Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 19 | 14 | 33 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 22 | 48 | 70 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
- 8 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 17 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 13 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 142 sockpuppet investigations
- 18 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 4 Fully protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 23 requests for RD1 redaction
- 65 elapsed requested moves
- 6 Pages at move review
- 26 requested closures
- 122 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 16 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Obsolete indef block for an Australian IP
The IP address 60.231.28.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked since 2012, but this block is no longer needed since it has been reassigned since that date. According to a 2010 comment by MCAspire (talk · contribs) at the Ip's user page, it was assigned to Fraser Coast Anglican College in Hervey Bay, Queensland, but now geolocates to a locality in Brisbane, approximately 240 kilometres (150 mi) south. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Blocks are best discussed with the blocking admin in the first instance, and they are still active. @Andrewa: you don't seem to have been notified of this issue, or thread. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Geolocations are approximate at best. Most of the time my IP will mostly locate vaguely to my location, but my current IP doesn't geolocate to within 50 miles of me and greater distances are not unusual. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Australian IPs routinely geolocate weirdly (at one point my IP was in Perth, multiple thousands of kilometres from me). Vaticidalprophet 11:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Unblocked. If it causes problems, it can be blocked again, but it shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. It's common for IP addresses to be reallocated to a different company after a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Personal attacks by User:Dasdascv
I have updated some information in the Bidhannagar article, as per the information provided on the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation website (www.bmcwbgov.in). But, User:Dasdascv (talk) changed and removed it without providing any references and made personal attacks (here) on the edit summary, Which is inconsistent with the work of Wikipedia. He also abused my user page (here). -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Besi pakamo marle tor user page er pechon aro marbo chup chap thak onno jaiga edit kor Salt Lake ta hat dis na ota niye pakamo maris na Dasdascv (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well that's an indef block right there. Done. WaggersTALK 09:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- He created another account (User:Dasdasisback), and again started vandalism in Bidhannagar article (here 1, 2). -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well that's an indef block right there. Done. WaggersTALK 09:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Selective deletion of page history
Dear admins, I recently moved a page from my sandbox into main space, along with all its revisions since 2009. Can you please delete the page history up until this version? Sorry for the inconvenience. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, is this the correct place to add information about a sockpuppet investigation to notify administrators? TheFriendlyGuyy (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:SPI is designed for that sort of thing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- What if both already have pages and are currently marked as different accounts, but they seem to be the same? TheFriendlyGuyy (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Again if you have evidence or diffs that would be something to look into, SPI is the way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Pick one of the pages and reference the other one with a link and say that you think there is a connection between the two. IznoPublic (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- What if both already have pages and are currently marked as different accounts, but they seem to be the same? TheFriendlyGuyy (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Urgent request
Hello, please delete User:54nd60x/common.js now as per User talk:54nd60x/common.js! This is taking too long and I want to get back in now. BTW I am 54nd60x. 2600:1011:B173:D428:A8E5:C7EF:48C:C075 (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Alternatively, try temporarily disabling JavaScript in your browser. You should then be able to login and clear your common.js. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- And now 54nd60x has gone on a NSFW image vandalism spree. @Courcelles - could you check if this is a compromised account, and/or if TheFriendlyGuyy is the same user? — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ingenuity Funnily enough? They’re an exact match to TheFriendltGuy in the section right below. Ugh. Courcelles (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry folks, this seemed harmless enough to do, just knowing that wikibreak enforcer code has caused this problem before, legitimately. My bad. Courcelles (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Courcelles (or anyone), I believe some revdels/TPA revocation is in order. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- All done. Courcelles (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Courcelles (or anyone), I believe some revdels/TPA revocation is in order. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry folks, this seemed harmless enough to do, just knowing that wikibreak enforcer code has caused this problem before, legitimately. My bad. Courcelles (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ingenuity Funnily enough? They’re an exact match to TheFriendltGuy in the section right below. Ugh. Courcelles (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- And now 54nd60x has gone on a NSFW image vandalism spree. @Courcelles - could you check if this is a compromised account, and/or if TheFriendlyGuyy is the same user? — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- The wikibreak enforcer was set to expire at the start of 2022, so there's no reason you should be unable to log into your account. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
RfD needs closure
The RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 2#Invest 93L has now been open for 3 weeks including its time before being relisted. It needs to be closed. IMO it's a consensus for deletion. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
A number of concerns about a COI editor
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Lucy Letby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Richard D. Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lucia de Berk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gill110951 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I am creating this entry as a number of actions by a WP:Conflict of interest editor have concerned me on the Lucy Letby article and elsewhere. A talk page discussion [1] began yesterday about an issue of content which partly involved mentions of Richard Gill, a mathematician. Gill has been involved in his own personal campaign to free the recently-convicted Letby [2], and as a result the editor who began the talk page discussion suggested that Gill himself (who's edited on the talk) didn't participate in this particular discussion, since it was partly about whether to mention him on the article proper [3]. However, Gill has not followed this request and, in my view, has instead done the opposite and swamped the discussion: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. I did try and remind Gill on a number of occasions of the request for him to avoid this particular issue [12], [13], but he continued anyway. What I find particularly concerning is the content of some of these entries; he's said that his purpose, despite being on the talk page, is "not to suggest changes to the article" [14] and instead began to use the space to promote his own personal views on the wider Letby case and, tangentially, his criticism of the UK legal system in general, rather than discuss the article and changes to it [15]. This was uncomfortable to me as it seemed, considering his aim was "not to suggest changes to the article", that he was going against WP:SOAPBOX and directly contravening the warning at the top of the page that "This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lucy Letby. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article". A number of other possible guideline infringements have also concerned me. Gill has also been altering his own talk contributions after other editors have already replied to him, an apparent infringement of WP:REDACT. He did so here: [16]. Whilst it initially appears that this edit may have been done in good faith, the surreptitious changing of his comment on "the enormous bias in UK mainstream media coverage about this trial" to "what also appears to some to be enormous bias in UK mainstream media coverage about this trial" was done in direct response to my content point about how his acknowledgement of this 'enormous bias' in secondary sources actually reinforced my point [17] about how examples of reliable secondary sources disbelieving Letby's conviction are almost non-existent. Therefore, his going back on his original comment to redact it to 'what also appears to some to be enormous bias in UK mainstream media...' is evidently an attempt to conceal his previous, potentially unfortunate, comments. This really does seem to be a WP:REDACT issue. Furthermore, he redacted in that edit something what seems to me to also be quite disingenuous - his writing on himself in the third person(!) as one of the 'highly qualified professionals' on his side, which was misleading to editors who may not have realised that the person listing Richard Gill as a highly qualified professional was Richard Gill! What Gill then did I think also made it worse and potentially infringes not only on WP:REDACT but on WP:PROMOTION and WP:COICAMPAIGNING - he altered his own talk contributions to provide links to the personal campaign sites of him and his allies and to his own Wikipedia page [18].
Gill went on to comment on how his own article has been 'repeatedly vandalised in recent months'. Looking into the page in question I then found on the edit history that he has been editing and reverting his own page(!) consistently, [19], and that the page on himself was even created by himself! Does this behaviour surely not violate WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST guidelines which states that "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead... If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles"??. What has really upset me is my discovery that he has further been consistently editing articles over the years on people who's campaigns he was directly involved in - such as Lucia de Berk, an article he, again, created [20].
Further research on Gill reveals that he has been promoting his Wikipedia edits to his own article on his social media to his supporters - [21]. Considering that such actions are likely going to encourage his followers on the social media platform to come to his aid or support his edits, could this also not constitute a form of WP:CANVASSING?
Apologies for the rather extensive entry, I just feel that the combination of these factors illustrate behaviour that does not meet the requirements from a conflict of interest editor, and I am somewhat surprised that this has not been picked up on before. Snugglewasp (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Swamped the discussion? I tried to add some balance to the discussion on the talk page, and I tried to point out that the main article page seemed to me to give a very biased view of the case. It appeared to me that Snugglewasp is convinced of Lucy Letby's guilt and therefore himself has a COI. Also he demonstrably does not believe in my good faith. Anyway: there has been a request for an appeal. There is a growing movement in social media and starting to be apparent in mainstream media too, that many people feel that Lucy's trial was unfair, and a smaller number of course tend to think that she likely is innocent. Recent polls on Twitter and Facebook suggest the opinions are about equally divided. I am afraid that Snugglewasp has invested an enormous amount of energy in reproducing the prosecution case on Wikipedia. Of course, the webpage must refer to reliable sources and at present most so-called reliable sources tend to agree that Lucy is an evil witch and her crimes are disgusting and inexplicable. But will that stay the case for long? Is it forbidden to mention - on the talk page - ongoing developments in this case, which suggest that much of the present article is premature?
- The article is about the trial of Lucy Letby, not about the person Lucy Letby. There has been a conviction at first instance. Now the procedure has been started for an appeal. An enquiry has also been announced, based on the premise that her conviction is definite. But, this story is likely going to run and run, and the Wikipedia page on this trial (and trials) is not going to be finished for maybe five to ten years, if past cases are anything to go by.Richard Gill (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- By the way, the current page on myself was indeed created by myself, at a time when there were pages on about four different Richard Gill's, and I helped out in disambiguating ourselves. (There is an Australian conductor, there is a top economist, there was me, and I think someone else too). Indeed I created a wikipedia page on Lucia de Berk. There was already a Dutch wikipedia page on the case and I helped with translating it an adapting it for an international audience. I have been deeply involved in several serial killer nurse cases and I am just one person of many who has worked on the Wikipedia pages on those nurses. It is true that in my daily life I sometimes play the role of a campaigner. I also play the role of a scientist. I am very highy cited, I am a member of the Royal Dutch Academy of Science, and so on. I did not achieve those qualifications by campaigning against miscarriages of justice or by manipulating Wikipedia. By the way, I often worked as a forensic scientist for the prosecution side. I helped get the terrorists who assassinated prime minister Hariri of Lebanon convicted by the UN tribunal on Lebanon. I attempted to correct a Dutch miscarriage of justice in which the obvious murderer of a young woman was not convicted because the Netherlands judiciary was too scared to use new scientific tools for the interpretation of low copy number mixed DNA profiles. But I failed, that time. I act in good faith and I believe that I have a good record in preserving my scientific integrity and impartiality even when participating in movements to correct miscarriages of justice. Richard Gill (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- By the way, Snugglewasp's own point of view is evident in many little issues of framing. For instance, controversial "expert" Dewi Evans is called "paediatric doctor Dewi Evans" even though he has been retired for 15 years or so, and has a private company in which he is a controversial "gun for hire" in child custody cases. During the Letby trial he was asked if he was a scientist, and he said, no, I am not really a scientist. On the other hand I am a famous and still internationally active scientist but I am called a "retired statistician". Indeed, I now get a pension so the university no longer pays my salary, but I am an active research mathematician working in quantum information theory, and in forensic science, and in mathematical statistics and probability and in applied statistics. I still regularly publish in the best peer-reviewed journals and I am listed on my own university's web pages as a member of my department of mathematics at the faculty of science of Leiden University. My correct designation is "emeritus professor of mathematical statistics". See https://research.com/scientists-rankings/mathematics/nl for some indication of my scientific standing in the Netherlands: top mathematician, according to one ranking. Richard Gill (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Gill110951: hold up. Commenting about a COI user is different from you making comments on me. A COI editor is always going to elicit more scrutiny by their nature. That doesn't mean you can make personal comments/borderline attacks on me - which I note you began to approach doing on the talk page. You don't know what my opinions are, it is improper to state that is appears to you "that Snugglewasp is convinced of Lucy Letby's guilt and therefore himself has a COI". Stating "I am afraid that Snugglewasp has invested an enormous amount of energy in reproducing the prosecution case on Wikipedia" is also patently false - I've only made three edits to the article proper, and I never added anything about the prosecution case. As a matter of fact I actually have no opinion of the guilt of Lucy Letby, in this case I am only interested in the acute conflict of interest issue. Making comments about me as an editor is not proper per WP:No personal attacks - "comment on content, not on the contributor". As I say that might sound hypocritical, but a COI editor is bound to have greater scrutiny on them, especially on an entry on a noticeboard where I am raising a COI issue. As a neutral, uninvolved editor, meanwhile, I do not need to take unfounded accusations of bias or conflict of interest. I already felt uncomfortable about your talk page comments to me "May I therefore just remind you of the following general guidelines: Assume good faith; Be polite and avoid personal attacks; Be welcoming to newcomers; Seek dispute resolution if needed...", the implication being that I am somehow being unreasonable (I'm not sure why you'd say be welcome to newcomers when you and I have been editing for years here anyway) [22]. In any case, on the issue of personal attacks, you do not seem to have heeded your own advice! Snugglewasp (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- My apologies if I got the impression that you were a main editor active on that page. Still, I stand by my comments about the biased nature of that page. Your attacks on me concerning the page about myself are unfounded. I already explained to you how it came about that I appear to have started that page. I didn’t. I did help disambiguate the several pages on various different Richard Gills by renaming the one about me as Richard D Gill (statistician). At the time, nobody objected. Richard Gill (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Gill110951: hold up. Commenting about a COI user is different from you making comments on me. A COI editor is always going to elicit more scrutiny by their nature. That doesn't mean you can make personal comments/borderline attacks on me - which I note you began to approach doing on the talk page. You don't know what my opinions are, it is improper to state that is appears to you "that Snugglewasp is convinced of Lucy Letby's guilt and therefore himself has a COI". Stating "I am afraid that Snugglewasp has invested an enormous amount of energy in reproducing the prosecution case on Wikipedia" is also patently false - I've only made three edits to the article proper, and I never added anything about the prosecution case. As a matter of fact I actually have no opinion of the guilt of Lucy Letby, in this case I am only interested in the acute conflict of interest issue. Making comments about me as an editor is not proper per WP:No personal attacks - "comment on content, not on the contributor". As I say that might sound hypocritical, but a COI editor is bound to have greater scrutiny on them, especially on an entry on a noticeboard where I am raising a COI issue. As a neutral, uninvolved editor, meanwhile, I do not need to take unfounded accusations of bias or conflict of interest. I already felt uncomfortable about your talk page comments to me "May I therefore just remind you of the following general guidelines: Assume good faith; Be polite and avoid personal attacks; Be welcoming to newcomers; Seek dispute resolution if needed...", the implication being that I am somehow being unreasonable (I'm not sure why you'd say be welcome to newcomers when you and I have been editing for years here anyway) [22]. In any case, on the issue of personal attacks, you do not seem to have heeded your own advice! Snugglewasp (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- By the way, Snugglewasp's own point of view is evident in many little issues of framing. For instance, controversial "expert" Dewi Evans is called "paediatric doctor Dewi Evans" even though he has been retired for 15 years or so, and has a private company in which he is a controversial "gun for hire" in child custody cases. During the Letby trial he was asked if he was a scientist, and he said, no, I am not really a scientist. On the other hand I am a famous and still internationally active scientist but I am called a "retired statistician". Indeed, I now get a pension so the university no longer pays my salary, but I am an active research mathematician working in quantum information theory, and in forensic science, and in mathematical statistics and probability and in applied statistics. I still regularly publish in the best peer-reviewed journals and I am listed on my own university's web pages as a member of my department of mathematics at the faculty of science of Leiden University. My correct designation is "emeritus professor of mathematical statistics". See https://research.com/scientists-rankings/mathematics/nl for some indication of my scientific standing in the Netherlands: top mathematician, according to one ranking. Richard Gill (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- By the way, the current page on myself was indeed created by myself, at a time when there were pages on about four different Richard Gill's, and I helped out in disambiguating ourselves. (There is an Australian conductor, there is a top economist, there was me, and I think someone else too). Indeed I created a wikipedia page on Lucia de Berk. There was already a Dutch wikipedia page on the case and I helped with translating it an adapting it for an international audience. I have been deeply involved in several serial killer nurse cases and I am just one person of many who has worked on the Wikipedia pages on those nurses. It is true that in my daily life I sometimes play the role of a campaigner. I also play the role of a scientist. I am very highy cited, I am a member of the Royal Dutch Academy of Science, and so on. I did not achieve those qualifications by campaigning against miscarriages of justice or by manipulating Wikipedia. By the way, I often worked as a forensic scientist for the prosecution side. I helped get the terrorists who assassinated prime minister Hariri of Lebanon convicted by the UN tribunal on Lebanon. I attempted to correct a Dutch miscarriage of justice in which the obvious murderer of a young woman was not convicted because the Netherlands judiciary was too scared to use new scientific tools for the interpretation of low copy number mixed DNA profiles. But I failed, that time. I act in good faith and I believe that I have a good record in preserving my scientific integrity and impartiality even when participating in movements to correct miscarriages of justice. Richard Gill (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- In future situations like this, you may want to post at WP:COIN or WP:ANI instead. Also the original post is a bit dense, making it take a lot of brainpower to parse. I have skimmed it quickly and determined that this centers around the article Lucy Letby and the user Gill110951. Is this correct? I only see one recent edit by Gill to that article (not nearly as much as I was expecting for this kind of report). It sounds like your main objection is that Gill is participating in talk page discussions while having a COI? There are no restrictions on talk page discussions for COI editors, so perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. Can you please concisely point me towards any other poor behavior or diffs that I missed? Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I can maybe provide a shortened version for everyone. IRL Gill110951 is a statistician, Richard D. Gill, that has a specialty in generating evidence supporting defendants in alleged wrongful convictions. He believes the recently convicted British serial killer Lucy Letby is wrongly convicted and has been filling up the article talk page with his theories. Snugglewasp thinks this is a COI issue. However, it's not really COI because he hasn't been editing the article (apart from one minor edit). I think the most that could be said is it's WP:RGW, WP:BLUDGEON, with a dash of WP:PROMO thrown in. But yes, it should be at ANI if anywhere. DeCausa (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- No no, let me explain! I'm not saying that the issue is Gill110951 participating in talk page discussions with a COI, that's obviously fine! Apologies, my very long post has probably confused things. Long story short, my main concern is instead that the user has been creating and editing on other articles in which he has a direct involvement - including his own article Richard D. Gill which he created and then continues to self-regulate and edit even though it's his own article, and the Lucia de Berk article which he also created and consistently edits on even though he was jointly leading the campaign on her. In addition to this I was also saying that the editor has been infringing on other guidelines - WP:REDACT, WP:CANVASSING, WP:PROMOTION and WP:COICAMPAIGNING - some of which he has done during the Lucy Letby talk page discussion. But just to be clear, my issue is not him participating in the talk or editing the Letby page (which, as you've said, he's only done once anyway), it is his wider conduct. I hope that makes some sense. Snugglewasp (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have not been “filling up the talk page with my theories”. I made some constructive comments on the talk page with mention of a number of facts whose veracity is easy to check. Richard Gill (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- It needs to be mentioned that the article details the prosecution case against Lucy Letby during her initial trial for serial murder. Her defence lawyers did very little to defend her. Lucy is now appealing her conviction. Already, the article is being appended with news of the latest developments. Personally, I do not intend to come back to these pages for a while, and hopefully not at all. I worked professionally on the case before the trial, working on a publication by the Royal Statistical Society about the dangers of abuse of statistics in such cases, and how to alleviate them. Richard Gill (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- The editor in question has now started editing the main page, including an unsourced addition here. He also reverted several copy edits and reverted my removal of the unsourced addition. The reason given 'sources are easy to find'. This does seem like a case of COI and disruptive editing.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Mark Ironie (talk · contribs) and CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs) will be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, these editors must disclose their connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account.
For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 14:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan
User:Jaredball claims to be Jared Ball and regularly updates the page as such. He was warned of this COI in 2020 and has continued to edit his own page. Moreover, he has eliminated mention of his short presidential run in 2008 on multiple occasions.--User:Namiba 16:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy link: User_talk:Jaredball, case-sensitive. RudolfRed (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Page move
This looks like an unintentional mistake.
I didn't post a note to the user's talk page because, if this needs to be undone, it likely requires tools to do it, and I didn't want to put the user on the spot to try to undo it. Basically trying to reduce complication.
If someone would be kind enough to please take a look into this. - jc37 15:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Seems resolved, and I've move-protected the essay, given almost all move attempts of that page would be attempts to move the wrong page. Courcelles (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you to you and BD2412 for addressing this. - jc37 16:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Accidental or not, the responsible editor seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Aside from this, all of their edits are adding themselves to articles (granted, probably correctly) and trying to get an article about themselves published. BD2412 T 17:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you to you and BD2412 for addressing this. - jc37 16:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
By the way, the link now leads to an error page which says "The revision #1175952999 of the page named "Wikipedia:Userfication" does not exist". Is it possible to make the page name actually link to the page? Animal lover |666| 05:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Hardeep Singh Nijjar
Hardeep Singh Nijjar, is the subject of Sikh vs India edit-warring, with a lot of back and forth about whether he was assassinated in Canada by agents of the Indian government (alleged) and/or was a terrorist (allegedly). Could it be protected? Abductive (reasoning) 05:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Semi-protected by @Lofty abyss about half an hour ago. WaggersTALK 07:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sadly not surprised to find through all this edit warring, the only edits ever to Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar have been template addition and maintenance. [24] Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Resignation of SilkTork
I am resigning from the Arbitration Committee at the end of this year - December 31, 2023. Due to age and health I have struggled with the requirements of clarity of thought, energy levels, and remaining emotionally detached that is required of an Arb, and don't feel I have given of my best during this term. The thought of another year is wearying. I have been impressed with the professionalism, knowledge, skills and work ethic of the current Committee, one of the best and most supportive I have worked with. The Arbitration Committee, thanks to the work of not just the current but also previous Committees, is moving forward into an efficient organisation, and - despite my resignation - I would recommend it for those younger admins who have not yet served as a place to learn and discover more about Wikipedia, to test and improve skills, and as a place to really satisfy those desires of wanting to help out. ArbCom really benefits from having a mix of newer and younger admins working alongside seasoned and experienced Arbs. Indeed, the Committee benefits from having a wide and active range of views and opinions and experiences - it's as good to have those who are mainly familiar with writing articles, or organising categories as it is to have those who are very familiar with the daily posts on AN. Step forward and step up.
Meanwhile, thanks to the Committee and to the Clerks for all that they do. SilkTork (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)