socialist Workers' Party (Argentina)-page? I have sources.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would place you over 3RR on that article. Why not start a section on the talk page? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My advice would be to just let it go for a day. Technically you'd be at 3 reverts on that page too. Don't risk an edit warring block just when things seem to be cooling down. Also, a final note, the use of "vandalism" to describe edits that you disagree with, but were intended to be good edits, is really a red flag to many people. Don't risk derailing a discussion by calling someone who annoys you a vandal. It backfires every time. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understand. I thought that Vif12vf had misunderstood or something, but then he began to spam my IP-page with warnings and began demanding sources for the removal of one unsourced sentence (as you also have noted above). That doesn't makes sense at all. Maybe this doesn't constitute vandalism but it's disingenuous and disruptive. Anyway, I won't add back the names. I leave that task to someone else.2001:2020:311:BED5:484C:45C:2286:85D5 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vif12vf is over 3RR on Movimiento al Socialismo (Argentina). Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jake Wartenberg Oops, thats my bad, lost count in the middle of everything else going on. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linas is still openly actively editing

edit
(Non-admin closure) Linas have been unblocked. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If I see correctly, the last discussion about this situation was archived without close and without action at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive326#Block_review_:_Linas in 2020. The user is indefinitely blocked and still openly actively editing as 67.198.37.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), proudly displaying their editing history on their talk page (diff).

I initially placed a long-duration block evasion block, but looking at the previous discussion (and I might have overlooked newer ones) and the interactions on their user talk page, I'm left without a strong desire for blocking, and mostly baffled.

The easiest way out of the situation would be unblocking the account in case there's consensus for doing so, I guess.

This is so weird. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unblock This is a silly situation, either they should be unblocked or the IP should be blocked for much longer period. Established editors evading a block or scrutiny by not logging in is a major reason editing as an IP can be so difficult. Having scrubbed back through their talk page edits the issue of personal attacks and harassment doesn't appear to have been an issue recently, and if they return to their old ways the account and the IP can be appropriately blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unblock either they will continue to do good work, or the pre-existing sanctions will allow any admin to make quick work of them. FortunateSons (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An IAR unblock would have near-zero cost, and a decent upside. The old, rouge Floquenbeam would have just unblocked, but the more cowardly new Floquenbeam will just comment instead, and leave it for someone else. If they've been blocked for 12 years, another 12 hours won't hurt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely unblock; that 2020 (3rd-party) appeal reached a pretty clear consensus, and it's a shame it never got acted upon. I don't even think it's a matter of rope anymore; the original block was rather spurious, to say the least. ——Serial Number 54129 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unblock - during the previous third-party appeal that was imposed on them without their consent (User talk:67.198.37.16#Ask forgiveness), they claimed that bureaucrats told them to edit anonymously while their account was blocked (!), while simultaneously claiming that the account wasn't theirs, and when that was not gaining traction (because they obviously are evading a block) they switched to saying that the block had expired (it had not) and repeatedly insulted the admin that tried to explain what "indefinite" means. After they were shown that the account was definitely still blocked and also shown the policies against block evasion and personal attacks, they changed their strategy to simply say loudly that they were breaking no rules, and accused everyone who did not agree of lying and being "in cahoots" with one another for sinister motives, including at least one editor who had been supporting them, just because they were admins and because "bureaucrats are the layer above WP admins" (they're not). This was all in response to someone having posted a link to the AN unblock discussion which up to that point had been rather strongly supporting unblocking them. This user has an extreme persecution complex which is not compatible with editing a collaborative project where fellow editors will challenge your work from time to time. This block-evading IP should be blocked, and should continue to be blocked each time they come back, until they make a proper unblock request acknowledging their poor behaviour.
For the record I am in favour of an IAR interpretation of unblocking editors in mistaken cases of inadvertent block evasion, or where a blocked user has managed a history of productive contributions in spite of a block for a one-time incident and where the behaviour has not continued. This is not one of those situations. A user whose response to being told they're breaking the rules is to state that the rules don't exist should not be editing here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked Linas based on the discussion above. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion procedure for draft articles created in violation of arbitration remedies

edit

Is there a standard (speedy?) deletion process for cases where a non-extendedconfirmed user creates a draft article that unambiguously falls within a topic area covered by EC restrictions e.g. Draft:Bmaryamin_Ambush by Special:Contributions/Humbler21 with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict? Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See RfC: Status of G5 and subsequent discussion. Admin can decide not to, though. Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators. Levivich (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The current apparently unresolved status increases the chance that I will file an SPI request under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NormalguyfromUK. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do both? Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or neither. Laziness is a factor. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattythewhite

edit

Mattythewhite has consistently been changing the Brighton and Hove Albion manager section from vacant to Roberto De Zerbi even though a citation from the official Brighton and Hove Albion website announcing Roberto De Zerbi is leaving has been added Brightonandhovewinnerz (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brightonandhovewinnerz: You must notify an editor when you start a discussion about them. I have done that for you. Administrators don't adjudicate content disputes. Discuss it on the article's talk page and don't engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's leaving effectively after the Manchester United match on Sunday, that's why Mattythewhite and Struway2 have restored it to have De Zerbi as the manager on the article. Having it as vacant is factually incorrect. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:MisterHarrington

edit
(Non-admin closure) Closing per TJRC's suggestion, will move to WP:ANI if problematic behaviour continues, but they've now had multiple messages posted to their talk page, including by admins, so hopefully the questionable editing stops. Adam Black talk • contributions 12:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

MisterHarrington (talk · contribs) appears to be wilfully ignoring WP:ENGVAR. They have been warned by multiple editors on their talk page on at least five occasions (TJRC at 22:58, 14 May 2024, TJRC at 18:20, 15 May 2024, TJRC at 20:18, 15 May 2024, myself at 16:32, 17 May 2024 and Soni at 21:26, 17 May 2024). I issued a level 4 warning, as I could see from the edit history there had been multiple, ignored warnings. Seemingly, however, the unconstructive edits have continued, and MisterHarrington has reverted @Soni's latest reversion of his needless change from British to American English at Lucy Letby after receiving another warning. I think this is a clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and it seems like administrator intervention is warranted. Adam Black talk • contributions 21:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @TJRC Adam Black talk • contributions 21:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would also be useful to look at their rather wild use of Twinkle now and again. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is continuing. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI, why are you not providing diffs of the breaches of WP:ENGVAR that you're complaining about, and why are you representing the erroneous change from "inquiry" to "enquiry" as a change from British to American English? NebY (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your message comes across as a bit abrasive. I'm relatively new to the bureaucratic side of Wikipedia. I brought this here because I felt the user's editing pattern could benefit from being reviewed by an administrator. I find the various different noticeboards a bit confusing, though. I was not aware I needed to provide all of the diffs for the WP:ENGVAR breaches. I'm busy working on an article at the moment but I will look through the user contributions later and provide diffs for problematic edits. As for "inquiry" to "enquiry", we call these inquiries in the UK and I am not familiar with every variant of English (I don't think I specifically mentioned American English, but I could be wrong); I assumed given the other warnings for WP:ENGVAR this was another violation. Adam Black talk • contributions 16:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI, as stated at the top of this page, is the place for intractable behavior problems and as stated in that page's header, provide diffs. You're asking administrators to take action; what you assumed because you've seen warnings is not a valid basis for action. As to I don't think I specifically mentioned American English, your original posting here includes MisterHarrington has reverted @Soni's latest reversion of his needless change from British to American English at Lucy Letby after receiving another warning. "Enquiry"[173] is not American English. How many actual cases of MisterHarrington needlessly changing from BrEng to AmEng are there? NebY (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Black, rather than getting bogged down in a meta-discussion about what mechanism is the appropriate one to raise this issue, why don't you close this and re-raise it in WP:ANI as suggested above? Right now the discussion is centered on where the discussion should be rather than the editing behavior (or behaviour!) that needs to be addressed; closing out and restarting will probably be more productive. TJRC (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Account being sold

edit
Nothing to see or do here. Amortias (T)(C) 19:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It has come to my attention here that User:Sachinsewa, a veteran Wikipedia editor, may potentially be selling their account. This could be a hot spot for vandals/trolls using an account with lots of edits to get away with something bad. Can WMF do anything about this, and/or could admins block this account to prevent this account from going in the wrong hands?   Courtesy ping: Saqib for telling me about this. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 18:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The account is glocked and has been since 2021. Selling the account is basically scamming whoever buys it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I should've seen that. Is there a place I can see why it was glocked? thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 18:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CentralAuth generally also includes the glock reason (in this case, cross-wiki promotion). With that said... the stats given on that page don't sync with Sachinsewa's account details. So this is almost certainly a scam. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they claim 4K+ edits on enwiki alone but on enwiki they have only 14. Scam, and I'm guessing that's why no one has fallen for it. Oh well. Closing. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 18:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opening discussion as intervention may be necessary after all. Check the user ID shown in the first screenshot. Querying the public Wikipedia database shows this ID is tied to User:UA3 and not User:Sachinsewa. This user has 4,043 edits, which matches what is being claimed in the ad. See [174] for the query. Adam Black talk • contributions 18:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Took the words right out of my muzzle, and answered the question I was going to ask, to boot. Based on what my popups say, UA3's inactive (last edit ca. 2 years ago). If Sachinsewa's trying to sell off UA3's account, my thinking is he's either running a scam or he's compromised UA3 (and thus knows/could give up the account's password). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the ad was posted in 2022, around the time UA3 went inactive. Given Sachinsewa's block, it could be the case that it's a sockpuppet. Adam Black talk • contributions 18:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. But unless there's strong behavioural evidence, that can't be proven. (It couldn't be proven technically even at the time, either; Sachinsewa was glocked a year before UA3 went on sabbatical and hadn't edited en.wp for ten years at the time of the glock.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This thread can safely be re-closed. First, the for sale link is from 2022, still no edits 2 years after it went on sale. Second, anyone stupid enough to pay $1500 for an "aged" account with only 4k edits will have CIR issues that will be easy to spot. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez... reading through this listing feels like pointing a flashlight into a rubbish bin to watch the scuttling. Everything wrong with WP:UPE distilled into one heady brew... ---Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive361&oldid=1235872965"