Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	9	53	0	62
TfD	0	0	11	0	11
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	2	26	0	28
AfD	0	0	8	0	8

• 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 138 sockpuppet investigations
• 13 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 8 requests for RD1 redaction
• 14 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 47 requested closures
• 161 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 23 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (23 out of 7799 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Dance of Flags 2024-06-06 17:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Indian National Congress 2024-06-06 17:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Telugu Desam Party 2024-06-06 17:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Agent Galahad 2024-06-06 02:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Elsett 2024-06-05 22:22 2024-07-05 22:22 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Wikipedia talk:Contents/Lists/Reference 2024-06-05 21:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan List of Pakistanis by net worth 2024-06-05 16:48 2025-02-13 08:30 edit Edit warring / content dispute: Restore to semiprotection when dispute is resolved Anachronist Pors 2024-06-05 13:52 2024-09-05 13:52 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry, editing by IPs that are a clear behavioral match to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bensebgli Rosguill Morty Smith 2024-06-05 02:51 2024-09-05 02:51 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate 2024 Indian general election 2024-06-04 19:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Catalog of Fishes 2024-06-04 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3449 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Group A 2024-06-04 02:18 2024-06-11 02:18 move Move warring: per RFPP Daniel Case Robert Adams (spiritual teacher) 2024-06-04 01:59 2024-06-25 01:59 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: per RFPP Daniel Case Rescue of Ori Megidish 2024-06-04 00:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Combat operations in 1964 during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation 2024-06-03 23:20 2024-07-03 23:20 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-06-03 22:41 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent vandalism Daniel Clancy (album) 2024-06-03 22:03 2024-07-03 22:03 move Persistent vandalism and disruptive editing Carlosguitar Israel–Maldives relations 2024-06-03 21:13 2025-06-03 21:13 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Sporting CP 2024-06-03 17:42 2024-09-03 17:42 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Enough. ECR protected. Black Kite Economy of England 2024-06-03 09:21 2026-06-03 09:21 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Draft:Yash Shah 2024-06-03 01:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case Joseph Kallarangatt 2024-06-02 20:25 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; raising to ECP Daniel Case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unzela Khan 2024-06-02 20:21 2024-06-09 20:21 edit Persistent vandalism Star Mississippi

Help needed with possible violation

Article (with WP:CRP restriction): People’s Mujahedin of Iran

Editors involved:

@Mhhossein: pinged

@Vice regent: pinged

@Stefka Bulgaria: pinged

Idealigic: me

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

This “CRP violation report” could really do with some admin eyes.

On the one side, Mhhossein and VR are reporting me because they are saying I made a CRP violation (Stefka Bulgaria is also being accused of making a CRP violation).

On the other side, I am saying that it was VR who broke the article’s CRP restrictions because he reinstated a previously-challenged edit without asking if he had consensus to reinstate it (challenged edit, reinstated parts of challenged edit).

Their report against me seems like part of ongoing (bad-faith?) attempts to rig the consensus building process in the article’s talk page (for example this failed attempt by Mhhossein to restrict RfCs there).

I tried not to bring this drama to AN, but seeing that VR and Mhhossein are forum shopping about this (without pinging me or Stefka)[1][2], maybe it is time to sort it out.

Thanks for taking the time. Idealigic (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I do feel that Idealigic violated CRP, but the sequence of edits is messy and Idealigic argues that unless an edit restores the exact wording as before it can't count as a revert. I disagree and so have sought clarification at WP:CRP's talk page. To me the real issue here is Idealigic's stonewalling, where they claim that Iraqi involvement in Iran-Iraq War operations "is disputed" despite it being sourced to multiple scholarly sources.VR _talk 15:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• To admins: Here's 'a visual guide to the violation of CRP by Idealigic'. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• It may be time for a full arbitration case about the MEK topic area and principal disputants. Even though it is covered by the Post-1978 Iranian politics GS, it doesn't look that there's much interest (if at all) in providing enforcement. Myself, I've asked disputants to stop pinging me about this, but to no avail. Now I'm just ignoring pings that in any way pertain to the subject matter. El_C 14:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC) —— Vanamonde93 (courtesy ping) seems about as done with the never-ending MEK disputes as I am, btw (diff). El_C 18:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

First Vice regent said they were “merely restoring the longstanding version”[3], then they said they restored it based on “WP:Silent consensus”[4], and then they said stonewalling was the problem[5].

The evidence clearly indicates that VR did not revert to the longstanding text, and also that there were discussions in the talk page (with sources) about the use of “Iran vs IRI” and “Saddam vs Iraq” (terminology used in VR’s challenged edits [6] [7] ).

So it wasn’t me or Stefka Bulgaria who broke the article’s CRP restrictions, it was VR, and Mhhossein’s bad faith report trying to twist this around seems battleground and tendentious (misconduct that Mhhossein has been warned about in the past [8] [9] [10][11]). Idealigic (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic's comment that VR did not revert to the longstanding text demonstrated that Idealigic only considers an edit to be a revert if it restores the exact text. But what if an edit restores a meaning without restoring the text? WP:EW's definition To revert is to undo the action of another editor seems broad enough to consider that to be a revert too.

But if I'm wrong, I'll readily apologize for my violation, which is why I sought clarification.VR _talk 04:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• I fully agree with El_C that we need to take this to arbitration. IMO, certain users have been trying to WP:WHITEWASH negative-appearing facts about the MEK out of the article despite such facts being present in multiple scholarly sources. They are resorting to tactics like stonewalling, sealioning, gaming and possibly even meatpuppetry. On multiple occasions admins have had to intervene into RfCs that proposed blatant violations of WP:V.VR _talk 04:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Vice regent: Thanks for the apology but that still does not explain @Mhhossein:'s fake report against me and Stefka.
• @Admins: An IP made another WP:CRP violation on the article (IP’s edit reverted IP reinstated the edit). I requested an uninvolved admin to fix the IP’s violation (since the IP failed to revert), but Mhhossein wrote in my request that the IP was “correctly adding citations”. All regards for policies seem to be going out the window in that article. Idealigic (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Can one of the admins take a look at this clear violation of CRP by Idealigic? I have fully explained his infringement. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Reporting HiLo48 for serious incivility and personal attacks on editors on Dark Emu (book) page

HiLo48 has engaged in serious incivility, name-calling and baseless personal insults on the Dark Emu (book) page, which looks like part of a broader pattern of serious incivility. For non-Australian editors I want to make it clear that Dark Emu is a prominent work of Indigenous history that has been the subject of a lot of discussion and controversy, and that the subject matter should be handled with the utmost sensitivity. In early 2021 anthropologist Dr Ian Keen published a journal article titled Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture.[12] In June 2021, Melbourne University Press published a full-length monograph responding to Pascoe's work by Professor Peter Sutton and Dr Kerryn Walshe[13] called Farmers or Hunter-gatherers?: The Dark Emu Debate.[14] Both these sources have been highly critical of Pascoe's book and Sutton and Walshe's book in particular has generated a new round of media discussion. Accordingly, I added two succinct sentences to the header addressing the controversy and the academic responses.[15] In the interests of consensus-building and seeking a wide range of input I started a simultaneous discussion on the talk page.[16] Subsequently, additional material was added to the body of the article by Cavalryman.[17]

At 04:39 on 23 June 2021 HiLo then reverted the changes made by both myself and Cavalryman with the explanation: Reverted changes for which there is no consensus. Agreement simple DOES NOT exist on the Talk page.

HiLo then made the following comments on the Dark Emu talk page that I consider unacceptable at 04:42, 23 June 2021:

::::::And I have reverted those bad faith changes. There is obviously no consensus for them. And implying that those who disagree with you are bad editors is not acceptable here. Please read WP:AGF. It's sad that those so desperate to denigrate Aboriginal people are also unaware of Wikipedia's relevant rules, and also choose to denigrate other editors. You MUST await others commenting on your proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2021

They then doubled down on their claim the edits were made in bad faith.

At least four other editors weighed in on the new material in the talk page, and none besides HiLo48 objected to the material that had been added. I made a simple and justified request for HiLo48 to strike through their comments and apologise on the talk page, which I gave multiple times.[18][19][20] HiLo would not issue an apology or strikethrough despite continuing to post in the same thread.[21][22][23] The material added by myself and Cavalryman was subsequently re-added by Skyring.[24]

I issued a warning to HiLo48 on their talk page about incivility, which was quickly reverted with the explanation: Removed nonsense.

I made another, firmer, but still polite demand for an apology and strike through, which was quickly reverted with the explanation‎: Reverted threats. Not a great way to contribute to Wikipedia.

HiLo48 has been on Wiki for more than seven years and really can't use ignorance of policy as an excuse. They have been a very frequent commenter on the Dark Emu page and need to treat other editors with appropriate respect. They've been called to ANI many times for perceived incivility.[25][26][27][28] Indeed, Hilo has been called to WP:ANI for alleged incivility on the page for the author of Dark Emu itself.[29] These are serious and personal insults that they levelled, which they've refused to substantiate, apologise for or back down from and I believe sanctions are warranted as a result. Noteduck (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I refuse to play this game. It is never a fair one. HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• This should have been posted at WP:ANI, but regardless of that, there is a post against the OP here by another user at WP:ANI#User Noteduck HOUNDING and violating AE civility warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• User_talk:El_C#Dark_Emu_and_Bruce_Pascoe: you called it, Doug. El_C 16:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Well this is one of the reasons I usually avoid topic areas like this, I get accused of racism [30] for neutrally quoting an Aboriginal human rights activist (with perfectly acceptable sourcing) [31]. My first edit with this article was on 13 June when I posted a notice on the TP [32] about the publication of Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate, three days later I realised nothing had been added to the article so I incorporated it myself [33], my only other contribution to the article was a full week after that [34]. This is my first substantive interaction with HiLo, and the first time I have been accused of racism on Wikipedia, a brief glance at the editor’s history makes me suspect that is no coincidence. I am unsure what to suggest, perhaps HiLo48 could impose a voluntary TBAN upon themselves from the article for a month or so. Cavalryman (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC).
• Regardless of the ANI stuff regarding the reporter, reading through the talk page and article edit summaries, it seems clear to me that HiLo48 is not engaging productively. I wouldn't go so far as to call them serious incivility or personal attacks, but the behavior is not benign either. It looks like pretty typical POV-pushing through stonewalling discussion. I don't really have an opinion on how to remedy it though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Reading through the talk page, I see some aggressive behavior on the part of HiLo48 (this, for example, is uncalled for) but, like Wugapodes, don't think it rises to a serious level of incivility. Bearing in mind that HiLo48 is not edit warring (quite the contrary, one edit between January 22nd and today) I don't see any cause for action here. Any of the editors on the other side of HiLo48's opinions can seek dispute resolution, and that's, perhaps, the right course of action going forward. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• RegentsPark — Wug·a·po·des​ I wouldn't launch such a complaint flippantly. I think accusing Cavalryman and myself of being "desperate to denigrate Aboriginal people" [sic] on the Dark Emu page for adding small chunks of material based on academic opinion is pretty hostile and personal. We've both welcomed engagement and discussion, and approached the topic with appropriate sensitivity. It's by far the most offensive insult I've ever received while editing, and given HiLo's total lack of remorse, or even engagement with this complaint, and extensive history of similar accusations in the WP:AN archives I think something should be done. Perhaps a topic ban? I've been on Wiki long enough to not be discouraged from editing by personal attacks, but I'm concerned for newbie editors who might have to deal with this kind of hostility Noteduck (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree something should be done, don't get me wrong, I just don't have good ideas on what it should be. While that statement is certainly out of line, a topic ban for what so far seems like an isolated incident is too heavy handed. While I'm sure the incivility was upsetting for you, my goal is to de-escalate conflict and prevent future problems. Throwing the book at someone for a few harsh words is more likely to further inflame the situation in my experience. I'd rather wait for more input from uninvolved editors before making a decision since, like RP, we might be able to resolve the issues without having to ban anyone. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've been watching the Dark Emu (book) article as an admin with an eye to stopping the BLP violations which were taking there - I haven't paid close attention to other editing or talk page discussions I'm afraid. The background here is significant though: the book has been targeted by POV commentators since it was published as part of Australian culture wars, and there has been a need to keep unreliable sources and material which is worded in way that it violates WP:BLP out of the article as a result. This has led to some editing disputes. The situation has changed in the last couple of weeks though, with the publishing of a scholarly critique of the book that has been well received by experts as well as the book's author. It might be best if the editors involved in the previous disputes focused on the new work and laid down the hatchets regarding older commentary. Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've interacted with HiLo48 on and off for about 11 years. I'm here more as a translator. I usually disagree with them but I like their style which must be understood. Instead of the usual of false civility while weaponizing policies and guidelines in personal or content disputes, they never do the latter and instead just bluntly tell you what they think (with an unusually blunt speaking/writing style) and then move on.North8000 (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between a blunt style and derogatory phrases based on ... political beliefs ... directed against another editor or a group of editors which is a pretty bright line violation of WP:No personal attacks. We should distinguish the two and advise HiLo48 to not cross the line in the future. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No argument there. As I mentioned, I came as a translator and did not weigh in on (or even do a full analysis on) the particulars.North8000 (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to comment on the underlying dispute, but if HiLo referring to "bad faith changes" is a personal attack, what about two users (including OP) accusing him of POV railroading [35] [36] and another saying he is using "scorched-earth tactics" [37] in the same discussion? -- Calidum 20:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've only just noticed this. The "scorched-earth tactics" line - which has been noted in the press, I see, with some bemusement - was mine. I don't know that it's a personal attack so much as a colourful illustration of HiLo's all-or-nothing, take-no-prisoners, yield-not-an-inch behaviour. The simple fact is that he wanted all of the critical material removed and not the slightest acknowlegdement left behind. This doesn't go well with our NPOV policy which gives space to all views commensurate with sourcing, relevance, and notability --Pete (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• sorry, I think I might have been a bit cranky and officious before. I shouldn't "demand" any sanction and I'll leave it up to editors with more experience than me to point the best way forward. However, I do think HiLo48 needs to appreciate that this kind of behavior isn't acceptable. As indicated in my complaint above, I gave them multiple chances to sort this out amicably and they refused to cooperate, and aren't cooperating here. Looking again at the WP:AN archives, a search for "HiLo48" gets 381 hits, though some may be false positives. HiLo should know all about WP:CIVIL as they've been accused of incivility many times (albeit often without sanctions being imposed) and just from the first page of search results:[38][39][40][41] HiLo received a 6-month WP:ITN ban years back for incivility.[42]Noteduck (talk) Ergo, this is not an isolated incident but part of a frustrating pattern 01:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hilo - in his defence - is an excellent wikignome type editor, beavering away at minor points and things that need to be tidied up. This evidently gives him joy and helps the project. This, however, seems to be the result of a dedicated attachment to setting things in his preferred and frequently idiosyncratic order and his makeup is such that he cannot bear or acknowledge any criticism or error. A common enough attitude here and even seen in recent world leaders. Inevitably he comes into conflict with others who have different opinions and in lieu of admitting that he stuffed up (ETA: when he does, which is rare enough, and we all make mistakes; it's only human) he seeks to shift blame and error onto the other guy and naturally this causes outrage and dismay in that quarter and the whole thing tends to escalate into disruption and drama. I don't know how to change his behaviour short of brain surgery and on the occasions where other editors have nailed him into a corner and made it crystal clear that he screwed up he goes into a melt-down which is distressing to all, especially HiLo. This is not a situation where hasty or hamfisted actions will benefit the project. --Pete (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

"To error, is Trump"? GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, but not admitting it under any circumstances is Trumper. To point the finger at others and then to call them names is Trumpest. --Pete (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There is one problematic editor here and it's not Hilo. This edit by Skyring Special:Diff/1031069186 includes potentially actionable personal attacks against Hilo. As background to this whole controversy, this edit by Skyring Special:Diff/853556904 displays his archaic and colonialist attitude towards Aboriginal people. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Request: create Category:Terrorists as redirect to Category:People convicted on terrorism charges

Category:Terrorists has been deleted a while ago as controversial/too simplistic and protected against recreation, but wouldn't it be better to redirect it to Category:People convicted on terrorism charges ? This should be uncontroversial and would more interface friendly, as in - typing terrorist to category name would yield the desired, more "neutral", category name. Redirects don't have to be neutral or encompassing, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a content matter. Content matters are not decided here as administrators have no special authority over content matters. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly - the category is currently protected so an administrator would have to action any request. Although I think WP:DRV would be a better place to seek consensus to overturn the prior deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both sentiments. But I took it as a given that there would need to be a consensus to undo this and that this is not the place to form such a consensus. It seems the relevant debate was originally here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how you can argue that CfD is a consensus against a redirect, it doesn't look like anybody mentioned the possibility of a redirect during that discussion and even if they did it's 12 years old. Hut 8.5 11:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Handling this as a content matter, what HighInBC is addressing, would be to overturn the CFD and create (or undelete) it as a new category. The reason for protection, I suspect, is that it was likely to be recreated by people uninvolved in the original discussion. Creating as a redirect isn't one bit a policy problem, but if you create it, please protect it so it doesn't get converted into a separate category. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No objection from me then. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've created the redirect and protected it. Hut 8.5 07:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Is that desirable? That category has been deleted since 2009 and the April 2009 CfD didn't endorse a redirect. The fact that Category:Terrorists now exists means, as stated in the OP, that people can drop [[Category:Terrorists]] on any BLP and it won't stand out as an obvious red-link problem. According to the notice at Category:Terrorists, that category page is supposed to be regularly maintained to replace any occurrences of Category:Terrorists that have been mistakenly added to articles. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted it again. If this is disputed it should go to WP:DRV or a similar venue. Hut 8.5 11:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5:, thanks for trying. Sigh. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July 7. But someone could've at least pinged me at some point, I almost forgot to follow up on this... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

User talk:SteveBenassi: time for a serious ARBPIA sanctiontime for a NOTHERE block

SteveBenassi (talk · contribs) has been a disruptive areas in a couple of ways, particularly in regard to the Arab-Israeli matter. They were alerted to discretionary sanctions by NonReproBlue on 9 May 2021, with Shrike offering additional information. A desire for some kind of trutherism led them to edit warring on Eran Elhaik, and a block by Ohnoitsjamie. In response they had to go and doxx one of our editors and harass and belittle them (oversight eyes only) after they offered them well-intended advice. Next up was some edit warring and claims of suppression related, I think, to Talk:Genetic studies on Jews and Talk:Italian Jews, and then Fences and windows blocked them for violating ARBPIA rules, on 25 May.

I could go on, there's more truthing and whatnot on their own talk page and elsewhere, but the straw that broke the camel's back, for me, was this, to which Cullen328 kindly alerted me. It's got everything, starting with the idea that Wikipedia is pretty much run by Zionists. I removed all that, per NOTWEBHOST, but NOTFORUM and, indeed, the discretionary sanctions would have worked too. I started writing this up thinking I'd make this a proposal for a topic ban, but as I'm going through their edits (and their edit summaries) to sort of build the case, it becomes clear to me that WP:NOTHERE suffices, and that is what I am going to do right now. And with NOTHERE I also mean treating Wikipedia as a battleground, personal attacks and doxxing, edit warring, truthering, abusing article and editor talk pages as a forum, etc. etc. It's ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Good block; the user's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality seems to be rather intractable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I endorse this block. I probably would have done the same, but I wanted a second pair of eyes on the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block. Thanks for the ping. Steve is fixated on editing negatively about Israel and Jews and my advice to him when I blocked him has gone unheeded. This talk post illustrates the problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism&oldid=1031247450. Steve posted on the talk page of Jewish Bolshevism, an article about antisemitic propaganda, to suggest adding off-topic content about the number of Jewish members of the Politburo - based not on reliable sources, but links to Wikipedia pages. He included Lenin on the list, likely due to original research as he may have had Jewish ancestry. He did then link to some sources, but they don't discuss the content he was suggesting to add. The article History of the Jews in Russia would be the appropriate place for discussion of such content, if relevant reliable sources were to be presented. User:The Four Deuces rightly collapsed the discussion. Fences&Windows 16:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Fences and windows, thank you for the block a month ago--pity it proved ineffective. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block In addition to the posts at Jewish Bolshevism, I noticed the editor's request to add to the article on the Surfside building collapse that the lead developer was Jewish.[43] They seem to be pushing a viewpoint that Jews are evil. TFD (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block clearly has a very unwelcome agenda. GiantSnowman 17:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block Their posts to the Surfside talkpage, to which I responded with some degree of incredulity, were just plain creepy. Looking into their history, that seems to have been the least objectionable thing they've done. Acroterion (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like revoking talk page access should have happened after they posted this line in their unblock request that seems to have been missed/ignored: "p.s. nuke them from space, its the only way to be sure" 2001:4898:80E8:9:5621:A367:6013:40C1 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I wish you would have given the diff, but I found it--however, it's not entirely clear who "they" is, and there's a ton of bullshit in that edit. I'm not sure if anyone actually read all of it. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My assumption, sadly, is that the "them" is probably the topic of the rest of the bullshit: Jews. Maybe assuming bad faith but I don't see any other way to read it. 2001:4898:80E8:9:5621:A367:6013:40C1 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe it was a reference to a Ripley quote on my user page: "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." Fences&Windows 18:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block - edit history + user talk demonstrates user is here to push point of view, not collaboratively build an encyclopdia. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Support indef block. Clearly not contributing to building an encyclopedia. Hog Farm _Talk 22:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• They've already been indefinitely blocked; are we voting to turn this into a community ban? Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think we ought to. I doubt there is any chance in hell of this user ever contributing to Wikipedia in a useful fashion. WaltCip-(talk) 12:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinite CBAN Though I doubt any admin would see there way clear to unblocking on their own, you never know. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Query re: checkuser Has a checkuser looked to see if this is not some LTA or other banned editor? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

WPWP image competition

The meta:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021 contest for 2021 has started again. It involves users adding images to articles, with cash prizes. This is just an informational note, since last year when this contest happened there was confusion and concerns about disruption to articles. As a refresher, some of the concerns last year were a) wrong images being added to articles; b) mass-addition of unnecessary images; c) formatting issues. Special:AbuseFilter/1073 exists for tracking these. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Last year I (and at least one other user) asked the contestants to either quit using their hashtags, or link back to the contest's meta page (or a local WP page) so that other editors would know what the "wpwp" hashtags are supposed to mean. That has evidently gone completely unheeded. Meanwhile the wrong image has been added to the exact same article I notified them about last time (and I've left them a note regarding the current contest). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection review: User talk:Jimbo Wales

Moved from WP:RFUP

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotection: The admin who protected the page has not responded at their talkpage, and because they've only made one edit in the past month, I doubt a response is forthcoming. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Given how popular Mr Wales's talk page is with vandals, cranks, LTA's, and mean people, I think unprotecting it would be a poor idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

(The whole "appeal sanctions to Jimbo as the ultimate authority above ArbCom" concept seems to be archaic, and I guess a large part of the protection reason is caused by their perceived authority. Anyway: Moved to AN, as this will likely interest a large number of editors whose collective opinion can overturn or confirm the protection in a way no single administrator can.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

And let's not forget the, "persistent disruption from WMF-banned editor". that occurred earlier. And that role as ultimate arbiter has been subsumed by the Trust and Safety people at WMF. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Archaic as it is, Jimmy's role as the 'final court of appeal' is still on the books and was invoked as recently as 2019. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy's role as a final court of appeal is just as fictional as the UK monarch's power to withhold the royal assent. If Jimmy was to go against Arbcom, or the monarch was to go against Parliament, in any situation other than complete civil breakdown then we would really have a rebellion on our hands. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be officially struck from the books. The idea of one person having supreme authority doesn't seem to sit well with Wikipedia's consensus decision-making principle and level playing fields, and if there were ever a dispute contentious enough that consensus, ArbCom and the WMF were all failing the project, I doubt one person's supervote would be an acceptable resolution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I just find it so interesting an IP that's never edited is making this request as their first edit. So, who's laundry is out? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259/64. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, still an interesting edit history. But I'll say no more. As for this proposal, nope leave it as is. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

As you can see, I don't shy away from controversy, but I have nothing to hide. Needless to say, I don't agree with any of this, and I don't appreciate being excluded from ongoing discussions at Jimbo's talk page, but you'll do as you will. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

To not be excluded: get an account, use it in peace for a few days, and there you go.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Though I can't find the quote, I thought you previously championed the rights of IP editors and affirmed there was no requirement to make an account to participate here. I must have been mistaken. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's one, but it's pretty old:

"I think that anonymous (non-logged-in) editing is, on the whole, worthwhile..."

I think we're witnessing a paradigm shift. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

On the whole, worthwhile. But not worthwhile at the most high-profile user talk page on the entire project, which is an obvious vandal magnet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to remind anyone here that the vast majority of IP edits are good, even if the majority of bad edits also come from IPs. (If there's some damning new statistics that say otherwise, I'd like to see them.) And there's still trolls at Jimbo's talk page, even right now. This protection has not put a stop to the disruption; reduced it, perhaps, but at a cost we can't easily measure, because those affected haven't been able to comment. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Whether the majority of edits by IPs across all pages are good is not really relevant when we're discussing this particular page and the real risks of doxxing by LTAs that unprotection would bring. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

But IP editors should be able to voice their concerns at the most high profile user talk page on the planet.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Jackattack1597, IP address don't have concerns, people do. If the person has a legitimate concerns, it is easy to create an account and express the complaint. People who choose to edit without an account are free to do so, and have an ever-so-tiny-hurdle to jump if they want to post to his talk page. Contrast that hurdle tot he hurdle necessary to post directly to the founder of Twitter or Facebook. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree with you in this particular instance, and would withdraw my request (which was never meant for this venue) if I wasn't sure I would be reverted on the spot.

I just want to point out that saying 'unregistered editors are welcome to contribute if they just register an account' is equivalent to saying 'unregistered editors aren't welcome'. It seems like nobody here is prepared to admit that, to themselves or anyone else, and this is a big change from the consensus of years past. If this is what a consensus of admins, and Jimbo himself, believe, then the effects are going to reach far beyond Jimbo's talk page. Even the WMF Privacy Policy says there's no need to register an account; I think that might change soon. I honestly don't know if that would be a good or bad change, but I do know that the consequences would be massive and far-reaching. 2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Even though it is a popular working/issues page, it is still a users talk page. I'd side with the "keep it protected" editors in this advisory discussion, but I'd think Wales would have the only say if he wants it protected or not and since he hasn't removed the protection, there we go. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Jimbo did not explicitly request this protection, and he may not even be aware the page is still protected (until he sees this section), since the protection was applied months ago.

Also, I notice the last time the same admin protected Jimbo's talk page, we got: "oh crap, meant to se that to 72 hours, not indef". 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd oppose unprotecting JIMBOTALK as well. No offence to the OP, but that semiprotection is saving the admin team a lot of work and time that'd be wasted in revdel otherwise. I'm dealing with some of the LTAs whose vandalism has caused this protection, and I see little cause to give them this chance to leave links to suppressible libel on such a visible page. JavaHurricane 16:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to accept the consensus of the community. I don't mind if it is unprotected - protecting me from various bad things isn't really something I'm worried about. I also don't mind if it is protected - even while I do think my page should be a place where people can bring up issues in a safe place that's a little bit "unofficial" is a good thing, and I like to be informed even about fringe objections, etc. Having an open ear to problems that we may be overlooking is basically a good thing. But it is no great burden to get auto-confirmed, which is all that it takes to overcome semi-protection, and if someone wants to engage in a meaningful and heartfelt way, with evidence and valid logical arguments, it doesn't have to be done behind an ip address or un-autoconfirmed account.

An additional factor which is extremely meaningful to me: wasting good people's time policing a page from useless trolling.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm 50-50 on this. Jimbo likes as many people as possible to contribute to discussions on his talk page, but a handful of very persistent LTA trolls (you know who you are) have made this difficult. It might be worth trying unprotection, but if this happened the protection would have to return.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It's always kind of annoying when there's a discussion like this were people weigh in with what they think will happen or what they would like to happen when we actually have a record of what has happened. Admittedly, as the financial ads say, past performance is no guarantee of future returns but it lets us avoid baseless speculation. That record shows that semi-protection is working. On April 1, 2019 Amakuru removed edit protection. Between then and the end of that year six different administrators had to use revdel 12 times on 21 revisions until it was semi-protected again on January 8, 2020 for a day. The disruption restarted 4 days after protection ended and there were another six revdel's on one day resulting in re-protection for a day. As soon as that protection expired, we see eight revdel's by three admins on 26 revisions until, well everyone gets the picture by now, I think. Every single time semi-protection expired material so disruptive it requires revision deletion has been immediately posted to that page. Since HJ Mitchell semi-protected it with an expiration of indefinite, no further revdel's have been needed for 47 days. It is clear from this record that semi-protection is both necessary and effective and that it should remain. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with But it is no great burden to get auto-confirmed, which is all that it takes to overcome semi-protection, and if someone wants to engage in a meaningful and heartfelt way, with evidence and valid logical arguments, it doesn't have to be done behind an ip address or un-autoconfirmed account, which applies equally to all pages. Levivich 18:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's Jimbo's prerogative to have his talk page however he likes it to be, much as I disagree with his choice, but that's a slap-in-the-face to every good faith IP editor, of which there are far more than there are registered editors.

I hope it isn't lost on anyone here that anybody who actually follows that advice will face even more strife and accusations of wrongdoing, as a just-autoconfirmed account contributing to a high-level discussion. I'd be suspicious of them myself. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

IP editors have been disadvantaged far more meaningfully, and for a far longer time, than not being able to edit Jimbo talk. Such as the inability to create articles without using AFC, inability to edit over 50,000 pages, inability to move any page, being caught up in edit filter false positives, hitting captchas, etc. We can sit here and debate how IPs are human too, but the practical reality is if you don't want to create an account (for ideological reasons or otherwise) you are going to be disadvantaged. As for accusations of wrongdoing, you'll get used to it ;) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that's no excuse to pile on ever more restrictions.

It's funny you should mention ideology; mine's changed in the past couple days. If I hadn't faced so much nonsense on the way to this point, I wouldn't care nearly as much, but it seems like both Jimbo and the greater admin community are now antagonistic verging on openly hostile towards IP editors as a group. It is not now nor will it be limited to Jimbo's talk page; I'm sure they carry that attitude wherever they go. Like I said, it's a paradigm shift, and it's disappointing. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's just say that it is preferable to not allow IPs to edit JIMBOTALK than to allow LTAs to doxx users on such a widely watched and used page. We've already lost enough editors to these abusers, and we don't want to lose more. JavaHurricane 19:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

As another person in this thread said, Jimbo's talk page is an obvious vandal magnet. Because of this, I support unprotection: the more drama, the better.^{[just kidding]} Kleinpecan (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the "last avenue of appeal" problem could be sorted by a note in the editnotice there, to the effect of, I dunno, If you are here to appeal an arbitration action but cannot edit this page, you may contact any ArbCom clerk and ask them to copy your request here, or you may create an account and wait for it to gain autoconfirmed status. That would satisfy the procedural issue for the rare case that an IP / non-(auto)confirmed user wants to appeal. As to the protection, if Jimbo doesn't mind, I say keep it protected—but keeping in mind that if Jimbo wishes to, as a regular admin action, unprotect the page at any time (permanently, or perhaps temporarily to allow such an appeal to take place without lots of copying and pasting), that's within his authority. I don't think the community really has the right to tell anyone they have to have their talkpage protected. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Unprotect I know there isn't going to be consensus to unprotect the talk page, but I would like to make my opinion known here. In my opinion, Jimbo's talkpage is more than a talk page, it is a forum for community discussion, and it should be open to IP editors like other such forums of discussion.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as indef for the moment. As a matter of admin protection practices, if we protect it once, twice, thrice, and so forth - and the same disruption keeps happening, we indef the protection. Indef is not necessarily forever, but after a few times of repeated blocking by different admins, a pattern develops that indicates the underlying issue is not going away in the near future. Since November 2020, User talk: Jimbo Wales has been protected multiple times by multiple admins. The blocking summaries go from "vandalism" to "sock puppetry" to "persistent disruption from WMF-banned editor" to "Persistent sock puppetry: magnet for trolls and block evaders". And we have this IP with no other edit history, seems to be obsessed with getting the talk page unprotected. Perhaps it would be more productive for the WP:SPI people to do a little duck test. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested in Jimbo's talk page because I've been lurking there for years, with edits going back to 2019 (check the link User:ToBeFree posted above), but this is the first time it's been semi-protected for so long. I followed the proper procedure to request unprotection, but I guess we just can't have nice things.

If you think you have enough evidence for an SPI, just do it. These threats are petty and the accusations personal attacks, but don't worry, I'm just an IP. 2601:194:300:130:250D:335F:8C60:4259 (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No threats. Just an explanation of how things normally work. I don't handle SPI, as that is a specialized group. Nobody is persecuting you for being an IP. If you are just a lone IP unrelated to the rest, no harm will be done by doing an SPI investigation of the rest of the IPs. There's nothing to keep you from reading Jimbo's talk page. But right now, I would advise you to do the easy solution and set up a user account for yourself. You may continue as an IP if you like, but the issue of the reasons for the last few months of the blocked talk page have to be dealt with. — Maile (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You have insinuated that I am some master sockpuppeteer. That is, at a minimum, a personal attack (and you're like the third admin this week to do that). You've suggested there will be consequences, starting with an investigation, for my supposed misdeeds. That is a threat; saying 'that's how things normally work' is like saying 'it's not a threat, it's a promise'. You've been here much longer than me, I'm sure you know how to open an SPI, even if the investigation will be handled by someone else. I'd do it myself, but that would be too WP:POINT-y. I know "no harm" will be done to me, that's why I literally asking for it. C'mon, call my bluff. Please. 2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't need either unnecessary drama or persecution complexes in this conversation. There is a documented record of extremely serious disruption on that page and if you want to contribute there is a very, very easy way open to you that has been pointed out multiple times. If you can't be bothered to invest this infinitesimal effort, why would you think that anyone would want to pay attention to your lack of effort? In the time you've taken whining about protection here, you could already be halfway to being autoconfirmed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

First, let me say that I was actually swayed by your post above to give up on this unprotection thing, though I still think we're doing a disservice to a large fraction of the community and that a better solution is needed. I'm only responding to User:Maile66's suggestion of an SPI, to say that I agree with it. At this point, I need one to clear my name. I hope you can understand why I wouldn't be inclined to create an account while I'm being accused of operating multiple accounts, even if Jimbo tells me to. 2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• I say keep it semi-protected unless User:Jimbo Wales asks for otherwise. There is actual ongoing disruption to protect against and if Jimbo wanted it otherwise he would say so. This is the same treatment we would give any other user talk page being used as such. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• I think we should ask Jimbo Wales directly; it is ultimately a user talk page, so it should be up to him to decide on this. --Aquillion (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Scroll up. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Jimbo has already stated above, "I am happy to accept the consensus of the community. I don't mind if it is unprotected - protecting me from various bad things isn't really something I'm worried about. I also don't mind if it is protected ... " He also answered the above posting IP further up the page, "To not be excluded: get an account, use it in peace for a few days, and there you go." — Maile (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• While I appreciate this being brought here, I think future cases like this should be decided at WP:RFUP. The problem that led to protection was socking and LTAs, and the benefit of indef protection in those cases is that it doesn't give the LTAs an expiration time to plop on their calendar. Similarly, unprotecting it based on a large public discussion just serves to advertise the unprotection to LTAs who might be (probably are?) watching AN. So as a matter of strategy, I think we should leave this to WP:UNPROTPOL's usual responding admin discretion going forward. That said, I don't see a good reason to unprotect. It's serving its purpose and hasn't been applied particularly long given the level of disruption. Let it ride and see who feels like unprotecting it first (then saddle them with the work of supervising the page). — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, there was no reason for this to be brought here, doing so only served to stir up drama. The request was made in the correct venue following the established procedure. Jimbo's talk page has been protected and unprotected many times in the past, and it never required a consensus of admins to do so. One admin acting unilaterally protected the page - but it takes how many to unprotect it? Up 'till now, it's always been just one, as it should be. Now the user that moved the request is trying to come up with some post-hoc justification based on all this discussion, but this is a drama board, where you can have a lengthy and involved discussion like this about even the most trivial of things. If a single admin had been allowed to follow procedure, we could have avoided all of this. Nearly everyone else involved in this discussion would not have noticed if the page was unprotected (they're not regulars at JimboTalk), and the ones that did notice probably wouldn't care. Unfortunately, we can't go back to before this mistake was made and act like all this didn't happen. 2601:194:300:130:78B1:37FF:1DC6:F52B (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Was brought here from RFUP as being to large an issue. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Unprotect, should not be indef. Just protect whenever necessary, and block abusers liberally. Jimbo doesn't seem to mind so we can also keep the useful honeypot function. No evidence that RFPP/RFUP/admins can't handle the load. —Kusma (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Jimbo should be allowed to unprotect his talk page whenever he wants to, but until then, keep it protected. Eggishorn makes a good argument that semi-protection is really needed here, and besides autoconfirmation isn't that big of a hurdle anyways. SkyWarrior 17:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

As a courtesy I’ll avoid any formal !vote, but my thoughts largely align with Wugapodes. Further, I really don't think this is a big deal for any of our long-term IP editors. If you've been at this for any length of time you should already be well-versed in making edit-requests, it's a mild inconvenience, but the conversation delay is only slight, and it's only rarely a good idea to post on Jimbo's talk page anyway.

However I am a bit more concerned with how this affects things globally. On many wikis, ja wikipedia comes to mind immediately, IP editing is very common even among long-term editors. Further given the absence of a global autoconfirmed group, even those who have hundreds of thousands of edits under an account elsewhere will be unable to post, and unlike those who edit here regularly, are unlikely to be familiar with the local process for making edit requests. This conflicts with the idea of an easy access open door policy. To be clear the wisdom of encouraging people to raise issues there is certainly debatable, as jimbotalk is unlikely to be the best place to resolve them. But as long as the open door policy exists we should strive to avoid making it overly difficult for global, but non en wikipedia users to avail themselves of it.

I'm not sure there's an easy solution here, raising the prominence of User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected, or meta:User talk:Jimbo Wales, will likely only encourage the LTAs that are obsessed with Jimbo to redirect their efforts there, and due to banner blindness adding an editnotice or additional explanatory template to the page to facilitate edit requests is unlikely to be of much use either. Nonetheless I thought it might be worth raising this concern so people with more time to think this one over could address it.

Transparency note: I was alerted to this discussion off-wiki.

Sorry about the random IP, normally as a courtesy I avoid discussions until I've at least used one for a few days to fix typos if nothing else, but I'm fairly busy right now, and I'm trying to hold myself to an extended wikibreak anyway. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Just to avoid any possible misunderstanding, nothing I wrote above is intended as any sort of sideways negative comment about you personally, rather it's premised on the observation, which I think few here will disagree with, that for a variety of reasons the heat to light ratio of conversations on your talk page is often unfavourable. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Long term abuse from IP range

A lot of edits from the IP range 2600:6C46:4100:7FF:0:0:0:0/64 seem to be hoaxes and unsourced, which can be seen by their contributions (Special:Contributions/2600:6C46:4100:7FF:0:0:0:0/64. They also created many different hoax articles if you look at the talk pages of several IP users in the range, where they are notified of their pages being marked for deletion. I would recommend a range block from this IP address due to long-term abuse. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, after doing a search of the talk pages, they have been warned numerous times. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is a link to the search results of this IP range's talk pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=User+talk%3A+2600%3A6C46%3A4100%3A7FF&title=Special:Search&go=Go&ns0=1&searchToken=1mp1hazrk9cul4ewuwpzyirb8. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. If it starts up again, we can do it longer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Stale unblock request

Would a kind admin please decline or grant the unblock request at User_talk:Display_name_99#Second_unblock_request? It's been languishing a while. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

tl;dr. Live's to short. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

6 Week RFC type discussion at WP:Notability

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

---

This was a 6 week discussion which was not formally identified as an RFC but was structured and discussed like one. I proposed a close and waited several weeks and then tried an edit based on it and was reverted based on there not being a close, which is fine. Would it be possible to get an admin close at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding one new thing to the current SNG text Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@North8000, given how messy the discussion is, a lot more than a perfunctory close is needed. WP:Closure requests is the proper forum to request one. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll post it over there and consider this request here to be closed. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Bret Weinstein article contains misleading information

The summary of the [Weinstein article] contains misleading and potentially defamatory information. It reads as follows:

Bret Samuel Weinstein /ˈwaɪnstaɪn/ (born 21 February 1969) is an American evolutionary biologist and podcaster who came to national attention during the 2017 Evergreen State College protests. He is among the people referred to collectively as the "intellectual dark web".[3][4] Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions.

The last sentence of this summary is deeply problematic. It cites sources at Vice, Reuters, and PolitiFact to support its assertion. Bret and Heather have repeatedly argued for a lab leak hypothesis to be considered as a potential source of the COVID-19 coronavirus alongside a possible zoonotic origin. In recent months, several major publications have published articles exploring the lab leak theory: New York Magazine, Vanity Fair, and Washington Post According to Nature magazine, "a lab leak has not been ruled out". Discussing a possibility of a lab leak origin for the COVID-19 virus is not misinformation - this is a part of the scientific process where scientists explore various hypotheses and attempt to prove or disprove them. To assert that Bret and Heather are spreading "misinformation" is disingenuous and defamatory.

The editors of this article have locked it to prevent further editing. Please follow up with them and ask them to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei338 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

For content dispute, I think the correct venue is the Talk Page of the article and not on this noticeboard. I think the article is locked for a short while until people cools down and not engaging in more edit wars. SunDawn (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with reliable sources in virology; Nature is distinctly not a magazine, and publications like the Washington Post and Vanity Fair are not reliable sources for virology. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please note there are other discussions of this page underway at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bret Weinstein NPOV breach in lead paragraph footer. and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Bret Weinstein. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect deletion

Materialscientist has a history of questionable editing and removed an article or proposed the deletion of said article. The World Taekwondo Demonstation Team could win the talent competition America's Got Talent and thus would invalidate any of the actions taken by admins on here. Moreisgood1 (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1 You must notify Materialscientist of this discussion. So you seem to be saying that this team is not yet notable, but will be. If they aren't yet, then they don't merit an article yet, which would make the deletion correct. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Realize that's the protocol yet what I am saying is there is general ineptitude on this site and maybe much of it will now be brought to light. This year the site has tried to employ some accountability however if a certain percentage of admins are behaving in an incorrect fashion nothing will change very quickly. Yes I am saying some of the articles this admin edits or kept aren't notable and yet they work to take down important material ironically by someone with material in their username and also an admin. Moreisgood1 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1 If we are so inept then why do you come here? We are not professionals, we are volunteers doing what we can when we can. If you feel an article merits deletion, you may propose it along with your reasoning for that opinion. That other inappropriate articles exist does not meant that yours can too, see other stuff exists. Again, if this performance team has not yet won AGT, they are not yet notable and it is WP:TOOSOON for an article about them. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Your point is not valid. You are using a word like if incorrectly. The act (team) in question is an international talent. It's clear that Wikipedia has much more of an English and American presence then in Korea, for example. If you need proof that people aren't doing their jobs correctly I can't even make this appeal because girth summit is not using talk pages in a right fashion and has threatened me too with being blocked. Wow, the arrogance of this site is mind-blowing. Moreisgood1 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1, you are attacking another editor's actions, using words like corruption and ineptitude, and you created a page in article space that was nothing but a complaint about Wikipedia and had nothing to do with the subject it was named for: that's not OK. You are welcome to politely ask someone why they have deleted a page, or to ask for help in creating an acceptable article, but if you continue along your current trajectory you will be blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1 (ec) It doesn't matter if they are from one country or multiple countries or if they are from the planet Vulcan. They must meet the notability criteria, and merely being international does not do that. If they win AGT, then they would be(possibly even if they are just in the top three). 331dot (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry to put this so bluntly. But this is a case of not getting what you want and thus assuming others are wrong. I see only the correct application of our policies here. If you are not happy with the outcome then that is unfortunate, the way Wikipedia is ran does not bring happiness to everyone. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

331dot, what are you talking about. If I establish their notability on here now would you agree with me on anything? Girth, not attacking you or anyone. I read on your page that you feel you are especially busy and I guess you may not have much time for the site. You probably like most people try to be involved in only certain areas of editing and such. If I am showing a general lack of competence by a substantial percentage of admins and also other editors why would you try to quiet me or anyone? The fact that you don't use your talk page correctly supports what I am saying. You deleted something and moved it to my talk page, who does that? Almost no one, it's a misuse. Going back to the things I said on here yes, I can prove the actions taken in regard to the article have been not correct. I do question this site. It's wrong often. Not at all being run how it was intended, maybe that is why so many people have left and are not involved on anything here. Moreisgood1 (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1 Yes, if you establish that they are notable, that's different. But you haven't yet and I'm not certain you can. If you think you can I would suggest that you use Articles for Creation to submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure in what way you think the site is not being run well other than "it isn't doing what I want". 331dot (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I moved your comment from my talk page to yours because I had already started a thread about that article on your talk - it makes no sense to have a single conversation taking place at two locations. If you don't like it there, you're free to remove the whole thread. Now, you've started this thread to complain about the actions of a particular admin, and you have been told by multiple admins that there was nothing wrong with those actions. You've been advised by two of us to create a draft and run if through AfC. I suggest that you drop this, and go do that. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreisgood1, I find it astonishing that someone can demonstrate they don't have a clue about how this place works while simultaneously lecturing us that we are doing it all wrong. I am literally shaking my head at the hubris. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I find it astonishing that you find it astonishing. We get editors all the time who are completely lacking in self-awareness. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Mig1, it looks like GS opened a section and posted advice to your talk. You went to GS's talk and opened a new section to respond to that advice. GS moved that new section to your talk into the advice section so the convo would happen all in one place. Any experienced editor would try to keep a conversation in one place. It's absolutely not GS misusing their user talk. —valereee (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• To be honest, if Moreisgood1 wasn't being so obnoxious about this, and if they weren't so obviously hiding their previous editing history here with a throwaway account, I could be talked into either (a) moving this to draft space, or (b) restoring it, allowing someone to nominate it for a more robust discussion at WP:AFD. If you squint, you can see a credible claim of significance or importance (not the same as notability), which is all A7 requires. The thing is, it's hard to motivate yourself to squint when they're being obnoxious. If some other admin has a higher tolerance for that than apparently most here do, probably the right thing is to restore and AFD it. But it's not going to be me that does it. I am too confident that I know how they're going to behave in the AFD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Request

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

---

I am requesting here for temporary semi-protection of Pushkar Singh Dhami because a lot of unsourced information are being added now without WP:VERIFY by various IP editors. The page visibility is high now because he has been elected as the 11th Chief Minister of Uttarakhand. I have also put this request at WP:RfPP, but currently there is a backlog of 20+. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Already protected. The autoconfirmed user has been warned. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, can you also help regarding Khorkuto. I have also requested it long ago at WP:RFPP. The page is being constantly edited by various IP editors where they are adding all the TV cast in MOS:LEAD that is not required as they are discussed in later section. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Review

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

---

It is my request that someone restore Left-wing fascism. This page was deleted by @Sandstein: as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing fascism (4th nomination). The problem here is that while Wikipedia policy states that a AfD should stay open for 7 days it appears that the result has been keep three times prior and that continuing to AfD it until the desired result is in bad faith. There should have been more than the typical 7 days given it was the 4th nomination.

Also, I know while not typically policy maybe the closing admin looked at all four nominations rather than the one. Just something I request be considered. Thank you for your time. Michael-Moates (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Michael-Moates, the place to discuss these concerns would first be my talk page (where you have also not posted the required notification for this thread), and then WP:DRV if need be. Sandstein 19:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to this being the wrong venue, and in addition to there being no case to overturn, accusing User:MjolnirPants of "bad faith" for renominating the article after a decade, when they did not even participate in the previous AfD, is casting aspersions. Either explain why you think that MjolnirPants has done something wrong, or don't claim so without evidence. You also failed to notify them (which you should have done, given the implicit accusation of misconduct). I'll go do that for you. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: You assumed wrong. I never said the nominator was in bad faith, I am saying it is in bad faith for this process to happen multiple times without new evidence as to why it should be AfD'ed. I never once called out a specific user. I am saying that if twelve times an article nominated is voted to be kept and on the 13th the vote is delete that seems like a bad faith decision based on a temporary consensus that would long be overturning precedent. Respectfully, do not accuse me of personal attacks without evidence as I never personally attacked anyone. Because of your misunderstanding you assumed I have to tag him. That is false because I was not accusing him of anything. Also, to further my point, I didn't even know who the nominator was because he didn't sign his post properly from what I can see. @Sandstein: - As for venue I apologize, my goal was to have someone uninvolved look at this and give feedback.

I do think it is important to note that 3 times it was kept and on this run it was 1 keep, 1 tentative delete (because couldn't see sources he said "it may be that there is scope for a valid article on this subject, possibly based on the Google Scholar hits,"), 2 weak delete, and 1 delete. If you want I can move this post to another venue.

My hope is that we can talk about substance rather than assume I am bad mouthing someone. The assumption was made that I was directly attacking someone when I was criticizing the process. Michael-Moates (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the process could take place in bad faith without that meaning the nominator participated in bad faith. Also, what do you mean by "without evidence"? I provided evidence: your initial message here. Although I didn't use the term "personal attack". -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: You can most defiantly criticize the process without assuming that I am attacking the nominator. Think about it this way, what I am concerned about is the multiple AfD's and how 3/4 of those were keeps and 1 short lived AfD resulted in delete. That is me saying that this process seems like bad faith. I'm not assuming the nominator knew about the other 3 nominations. I didn't even know who the nominator was (again didn't sign post). I am saying this process of many AfD's seems crippled. Especially, when the 3/4 are keep and one 7 day AfD causes it to be removed. In addition, the article has been up for nearly 10 years. Prudence would dictate we fix it rather than delete it. I would ask if anything was on the talk page but I can no longer see it. Try to remember AGF. My attacks were not at the individual. While you may not have used the term "personal attack," which policy says "principles are an application of the policy against personal attacks." Michael-Moates (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, Wikipedia, put "left-wing fascism" into Google Scholar [44] and !vote "keep, meets GNG, AFD is not cleanup." Levivich 21:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Help!

I don't have time to re-write this from scratch - someone has to draftify Rodney Mims Cook Jr. and delete the redirect, or otherwise just take it on. We're not LinkedIn. ɱ (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Or you could take it to WP:AFD. There's obvious IP funny business in the history that suggests this is hardly a neutral article. The inclination to throw clear non-notable BLPs into draftspace with refspam needs to stop. Nate • (chatter) 01:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the article passes GNG, so AfD is not applicable. I don't know how else to deal with it besides painstaking work. I can severely trim it for the meantime, I suppose... ɱ (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 and Praxidicae interaction ban modified

Following a now closed amendment request, the Arbitration Committee resolved by motion that:

In the interest of furthering discussion around the UCOC, admin sanctions, and other such reforms, the interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333 is amended after the last sentence to add Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Ritchie333 and Praxidicae interaction ban modified

Request to restore old image revision of File:Arthur Matsu.png

Hello! File:Arthur Matsu.png was initially used under a non-free use rationale, but later had its license updated to public domain (as it was published in U.S. in 1926–1977 without copyright notice). A bot later uploaded a new file version (as it was thought to be a non-free image), and the original image version (upload log) was revision deleted (deletion log) by a bot under speedy deletion criterion F5. Could someone please restore the original higher-resolution file version? Tol | talk | contribs 01:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Noting for the record that I've transferred the file to Commons, so this request is moot. @Tol: for future reference, please direct requests of this nature to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Thanks, FASTILY 09:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fastily: Thank you! Tol | talk | contribs 16:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

TheresNoTime permissions restored

Following a request to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of TheresNoTime (talk · contribs) are restored.

Supporting: Barkeep49, Beeblebrox, Bradv, CaptainEek, Casliber, KrakatoaKatie, L235, Primefac, SoWhy, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee,

– bradv^🍁 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § TheresNoTime permissions restored

Government of Rhodesia problematic process with consequences in real life

The new (and well-prepared) article Government of Rhodesia is nominated for deletion. However, this is based on the false claim that it would be based on new and unreliable sources. No surprise for me because these rather irrelevant two sources were the only ones who the plaintiff could easily click on. The other two dozen references are scientific literature, and it is impossible that the plaintiff has had the chance to read more than two dozen sources/references in such a short time. The “new” sources on which the deletion demand is based have even been deleted to show that the article is scientific.

But there is more: I’m a historian, my students know my username on Wikipedia and helped to create the article by searching sources, verifying claims etc. So, the current situation is more than embarrassing for me. I rather accept a immediate deletion (as the original author) than to be humiliated under the eyes of my students with such a deletion discussion. The current situation is more than embarrassing for me since my anonymity is compromised.

Thank you in advance for a solution that will bring this to an end. One way or the other. Otherwise I am in trouble at my workplace. I have a reputation to lose.

Thank you University Professor for History (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Given you have brought up specific actions from another editor (the "plaintiff"), I have provided them a notice of this AN/I post. On deletion, any editor can ask for their creations to be deleted, assuming no others have significantly edited them, with WP:G7. What I find a bit odd is your assertion on multiple talkpages ([45][46][47]) that this content disagreement is "as if the bush wars would have never ended". Unless there's evidence that an editor is specifically continuing a particular war or similar, it is best to deal with the arguments raised rather than throwing out such assertions. CMD (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it may also qualify under WP:G3. The Twitter account of the supposed Government in exile started tweeting two days before OnSpeech started adding details of it to Wikipedia. Number 57 16:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That twitter account certainly gives off a distinct G3 vibe, and diminishes my AGF substantially. AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government of Rhodesia by the way, for any admin who wants to look in. CMD (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have done this. As mentioned in my closing summary, I wouldn't even recommend WP:DRAFT'ing it, though probably best not to prohibit it outright at this stage (for the sakes of transparency). El_C 17:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

And I didn't even get a chance to mention that I actually am an historian who had written dissertations (plural) on Rhodesia. Oh wait! El_C 23:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• It seems about time something like this happened, considering this. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I have just speedy-deleted three other articles tied to these accounts as blatant hoaxes. I believe the community should take a look at all of the other articles created by these accounts to see if they are also hoaxes, [48], [49]. I do not have time to do this in the near present. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC) edited for link correction 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently working on this; User:Vahurzpu/July 2021 hoaxes has links to the relevant information, and will be updated as I go. Vahurzpu (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Restarted proposal for topic ban : User:J-Man11

In accordance with previous discussions at WT:MILHIST and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive334#Proposal_for_topic_ban:_J-Man11 I now propose, for the second time a Wikipedia:Topic Ban for J-Man11 from military and order of battle articles, widely construed, for any date after the year 1850. As has been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_161#Repeated_massive,_shoddy_additions_by_J-Man11, this user has large-scale problems with proper use of primary and associated semi-primary sources (WP:SPS, such as "Mackinlay, Gordon Angus (2007). "A Moment in Time": The British Army at a moment in time - 1 July 2007: A look at and from it of the Makeup of the Regular and Territorial Army. Self publish.") which are widely referenced in his/her articles. S/he does not appear to have the competence to edit recent military articles, anything after maybe 1850. However, s/he has been recently editing articles about the Napoleonic Wars, which are now exclusively the province of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources. This presents the possibility that this user could gradually learn how to properly use sources while still being allowed to work on subjects of interest to him/her.

Secondly, since I made the previous topic ban proposal, with a 1900 date, J-Man11 began to create yet another sandbox article which in this case demonstrates (1) a lack of understanding about how U.S. Navy Carrier Groups and Cruiser-Destroyer Groups were arranged in 1990-91, and what their higher command structures were; (2) a misunderstanding of the coalition command structure in 1990-91; and (3) awful unsupported opinions about why states might or might not have wished to place their naval forces under U.S. command, entirely unhinged from referenced facts.

Thirdly, again since the previous after-1900 topic ban proposal, I had to remove the sentence "..new force was an administrative formation rather then an operational formation" from 1st Reconnaissance Brigade (United Kingdom). This just demonstrates *again* that J-Man11 does not have the Wikipedia:Competence is required to edit military articles, at the very least after 1850, where this user continues to try and utilize widely available WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. This ad-hoc, not administrative formation, during the 1980s, would have been, after Transition to war, under a brigadier controlling the armoured reconnaissance regiments of I (BR) Corps providing the corps covering force, the very first force to face multiple motor rifle & tank division first echelons of 3 Red Banner Army ('3rd Shock Army') and possible East German MD III. Not *administrative,* rather right on the very sharp end!!

This user does not fully understand the terms or organisations they are using. In addition, I have had to correct several references to the 1999 SOHB and remove unsourced material.

NB. To my discredit, at diff on 1 Recce Bde I used angry, foul and intemperate language which I should not have used, and for which I need to apologise to J-Man11 for using. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks applies to all concerned. I could give reasons, but they would probably sound like excuses.

Thus to recap I would request a topic ban for this user from all military and order of battle articles, widely construed, after 1850. Choosing this date would allow J-Man11 to continue to learn about proper use of sources for which the citing rules, and with the elapse of 170 years, the events in question, are much more widely agreed upon. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBAN on military articles related to 1850 of later per OP, in the first instance. I have had extensive interactions with JMan-11, and some time ago made a significant effort to help them properly source and cite articles and lists. Throughout their editing history they have consistently demonstrated lack of competence regarding identifying reliable sources, they have been using online wargaming-type SPS extensively, and they have been fixated on orders of battle from the end of the Cold War or other poorly temporally defined major change points in global military structures which are of dubious encyclopaedic value as they do not relate to a "hot" conflict per se. They have been quite prolific, and this, combined with the lack of competence, causes serious deterioration in any articles they edit and an incredible level of frustration among the editors that come across their editing. This latter point is not to excuse Buckshot's outburst, but to place it in further context. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for military/orders of battle articles - What I feel has been shared by other users in previous discussions. This type of military fancruft with dubious sourcing is most unhelpful and if J-Man wishes to continue editing they need to practice in other areas. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion archived without action

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#User:Banana6cake._resumed_inappropriate_behavior_and_disruption_after_calls_for_topic_ban was archived due to inactivity, despite clear consensus to siteban Banana6cake. (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit of a strange case. I don't see that they've ever edited their own talk. I'll block for now to see if we can get their attention. I'm not sure I'm comfortable closing this as consensus for a topic ban as it looks like SilentResident pinged an awful lot of people to that discussion. —valereee (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If there's consensus for anything, isn't it a site ban, not a topic ban? 5 of 6 editors supported a site ban, while 1 supported a topic ban. I do agree that the number of participants does seem a bit low for a community ban. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: yep, I pinged them because they were the participants of the archived discussion. Had to inform them of the new racist NPA and disruption that occurred after it was archived. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 06:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk page for user cannot be created due to characters in username

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

---

Page creation for User talk:𝖤𝗆𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗎𝖾𝗅 𝖽𝖾 𝗄𝗎𝗈𝗅 is currently blocked due to the special characters in their username. A blatantly unconstructive edit was made by the user here and requires a talk page warning, which I cannot deliver because of said page creation block. Please advise if the page can be created by an administrator or if I should put in a report at UAA. Thank you. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Tpdwkouaa, you can report the user to UAA as per WP:NOSCRIPT. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

"Emmanuel de kuol" is unregistered, but the user seems to be only interested in promoting themselves, so I doubt a rename and unblock would be worthwhile. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Renaming a CU-blocked user

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

---

Hello. I am sysop of es.Wikipedia and global renamer. A user who is blocked on this Wikipedia by a checkuser has asked to be renamed. I would like to ask the administrators if they have any objection to me making the change. Sorry if this is not the right place. LuchoCR (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@LuchoCR: I've posted a note at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations notifying them of your query in case any checkusers or clerks would like to comment here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The main reason we try not to rename users who are blocked on one project is to avoid the confusion of having multiple names refer to the same person. As This sock case isn't active on en.wiki, I have no real objection to a rename if they're constructive on es.wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I notify that I have proceeded with the rename, for the purposes of what should be done here. Pura vida, LuchoCR (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Need someone to create a redirect for me

Hello! I just created the article Nine Dragons' Ball Parade. The series native name in Japanese romaji is Kowloon's Ball Parade. Per MOS:AM, redirects from Romaji titles should be created. However, when I tried to create it, I got an error asking me to leave a message here for an administrator to do it instead. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could an administrator make the redirect for me? Thanks in advance! Link20XX (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is the regex .*kob?.*arad.*, used to prevnt the creation of pages about Kobi Arad per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kobi Arad. 93.172.254.2 (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done This seems like a reasonable request. I don't think this goes against the intended purpose of the regex. I have done this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the regex be .*kobi ?arad.* instead? (of course, 4 years late it can probably be deleted). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

That would make a lot more sense. I am thinking that may have been the initial intent. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and adjusted this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Normchou/Essays/Does_common_sense_point_to_a_lab_leak_origin? has had an open CR for a week

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Normchou/Essays/Does_common_sense_point_to_a_lab_leak_origin? has been open for 16 days, and has had an open closure request open for more than a week. Can an admin assess consensus for the MfD? dudhhr_Contribs 06:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

FML, send help

In deleting redirects created by a sockpuppet by a blocked user, the article for Rick and Morty got caught up and I accidentally deleted it. I have restored the talk page, but keep running into database errors messages. Please send help. ✗plicit 11:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, after 15,000 tries, I was able to restore all the page history, the talk page, and redirects. Everything should be good now. However, I fully expect to be yelled at on my talk page by the page watchers of this article—rightfully so. This was entirely my fault. Milkine created hundreds (maybe thousands?) of redirects, and was blocked earlier today as a sockpuppet of TotalTruthTeller24. In my attempt to speed up the process, I divided their contributions at User:Explicit/Working and was working on deleting only pages created as redirects using Twinkle, and it was going well. But, at this revision, I didn't catch that it caught an automated edit summary and it wonked out (search for the string "20:54, June 2, 2021 diff hist +61,328‎ N [[Rick and Morty (franchise)") and it linked Rick and Morty as a result, which resulted in it being caught up with the redirects. I truly apologize. I feel like I make few mistakes, but this one is probably my biggest. ✗plicit 12:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

As Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, said about one of his traders losing $6 billion, "shit happens". JBchrch talk 12:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Jesus, Summer, he's Mister Nimbus, he controls the police! El_C 12:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ehh, no lasting harm done (as is the case with almost all technical SNAFUs on Wikipedia). Perhaps some seafood for dinner and a brief dip in the river...? :) firefly ( t · c ) 13:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Look at it this way, at least you didn't delete the main page... RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I gave him a trout, and when he asked for more, I gave him a whale as he ran out of trout. dudhhr_Contribs 08:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone should probably reinstate the indefinite semi-protection too, it seems to have gotten lost in the deletion and restoration. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done I checked the log, it was indefinitely semi-protected in 2019, and never unprotected, so I see this as a purely procedural step - I have no view on whether the protection is still warranted. If anyone thinks it's no longer needed, feel free to remove it, or to make a request at RfPP. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Even if you mess up this article beyond repair, don't worry about it. There are infinite universes with infinite Rick and Morty articles. BTW there's something appropriate about a subset of Rick and Morty fans nearly somehow ruining things for everyone.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, they are a lot more relaxed from what I expected. Perhaps it is made up in the fact that I slept an hour later and woke up an hour earlier due the anxiety that set in. Here's to not accidentally deleting actual useful content again. ✗plicit 03:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Streamlining a log for the General Sanctions regime (the 2nd)

2nd try, limited interest last time. So, right now, any log entries involving a GS are recorded in that GS' individual page, unlike log entries at WP:AEL and WP:RESTRICT. Would transclusion, somehow, be an option? Do let me know if this is a solution in search of a problem. El_C 17:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I proposed this last time, but now it's probably better to wait for ArbCom to finish their DS reforms first, in case there's any overlap. But an overview page could easily be setup with transclusion, I suppose, although structurally it might be a mess since IIRC the subpages have no consistent order in (eg) chronology. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I just want someone to make it easier for me to know all the things I need to do in order to make it less likely I'll do it all wrong. Does this help with that? And also to tell me whether I'm doing them right, while they're at it. Girth Summit has teased a possible flowchart, which I'll then coerce Levivich into turning into one of his button thingies. Crafty, that's me. —valereee (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

How about making a file called WP:GSLOG that would be based on the same pattern as WP:DSLOG? To avoid this becoming too much work for whoever sets this up, there could be a cutover date such as 1 January 2021, after which community sanctions could get logged in the new format. The virtue of DSLOG is that it's organized by case, it is easy for admins to log things there and it is searchable. A GSLOG would be the same thing but dedicated to the community sanctions rather than the Arbcom sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Like. Brilliant idea, Ed! El_C 04:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be best—one page with a simple format with everything discoverable on that page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason of protection

Hey, my name is Nima. I don't edit Wikipedia and I only sometimes read articles on Wiki. Today, someone told me that my name is in the blacklist of Wikipedia and I thought he's wrong. But now, I see my name "Nima Owji" is in the blacklist and the reason is spam! I noticed you've blocked my name last year and last year, there was no news about me and I'm wondering that you've put me in the blacklist cause I think nobody could have know me and wanted to create a wiki for me! Fortunately, I noticed you've blocked that user and he can never try to put false information about me anywhere. Someone did this on Amazon for me too and I removed those information by making removal requests. Right now, I don't know that I'm eligible for an article or not. But I'm not a spam as you can Google me and see that I was featured on many news articles like India_Today, WION_(TV_channel), Wired_(magazine), NDTV, and +100 news articles only in the past 2 days! How should I solve the problem? Thanks WikiNimaa (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Is User:Niocs also your account? They also claimed to be Nima Owji. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Whaaat? I can claim to be you too, am I you? I think someone has a problem with me! Someone posted a fake song on Amazon Music by my name to destroy my reputation! If you want me to prove this is me, I can contact you on Twitter with my official account too! WikiNimaa (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. From what I can see, Nima Owji doesn’t meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia so it is unimportant whether the name is removed from the blacklist or not. I would suggest that you create an account at EverybodyWiki or at Fandom and work on your biography there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5, As you can see here, misinformation is everywhere! Now, I think it's better to keep it protected to avoid something like this EverybodyWiki. I don't care about Wikipedia cause it won't make a big change in my life so there's no problem. But you sure I'm not meeting the criteria? News articles are available (Just curious to know)! WikiNimaa (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Malcolm, I think you may be misunderstanding and I think the OP also misunderstands the meaning of deletion and blacklist for spam. What I'm gathering from reading this is the OP is fine with the article not existing and even the creation lock, but thinks whatever they're reading in the logs is negatively referencing them personally. Nevermind, I just read their unblock requests. Obviously the same person quacking. ♟♙ (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems clear that User:Niocs and User:WikiNimaa are the same person. Since User:Niocs is blocked they need to address the block on that account. I have blocked User:WikiNimaa for using another account while blocked. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Female bodybuilder enthusiast unblock request

Given the age of the block(2013), and the number of unblock requests that have been reviewed in the past I have decided to take this unblock request to the community rather than handle it personally.

In addition to the unblock requests on the talk page there is also UTRS appeal #45084 and UTRS appeal #39150.

I understand that they are admitting to some sock puppetry, and claiming that other sock puppetry was not true. They are also "willing, but not requesting, to abide by a topic ban around zoophilia, broadly construed".

I am not familiar with the events prior to their block and at this point am withholding my personal opinion.

A checkuser has verified that there is no technical evidence of recent abuse of multiple accounts[50]. This is a standard offer request.

Here is the text of their unblock request:

I am requesting to be unblocked after six months of being blocked, which has been verified though Wikipedia:Check User, for sock puppeting. I am applying under WP:SO. My initial block was inappropriate (not checked though Wikipedia:Check User) and the overlap between the two accounts (Latitude0116 and me). However, my other bans were appropriate for sock puppeting afterwards. I have been blocked for six months and had time to go over my errors. I will never sock puppet again and identified my old sock puppets. I am willing, but not requesting, to abide by a topic ban around zoophilia, broadly construed. I will stick to Female bodybuilder enthusiast account going forward. Female bodybuilder enthusiast (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention on this matter. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: the original blocking administrator. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support w/ TBAN From Zoophilia, or really all animal related articles, broadly construed. They were caught socking just in December, and that last sock needed to be tbanned if they were a legit user. Valeince (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support w/ TBAN Admits wrong and states wants to go forward, after 10 years it responsible to want to return and given another chance. Des Vallee (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support On 25 April 2013, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast was confirmed to User:Fbbfan according to the CheckUser data, see here. Fbbfan never edited the English Wikipedia, but edited Ann Coulter article at Wikiquote, the same article one of their socks User:AHC300 edited 36 times, see diff. On 3 May 2013, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Latitude0116 per behavioral evidence, see here. In this unblock request, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast is claiming that they're not User:Latitude0116 and Latitude0116 also confirmed that User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast is innocent and not related to them, see here. Since User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast has not socked recently and understood that what they did in the past was wrong and willing not to do it again, I'm willing to support this unblock request and the TBAN around zoophilia, broadly construed as that will stop disruption in that area. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 05:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unconditional - as Nnadigoodluck pointed out, no technical link was ever established between Female bodybuilder enthusiast/Fbbfan and the Latitude0116 case, however the behavioural evidence was quite compelling (significant unrelated topic overlaps). Regarding "no edits", there are other events that show up in checkuser data that can be used to establish connection, so I don't doubt the confirmation of those two accounts, however they should be re-tagged as "suspected" (they are not cu-confirmed to Latitude0116). I don't see where Female bodybuilder enthusiast's editing in the topic of zoophilia was ever discussed, they were just lumped in with the disruption of another user, and without any conclusive evidence of disruption I can't see why a topic ban is necessary here. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  If Female bodybuilder enthusiast's editing in the topic of zoophilia really hasn't been discussed, it should be. Starting with their repeated creation of articles such as Death by horse cock, Two Guys One Horse etc. [51] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Okay let's talk about it, then. I don't know the history of everything here but frankly, on the surface, all those creations seem to be legit. First they were trying to create an article about the website which was at the time apparently hosting the video referred to in the lede at Enumclaw horse sex case (or this contemporary revision, anyway), which evidently was 2guys1horse.com (I didn't go check). The final revision before deletion read in the lede: "2guys1horse.com, also called 2 Guys 1 Horse, Mr Hands, or Death by horse cock, is an Internet shock site/viral video, that has lead to over 500 reaction videos on Youtube. It was also featured in the 2007 documentary film Zoo and is regarded as the video of the incident that killed Kenneth Pinyan." The content was referenced (I didn't review the references but they were there) and covered a notable and sensitive topic without being gratuitous. It might not have been appropriate to have it separate from the Enumclaw article but I don't see any discussion about that, it was simply speedy-deleted by Fram for having no credible claim of significance, which without more information seems absurd. Another version at Deep Thrusts was deleted by Boing! said Zebedee as vandalism, which also seems absurd. Female bodybuilder enthusiast then simply tried to redirect these titles to the relevant related article, which was then deleted for being an implausible redirect (also absurd), except in one instance where The Anome deleted one as a redirect to a "joke page" (even more absurd). I say "seems" absurd because I would prefer to believe there is a related discussion somewhere that I haven't found, which would provide a better explanation than that a bunch of veteran admins ganged up on this user to censor their article. Female bodybuilder enthusiast seemed to be in conflict with Little green rosetta, who was Arbcom-banned a month later, and I also don't know what that's about.

  Anyway, all of this happened eight years ago, and so I still don't see why a topic ban now would prevent any sort of ongoing disruption. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  The December SPI report lists some of their disruptive activity on zoophilia-related articles. To add on to what AndyTheGrump stated, the majority of their edits where to Legality of bestiality by country or territory, Legality of bestiality in the United States, Timeline of zoophilia, Zoophilia and the law (notice how the sock tried to redirect move that article to Zoophile rights by country or territory), which are all now (rightfully) deleted, so their edits to those articles are not visible in their contribution histories. Some1 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC) correction, Some1 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's confusing but I think you've got the timeline at least partly wrong. Zoophilia and the law was moved to Zoophile rights by country or territory, which was then moved to Legality of bestiality by country or territory, which was then deleted, however all three of those titles were the same article which has a continuous history going back to May 2006. Legality of bestiality in the United States and Timeline of zoophilia were both separate articles. The deletion discussions for all three indicate that they were deleted for being poorly written original research, not because they were inappropriate topics nor because of any editor's disruptive editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  On 20:31, 6 January 2017, AHC300 sock moved Zoophilia and the law to Zoophile rights by country or territory. Admin BD2412 moved the page back from Zoophile rights by country or territory to Zoophilia and the law on 15:11, 7 January 2017 stating: (No consensus found for likely controversial page move.) Those are all the same articles as the Legality of bestiality by country or territory, which was created by Female bodybuilder enthusiast, and bulk of the content came from those socks. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legality_of_bestiality_by_country_or_territory, where an editor stated: According to XTools [52] this article was primarily authored by AHC300 (talk · contribs), .... who is a pro-zoophilia user [53]. I didn't mention any timeline, just pointed out that those were the articles the socks frequently edited. My parenthetical above regarding the page move was to show how the user believes "bestiality" is a "zoophile right." Some1 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC) correction, Some1 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am not going to support or oppose, but Female bodybuilder enthusiast should at least be:
  1. Restricted to only one account, since they had a sleeper account Fbbfan at the same time as the Female bodybuilder enthusiast account for whatever reasons, then engaged in sockpuppetry as CentrumZero, Snowden supporter, 61-1099lm, Chiseled abs cutter, GayTenn, Dawkinsfan44 (there's probably more); User:AHC300 was their latest sock that was blocked in January (they confirmed it here and here), and they had the GregThomas93 and Lupertazzi342 accounts at the same time as that AHC300 account.
  2. Topic-banned from zoophilia (or all animal-related articles, as another editor above suggested), broadly construed. Some1 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock w/ TBANFrom Zoophilia, User is ready. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• if this user is unblocked - something I won't vote on, but about which I'm skeptical - they need to be aware that there won't be a lot of tolerance for disruption in some other non-zoophilia topic. If disruption begins in some other area, it will be nipped in the bud with an indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I see a one account and no logged out edits as a given, but I need to be clear. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock w/one-account restriction, TBAN from zoophilia (broadly construed). I'm supporting the tban because they've been a bit WP:BATTLEGROUND in this area before, and a tban gives the highest possibility of success going forward. Much as I personally dislike that subject area, I'd be willing to vote in favour of lifting the tban at some point in the future, when this user has a substantial history of constructive contributions and no significant disruption. --Yamla (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock w/one-account restriction, TBAN from zoophilia Yamla has convinced me to support this request, though I was originally on the fence. Both of those restriction are a deal breaker for me. There should be a very low tolerance to disruptive behavior. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits by User:Nath2081

Nath2081 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly adding his WP:OR, which violates WP:NPOV. He is also removing WP:RS from articles. Some of his edits are:

• [54]
• [55]
• [56]
• [57]
• [58]
• [59]

He was given multiple warnings by different users, but he didn't bother to respond and ask. See: [60], [61], [62], [63]. Regards,.245CMR.•^👥📜 05:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• This report belongs at ANI, but it has merit. I've indeffed the user for disruptive editing. The material the new user has been adding to articles is mind-boggling, and the edit-warring, at least on one article, equally over-the-top.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: Well, I initially thought to report this at ANI, but my previous reports were not handled and archived without any conclusion..245CMR.•^👥📜 13:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Concerns by IP

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

---

Denniss had recently edited only for topics about Nazi Germany during World War II, but he refused to edit any Wikipedia:WikiProject Military topics of World War I, Japan during World War II, and other Nazi-related content such as the Holocaust.

But also he involved unconstructive edits of child actors and teen idols, in accordance for violation to WP:OVERSIGHT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and removing some WP:RS from biographical articles. --2001:4452:458:800:7857:FDF0:1769:7FCC (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have prior history with this editor under a username or another IP? Noticing this[64]. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I ask to reply this user about to expand any Wikipedia:WikiProject Military content articles, but refused to do so, but I removed this reply by this user who once reverted. --2001:4452:458:800:7857:FDF0:1769:7FCC (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

All of this is very similar to comments previously made by User:Frontman830. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes thank you, that is it. I have blocked the poster for block evasion, being Frontman830 who is blocked as a sock of SwissArmyGuy who is under an arbcom block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

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

My own user talk page on the Portuguese Wikipedia

I am wondering if at least one administrator here is also one at the Portuguese wiki as well - I'd want this page to be deleted as vandalism and I have no knowledge of the language or tagging the actual page for deletion. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: - I'm not sure that a user talk page would be deleted. However, you should be within your rights to blank it. Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: I tagged it on ptwiki for speedy deletion for you. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done A ptwiki admin deleted the vandalized page (then created it with a welcome message that you are free to ignore). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

At least now we won't see the vandalised revision on the talk page there. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Second unblock/unban request from Zenkaino lovelive

• Zenkaino lovelive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Contribs on Korean Wiktionary.
• Korean Wikisource
• English Wiktionary
• User was check user blocked and CBANned. It's been a rocky road, with many unsuccessful requests and block evasion. User made an unsuccessful appeal to the community April, 2020. Check user review at UTRS did not find anything troubling. User has been contributing on Korean Wiktionary, Korean Wikisource and English Wiktionary. There request must speak for itself. I have copied it from their talk page below.

Hello, admins. I'm asking for an unban. I've left enwiki because of my ban for socking. I think that the ban was necessary to make me change my ways. I understand now that socking is very wrong, because it is lying to the Wikipedia community. I'm sorry that I lied about socking December 2019. I just wanted to ignore it. Therefore, I'll disclose ALL my socks (Zenkaino lovelive (original), ABOChannel (sock), Steven Hansen (sock)), and I DIDN'T EDIT ALL WIKIPEDIA since Dec 2020, and did not sock since my last sock day. I evaded my block by using 3 IPs (198.16.76.28, 175.223.27.43 and 175.223.3.71). I'm told to and must not edit ANY Wikipedia. So, I'd like to ask that my ban be lifted. I'm strongly asking that the Wikipedia community would welcome me back into their midst. I understand that I will likely never be trustworthy, but I ask that I would at least be given another chance at the English Wikipedia. I understand that what I did was wrong. I understand that I initially got block for socking in the RfC, and then I tried to evade my block by socking again. I'm sorry for these. If I am allowed back on enwiki, I will only use Zenkaino lovelive account, in any edits, discussions, and votes. But sometimes IP will be used. At first, I thought that I was extremely mad about having the block, but as too long time went on, I came to realize that the blocking admin did the right thing, that my behavior at the time was getting out of hand, and that I take full responsibility for my actions that led to my block. Fortunately, 27 months have passed since I was sitewide indeffed from enwiki, and my mental health has recovered enough for me to contribute to Wikipedia. I have learned several things and I have grown in several ways during the time I was indefinitely blocked sitewide: I now understand that Wikipedia is built more on cooperating with other people than simply expanding easy access to knowledge, and that failing to do so may cause a systemic bias in Wikipedia's content or even result in losing my ability to contribute, especially when one of the two results in the other. I will never sock again. I understand that this is my second chance. I haven't edited ALL Wikipedia since December, including UTRS. Reliable sources are needed for any content and I won't cite unreliable sources. Also, if it seems incorrect, discuss first before putting it. I would make productive contributions by adding true information only, and if a conflict is occurred, I'll talk or discuss it first. I would like to contribute in language-related and Microsoft Windows-related articles, etc. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support, but with a one-account restriction. Specifically, "But sometimes IP will be used" worries me; let's head off the concerns by requiring all edits occur from a single account. Note that the previous unban request noted they were disruptive on IRC. This hasn't really been directly addressed, though I believe this time out, they have not been disruptive. I strongly opposed last time around. --Yamla (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  didn't see that. @Zenkaino lovelive: No logged out edits should be made. This is true for all of us. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• If this user is unblocked - something I won't vote on, since I haven't looked into it - they need to be aware that there won't be a lot of tolerance for future disruption. If disruption resumes, it will be nipped in the bud with an indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Carlossuarez46 has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in April to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Carlossuarez46 requested it within three months. Because Carlossuarez46 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/Carlossuarez46#Motion: Suspended case (3 months).

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 closed