Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361

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

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

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

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

• I support this proposal. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I should be available to help close. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 11:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Closing panels have not, in recent times, been less challenged than single admin closes and have not, to my knowledge, been upheld more even when challenged. A 3 admin panel spends a lot of time of 3 administrators to not only do all the work of closing the discussion, but also with collaborating with each other. Given that they are seemingly not achieving their stated purpose of more legitimacy I question the use of editor time, one of our most precious resources, on performing them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It also might not be needed; numerically it's 2:1 in favour of deletion, meaning there will need to be a huge swing in the other direction or some very strong keep arguments even to get it to a no consensus close (and no, I did nothing more than count heads, but there's still most of a week to go so it was pointless to do anything but). Primefac (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Except AfD closures are not based on votes but the strength of the arguments. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; nice to see you read what I wrote. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if it sounded dismisive. I know you qualified the statement, but there are AfD closures of no consensus in ones that garner the same ratio with a fraction of the participation. There were vote counters at the first AfD and at the DRV so it's possible I'm developing a twitch in regards to this. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, Sandstein, and Primefac: Even if three uninvolved administrators declare themselves available and interested in forming a panel to close the discussion, as Ingenuity has generously volunteered their time and energy to do so, would you still oppose a panel closure in principle? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 18:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell people how they should spend their volunteer time. But I am opposed, in principle, to nearly all closing panels. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I am neither opposed nor in favour, I'm just saying that if the consensus is clear enough, a panel is kind of pointless. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ingenuity does not need two other people to help them close the AfD, they can do so on their own. Sandstein 19:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As Barkeep49 alludes to, if those volunteering to evaluate the consensus view of a discussion feel more comfortable doing it in a group and agree on doing it, that's up to them. However personally I disagree with mandating that a group of evaluators is needed. isaacl (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Barkeep49. With panels we get even more admin overhead for the same outcome. Additionally, panel closures are not provided for in policy, making them out of process. Moreover, calling for them in any slightly controversial case has the effect of delegitimizing single-admin closures. Sandstein 15:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

In the same vein, the RM at Talk:Where is Kate? § Requested move 23 March 2024 has reach the backlog section on WP:RMC. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess it would be better to close the RM only after the AfD concludes, or people may get confused and scripts may break. Sandstein 19:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted.

1. Too many alt proposals to be closed within a week.
2. There is no clear consensus yet.
3. We typically close RMs after ongoing AfDs as the process to clean up on the AfD after rename isn't really straight forward.

– robertsky (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate the relist! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

• Well, to be fair, I want to state that I suggested the idea to IgnatiusofLondon on their talk page and I think he put together a very cogent request here even though it is not getting the support I expected. So, you can fault me if you think it is a bad idea. I can just tell from my involvement closing AFDs these days and the twists and turns this article has experienced over the past month, that a solitary admin decision would be contested and that a three admin panel decision would be less likely to end up back at Deletion review taking up even more time from participating admins and editors who frequent that noticeboard. As I stated to IgnatiusofLondon, I see valid arguments on several options at the 3rd AFD but the consensus I truly see in this discussion thus far is that editors are tired of arguing about this article. I thought a panel decision would help avoid a second Deletion review but perhaps that was wishful thinking on my part.

And since I'm here, talking about admin time, we could really use additional help closing AFD discussions. Participation, from discussion participants and closers has fallen over the past year and we really only have 3 or 4 regular admin closers where, when I started 3 years ago, I could easily have named a dozen admins who helped out closing discussions in AFDLand. Even if you could devote an hour one day a week, it would help and I'm sure discussion participants would like seeing more diversity in the makeup of admin closers. I know that almost every admin area has become short staffed after the decline in active admin numbers in past years (since COVID-19 if not earlier) so just consider this my pitch! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I'm surprised to hear this. I have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs on my watchlist and when I've been in the mood to maybe do an AfD there is almost never anything open for me to do. Is that bot not properly updating? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'll be blunt here. There has been a trend in AFDs that I have seen over the past few years. And I'll admit up front that I'm partially responsible for this (or partially blamed, if you're not so kind). But discussions that seem borderline, strongly divided or sparsely attended are getting relisted more often than they used to be. This relisting has been done both by regular editors who are helping out through relisting AFD discussions and by some admins including yours truly. This relisting has been done because there is no obvious consenus. I know, as a regular closer, that I like to be as certain as I can be about a closure because I get no joy out of being called to Deletion review as you might see from my previous remarks. We have other closers who shy away from closing any discussions that don't seem unanimous or close to unanimous. This isn't ideal but I understand this behavior because being scrutinized at A Deletion review can sometimes feel like you're getting a colonoscopy. They can be a little brutal. However, when I look at AFDs from years ago, I can see where we had some admins who were very decisive about AFD closures but were casting Super votes because their decisions sure don't seem to reflect a consensus point-of-view. So, there are good and bad aspects of relisting disucussions in order to seek more input from editors. I have seen instances where a bunch of editors suddenly show up after several relistings to offer great feedback and the closure becomes clear but there are other instances where closures just keep getting postponed for too long.

The issue you mentioned though arises sometimes with our non-admin helpers. If I'm not sure about a closure, I will sometimes leave a discussion open because the admins who review "old discussions" do not seem to need the certainty that I like to see. However our "helpers" will often relist any discussion they see that is still open. Our regular admin closers are leaving the discussions open for admins like you to handle as old cases but the discussions just get relisted again for another week. I've discussed this with several of our NACers and relisters but it's hard to describe exactly the conditions that exist when they should just let older discussions be and age out and NOT relist them. They want to help but they should just let these discussion cycle over to the Open AFDs page because what they really need is a fresh set of admin eyes to read them over rather than our few regular admin closers.

I realize that by stating all this, I'm opening myself up to criticism as I do tend to relist discussions that I think are ambiguous or have little to no participation (which is a different problem we could talk about another day). And I've anticipated some pushback from AFD participants but I've only seen a few random comments from editors who are impatient about a relised discussion. But this "multiple relistings" trend should probably be reduced except for when it is genuinely called for. That's my feedback to y'all from the AFD trenches. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll just add that this issue would probably be greatly reduced or even eliminated if we had a few dozen more thoughtful AFD participants but editors seem to burn out on participating there which is understandable. But more participation that is not "per nom", and I think most discussions would have a clearer consensus. That's generally the case for most AFDs except for discussions like that of Where is Kate?. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

As someone who contributes at AfD less than I used to I think that relisting and especially the rush to relist is a massive factor in that burnout. Relisting feels like a slap to the face of everyone who has participated, almost as if you're judging their contributions to be insignificant and you're asking for some REAL opinions not the horseshit thats already been offered. I know its not that, but I also know that I'm not the only one who feels a sort of way about relisting. On top of that some people go about relisting in a condescending way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I had noticed this trend in AfDs, but I don't necessarily mind it. In fact I have even asked for a relist once or twice to give the discussion more time. I think I might once have expressed surprise that a strongly trending AfD needed a relist, but on balance I think the cautious approach is beneficial. Personally I don't feel the slap to the face from a relist. I may, however, have adapted to the situation. I watch a lot of AfDs but I don't feel a need to participate in most. If an outcome is strongly trending in a way I agree with, I may not take part at all. I may also be guilty of not wanting to go first on some where a lot of searching is required (Um... like this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Shepstone Secondary School). Proper searching takes time. So often it takes the relist for me to remember to do something. So all in all, the more routine relisting may not be a bad thing, but it may, perversely, slow down participation. One thing that is very helpful is when the relisting contains a comment/prompt as to what is needed, such as a request for a source review, or else, in another case I recall, a request for someone familiar with a particular notability guideline (GEOLAND in that case) to comment. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. The way that eager non-admin closers would relist in ways that prevented closures was a problem I dealt with regularly when AfD was a big part of my admin workload. So I get that. But also from what I'm seeing at the moment, it feels like it would be really hard for me to become a high volume AfD closer again, even if I had the time. If that's true for admins who might be willing to help, then I wonder what can be done. That said I'm unsurprised Low quality participation at Articles for Deletion is still true and would agree that if we could solve that it would have a bigger benefit to the system than getting more admin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a solid statistical basis for having the default listing period for an AfDs be 168 hours precisely? As far as I can tell, somebody at some point was just like "seven days I guess" and then we spent twenty years having them run seven days -- and there wasn't any kind of math done as to whether 7 was better than 6, 8, 10, et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As I recall, the thinking was that people have different schedules, so keeping it open for a full week insures that people who, e.g., only have time to edit on Sunday morning, will have a chance to weigh in on a conversation initiated the previous Sunday evening, before it closes. BD2412 T 20:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think a week is eminently sensible for that reason. And I can't see what a shorter or longer timeframe could achieve. In any case, relists sometimes don't seem to run for the full additional seven days. The issue is that relists seem often to act as an "extension" due to minimal participation rather than "we're so close to consensus; we just need a final push" for which I think relists are intended. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has tried to save a lot of articles, I've been grateful for relists; I'm not on-wiki all the time, I don't hang out on wikiprojects, and some nominators don't even notify the article creator, let alone all editors who contributed substantially to the article. And in any case I haven't contributed substantially to all our articles, even on topics that interest me :-) So sometimes I only see the AfD after it's been relisted. Plus when I do see it, it usually takes a while to search for sources, and it takes even longer since I've learned to improve the article first rather than posting at the AfD on how it could be improved to better demonstrate notability, and since either way, it usually takes someone being persuaded by my argument and/or work to turn the tide. That 7-day deadline can come awfully fast. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Copies from Where is Kate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'd be happy to work with Ingenuity on closing this AfD. I'm sure they can do this by themselves, as could I, but I agree that coming from a panel of multiple admins will lend more credence to the close, reduce accusations of a supervote, and hopefully bring us closer to a broadly accepted conclusion for this saga. And by the way, @Liz, there's an attending anaesthesiologist at my colonoscopies, but I'm expected to be fully awake at every DRV against me... Owen× ☎ 17:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Your opinion needed: Black Kite has raised the issue of my WP:INVOLVEment, based on this comment I made in the DRV. I didn't think my comments in that DRV renders me INVOLVED, and I don't have strong views about the article either way. But if there's an appearance of a bias or involvement, I'll recuse myself from closing the AfD. Please advise. Owen× ☎ 22:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• With the greatest of respect, there's not an appearance of bias, there clearly is a bias, because you've said the article should be kept. As administrators we cannot close AfDs on which we have commented in one way or another, this isn't a difficult issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• I don't want to say participating in a DRV always makes you involved with respect to a later AfD, but in this case you've specifically said that you think the topic warrants inclusion, and that's enough to make you a non-ideal closer, I think (especially for such a contentious discussion). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Owen has agreed to step aside on this one, which I think is an excellent idea. As I said on Ingenuity's talkpage, the last thing we want is to end up with a fourth AfD because one of the closers might be seen not to be impartial. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I understand and appreciate this. Owen× ☎ 23:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Reply to Flatscan regarding the copies. Most of these redirects were deleted under WP:G8 but this one specifically has not been deleted and that is my fault. I had earlier felt that the redirect (and one other of the 20+ creations) was reasonable and should be targeted to Catherine, Princess of Wales#Health. Because I retargeted the redirect, it has not been deleted with all the others. I have thus taken it to RfD here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Catherine, Princess of Wales cancer diagnosis where I explain my reasoning for doing so. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Force logging out NEW users...

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

what is "a possibly bad numeric designation"? An IP address? Screenshots would help and although you have a good point about creating a new account, the help desk is now probably your best place for help with a technical issue Elinruby (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

IP edits:

1. 05:37, 8 July 2023 comment by the OP's IP about not being able to log in as Unfriendly Aliens, who was later CU blocked - the IP was, too, separately;
2. Current post by the OP here and at ANI about not being able to log in as Aliens' Probes, who is not blocked;
3. Accounts similar.

I'm just leaving this as a note for future eyes (as potentially the less attention feedy option), though I am going to revert the ANI one. – 2804:F1...9E:9592 (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the help in this matter. I was concerned about a bad IP and a glitch on here. Why is there a limited set of IP designations?216.247.72.142 (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a limited set of IP designations but reading the IP address article might answer your question. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Reporting User HughMan532

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

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

You did not notify User:HughMan532, which you are required to do. Additionally, this user has zero edits, zero hits on any edit filters, and zero entries in the logs apart from the account's creation. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 18:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any way SN could know about HM532 without the two accounts being operated by the same person, and it's very suspicious for an hour-old account whose first edit was vandalism to post on AN immediately after. Should the two accounts be Checkusered? – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 18:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for what I did, it was my attempt at a joke lol. Me and SN are friends but aren't the same person. HughMan532 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Technical issue with pdfs?

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

Test caption

The only clue I have is in the Dimensions data:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION CJCSI 3160-01 13 February 2009 NO-STRIKE AND THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY.pdf Dimensions: 1,275 × 1,650, 101 pages (1.12 MB)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION CJCSI 3160-01 13 February 2009 NO-STRIKE AND THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY.pdf Dimensions: 0 × 0 (1.12 MB)

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

As nobody (including me) reading this seems to know the answer, my suggestion would be to try asking at Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile, I think it's the period in the filename that's messing up the way it displays. If I try with the filename without the period, it does a thumbnail (that doesn't resolve because there's no file of that name, of course). Try renaming the file without using a period until the .pdf portion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: that solved it! Thank you! Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Glad it worked! Schazjmd (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

IP editor

151.2.203.215

• Edit warring and disruptive editing: [3][4][5][6][7]
• Abusing editors: [8] [9]

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

I think this is the most blatant case for a NOTHERE block I've ever seen. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a month, edits on John Money revision-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Doremon9087 has a new Account

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

---

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

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

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

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

Messy CopyVio History

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

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

Request Review of Topic Ban imposed by Novem Linguae

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The allegations made are demonstrably false.

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

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

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

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

• Endorse I'm not sure about the tban, but this challenge certainly DOA. The community has spoken. Nemov (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. The ban looks like a very ordinary topic ban, the close was a reasonable finding of a consensus, and no new information has been offered.—Alalch E. 18:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse and speedy close, (involved as voter in TB proposal). Consensus was clear. Suggest broader block for ongoing IDHT and disruption. If you've disengaged from the article, you do not need access to edit it. Star Mississippi 20:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Cadaver Dogs

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

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

"Cadaver dogs" is a redirect to Search and rescue dog#Cadaver dog. You can expand that section rather than creating a fork. If the section becomes large enough, then you can propose splitting the section out into a separate article. If the article you want to write is about another topic, then you can write a draft, either in the Draft space or in a sandbox in your own user space, and then ask for help moving it to article space when it is ready. Donald Albury 21:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe the issue is that you were, up until just now, not an autoconfirmed user. I would still strongly suggest you draft an article before just creating it, but you should technically be able to do so now. The correct title would be Cadaver dog, which is currently a redirect. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024: Phase I ready to be wrapped up

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

RfD still open

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

 Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth @Okmrman:, a month at RfD (March 11th to April 12th) is really not that much cause for alarm. If it was touching two though, and/or was a decently contentious discussion which has lingered at the bottom for weeks with multiple relists, that's a lot more noteworthy. But the old RfD in question received 7 delete !votes and 1 !keep vote within the last 7 days. Would've been closed any day now, and likely isn't something that needed to be cross-posted here.

What I will say though, as a word of advice, there really shouldn't be that big of a rush to close things at RfD. Generally, discussions should stay open for at least a week regardless, but I noticed you closing brand new discussions within a day, which should generally not be happening. You closed this discussion yesterday that was live for 18 hours after one person !voted to retarget and two people echoed it, which was a highly premature close from my point of view, (especially as I would've !voted something else). You were asked on your talk page 5 days ago to undo a close you made on Holy Chao, and again asked earlier today. I presume that case was also 1-2 days old as User:Veverve asked you on April 7th to reopen their RfD that initiated on April 5th?

I appreciate your enthusiasm for keeping the RfDs up-to-date, as well as coming here to make sure that the old discussions receive their proper closure, but with this recent pattern I'd advise you to take it at a bit slower pace, thank you. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah sorry. My own discussion on the Genociding redirect was closed within less than a day so I thought that type of stuff was allowed. Okmrman (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

All good, thanks for the response. Looking into the particular Genociding case, it seems it was primarily based on there not being a strong reason for action at RfD, i.e. it wouldn't be appropriate to delete Dancing as a redirect to Dance due to the -ing, either. The super early close isn't something that I would have done for it, as early closes are contentious on principle, but we live and learn though! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request: Willbb234

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

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

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

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

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

Unsalting needed

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

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

Request Admin assistance

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

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

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

(edit conflict) As a note, some of these were also closed by me. Particularly, on April 5th Veverve nominated 30+ redirects across 20+ RfD sections, all to Discordianism, across 38 minutes ranging from 22:21 to 22:59. With basically a redirect getting nominated every minute, many of these nominations were not handled with the proper diligence as expected of an XfD proposal. An example would be "Discordian date", which was nominated with the rationale of "nonsensical", even though there's nothing inherently or evidently nonsensical about it. Discordian calendar, a target that four people unanimously pointed out and zero opposition, is a very plausible location to discuss dates; so, I closed this nomination on April 11th, in order to clean up some of the mass Discordian nominations that had a simple fix to retarget. Similarly, the disappearance of a section isn't a reason to delete Chao (Discordianism), if it's still discussed in a different section. Admittedly, Okmrman's closes were a lot earlier than I would've hoped for (April 9th), but I don't see how any of them would have turned out any differently. Opening them now would just be a detriment to editor's spent-time, as all have come to a universally agreed conclusion, and/or have no suitable reason for deletion provided (as mentions of terms such as Holy Chao have been added / re-added to the article, etc). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There have already been too many noticeboard threads about this topic, but since Steve Quinn has decided that this matter warranted yet another thread, perhaps he will be kind enough to explain why he wrote at Veverve's talk page that Oakman, Skyerise, and Furius are quite the clown show regarding these RFD and Discordianism pages [25]. Steve Quinn has ignored a prior attempt to get him to retract this personal attack. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Lepricavark, to which noticeboard threads are you referring? This is the only thread I know about regarding the possibility of reopening the RFDs ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. I was referring more broadly to all the Discordianism-related threads. Continuing to ignore criticism of your personal attack is a bad look. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

OK I agree that those are not noticeboard threads. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There have been several threads about Discordianism at the noticeboards. Too many, in my opinion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Ouch. That's not a very good look for him. Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot Okmrman (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There is enough blame to go around regarding the Discordianism and RFD discussions. So I suggest we all drop it. Otherwise we can all have dueling diffs between among several people. Frankly I don't think that would be productive at this point. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes and that's why this user essay exists. To make people think about their own actions before making discussions like this. Now personally, I would suggest to get an admin to lock this entire thread (and maybe give you a 2 day block for personal attack). Okmrman (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think your response is known as trolling. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with me opening this discussion. In fact, it was quite justified. It is and was not a personal attack. You have actually prematurely closed a number of RFDs. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright maybe the discussion was valid but were the very cleverly marked up sections where you took very obvious jabs necessary? Also, the personal attacks refers to the messages you made about the three users in that user talk page. Okmrman (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are not really cleverly marked up. They are strike thru's. In other words, that means I rescinded those remarks. And I rescinded because they seem to contradict Assume Good Faith. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

So, regarding those three to whom you refer, I think that would be up to us to resolve. That is the instance I refer to where several of us would be in a situation of dueling diffs. One remark or action caused another remark or action and so on---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Because this has come up more than once or twice - I apologize for making the clown show remark regarding three Wikipedia editors (three colleagues) who are doing the best that they can, just like me. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

When I said "enough blame to go around" I wasn't referring to opening this thread. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I withdraw my request based on Utopes input above. I didn't realize the scope of, or the number of, RFDs created in a short space of time. Also, I didn't realize that proper due diligence was not carried out on most of these RfDs. But if I had realized the scope of the mass of deletion requests, I probably would have had a clue about due diligence. I got too involved in this situation, which is not a good thing on Wikipedia. It is a recipe for errors in judgement. I can see how it happened, now, I am remedying the problem, with egg on my face, so it won't happen in the future. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For what it's worth I think it's still a fair position; Okmrman was closing discussions beyond just Discordianism, some of which stayed open for a fraction of the time the Discordian ones did. I mentioned a couple sections above this thread, here, about how this RfD opened on April 11th and was prematurely closed by Okmrman after just 18 hours. That's definitely a problem and should be undone. But with the Discordian titles now officially hitting a week since they began... unless there's expected to be a different outcome for whether or not to delete something like Discorianism, the snow-close seems correct for those specific titles. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm closed my discussion in a similar amount of time. Honestly, if Steel wants to, he could easily ask me to reopen it and I put a message on his own talk page just to tell him that. Okmrman (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

and yes I still think Genociding deserved a discussion even though it falls under {{redirect from verb}} because it's barely used to the point where online dictionaries literally don't even acknowledge it. Okmrman (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There may be a silver lining to all of this. It seems that many of the discussions are leading to finding sources that correlate with the redirects and previously removed material. I think in the end, the Wikipedia articles involved will have the desired in-line citations, demonstrating how well sourced the content is ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

They are causing a lot of work for other editors because after only a month Yeah, I'm pretty sure that reopening them would cause even more unnecessary work for the editors that would eventually end up with a near unanimous keep anyways if your request actually went through. Okmrman (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• A similar situation (involving early discussion closures and early relists) happens occasionally at AFD, too. I recommend non-admin closers review Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Wikipedia:Non-admin closure which pertain as much to RFD as AFD. Okmrman, can you look these policy pages over before taking on any more deletion discussion closures? Deletion discussion closing is usually a task that is taken on by editors with a lot more experience than you have so it's important to follow the appropriate guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Please can Owen Hurcum be protected from IP address vandalism

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

---

Hi

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

Thanks very much

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

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

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

Reporting @Juli Wolfe

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

---

Reporting this user @Juli Wolfe

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

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

First off, when coming to WP:AN you need to realize your own actions will be under scrutiny. Including where you called another editor a clown and tried to vandalize their user page. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Philipnelson99 thank you for reverting back my talk page to normal. And thank you everyone for stepping in, This user @Yfjr has been using personal attacks towards me for no reason, and mentioning things like if I try and edit any articles that "he will have me removed from Wikipedia" saying things like that under my talk page. And if you take a look at my contributions I contribute very well and fairly to help make articles better and then this user creates this thread under the Administrators' noticeboard for zero reasons claiming that I am "trying to delete articles contributing to bad faith, and that I am being disruptive". Which you can see is clearly not true, my mission to to continue to to make meaningful contribution whereas this random user has no user page is, trying to say because of the use of their "claimed" donations they can enforce editors off the website, using personal attacks seen here calling me a clown, single handedly making edits adding certain images that are copyright violations under articles like Luca Schnetzler & Pudgy Pengins. It's safe to say that this new User @Yfjr is potentially a troll and needs to stop.

@JustarandomamericanALT @Phil Bridger @Schazjmd @Lepricavark @CambridgeBayWeather What should I do now with this thread noticeboard that the troll @Yfjr made under my name? Thanks guys, Juli Wolfe (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything further. It's clear that this was a frivolous report. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Obvious boomerang indef for incivility, given the diffs provided above. JustarandomamericanALT (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) I have not looked into the matter, but I must say that the amount of money that you donate to the WMF (nobody donates anything except time to Wikipedia) is both unknowable and irrelevant to an editor's presence here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This report seems a bit exaggerated. Juli Wolfe nominated a single article for deletion, and Yfjr's only contribution to that article was adding an image. Yfjr's comments at the AfD and Juli Wolfe's talk page are overly aggressive. Schazjmd (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, I had warned Yfjr about personal attacks prior to their most recent edit at the AfD and this report. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Support boomerang indef of OP for trying to use their purported donations to influence these proceedings. Yfjr, your sense of entitlement is pathetic to those of us who have donated countless hours of our lives to this project, a far more meaningful contribution than you will ever make. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The single edit you made to Luca Schnetzler was to add an image that was a copyright violation. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Yfjr, I must say that I simply have came across the article for "Luca Schnetzler" that was newly made simply had false information in the career part of the article, all I did was correct it. Making edits to Wikipedia you must have notable articles cited for things placed. And you decided to Report me for being disruptive? Is quite I must say outlandish. And not to mention you called me a "clown"? For what? Following the rules and making Wikipedia a better place?@Yfjr Juli Wolfe (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You nominated an article for deletion because you “thought” that a fact is false, when it fact it was true.

It is shocking to see how many came to your support despite making my case very clear.

You have not done your research on Luca Schnetzler and made a false report and nominated the article to be deleted.

This should be punishable considering you never even took the time to review what you are reporting, thoroughly.

It honestly embarrasses me to say I’m part of this community after seeing the few people who were quick to respond in such a haste and unfair matter.

I will no longer be donating to Wikipedia and will be reporting all the users who took action to reverse my reports which were made in good faith.

I’m passionate enough about Wikipedia to stand and defend articles I’m passionate about and contributed to.

you will not take that away from me.

You deserve to be banned for your lack of awareness and thorough research before nominating articles to be deleted @Juli Wolfe

You are a literal danger to this platform, I am the one speaking up against you. You are not allowed to take this and turn it against me. 2001:1970:4DA3:D300:0:0:0:7C56 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Fairly certain this is just @Yfjr editing logged out... Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It honestly embarrasses me to say I’m part of this community you aren't a part of this community. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow! you are still here?.. Thinking logging out would we wouldn't know it was you... Listen this person or whoever you are working for or even if it's you paying for press WILL NOT get you on Wikipedia so you can continue trying... You are going against Wikipedia's rules!! And I wont stand for that as to why I opened up a "discussion" to see if it's notable. Since you made things worse gonna make sure you don't get it & I can definitely speculate that you are associated with that said individual in CA/LA wherever you/he is... Plus you are trying to use the use of your purported donations to go against certain rules, you thinking you are entitled to is piteous to those of us who have donated countless hours of our to actually make this website a better place. Juli Wolfe (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

In retrospect, the hypocrisy is a little staggering. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, this whole thing felt off to me after viewing the interactions between Juli Wolfe and Yfjr. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support boomerang indef. The donations' joke tipped the balance. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Hasn't this cryptospammer been blocked yet? Why not? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• I blocked Yfjr indefinitely. If Yfjr hadn't attempted to vandalize someone's user page, I could see starting off with timed blocks or even warnings, but the totality is just a bit too much, I think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• The OP target has been blocked for two weeks for socking. That said, the AfD has been NAC by an obviously involved participant, for incorrect reason. (Blocked for two weeks, not banned). The way I see it the close should be undone, and the sock vote stricken. I’d do this myself but I don’t think I’ve dug deep enough into it to be 100% sure, and I’m about to disappear for 3-4 days, so if I muck it up it’ll just make it harder to rectify. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've reopened it. As you say they were involved and the nominator was not banned. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  A short block (two weeks) for socking to vote in the same AFD is extremely generous. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  @78.26: The OP is Yfjr, not Juli Wolfe. --JBL (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• @JayBeeEll: you are absolutely correct, I have rectified. Thanks. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Boomerang and indef Rarely are they this simple/clean. Buffs (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  The OP is already indeffed. Did you mean someone else? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  Nope. Was concurring with it. Buffs (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

What's going on here?

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

Well, I havent checked up on Bhivuti45, but I'm pretty sure that none of the other protagonists are editing in good faith. The fact that Juli Wolfe has been blocked for sockpuppetry doesn't mean that Yfjr and DIVINE have been cleared of any wrongdoing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

They seem to be parrying accusations of socking, meatpuppetry, and UPE back and forth. Maybe they are all guilty. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This is honestly extremely worrying as there is a lot of missing context. Both articles are clearly notable and were instated at the same time.

The user @juli wolfe saw something in the article that she didn’t approve of.

then she nominated the article for deletion falsely.

this is what caused this whole ordeal.

editors should not be harassed whatsoever and these things need to be resolved more amicably. 199.7.157.86 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

No, the article subjects are not "clearly" notable so there is no fault attached to nominating them for AfD, which is where things are usually resolved amicably. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You can bump up the article i don’t have any issue but as a creator of the article its my responsibility to defend them. If it weren’t notable or didn’t seem to be notable i would have not created those articles. But the act which i have been around and the mental pressure which i am handling without any wrongdoings is really not that good. I cannot agree on upe just because of someone’s personal assumptions again and again if i haven’t especially done UPE and yes i also don’t know what’s going on here and why this personal attack on me. DIVINE 04:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

And about closing the AFD discussion: Yes maybe i did mistake there which i can agree on and two wikipedians told me about that i closed because the sock were block but i forgot to check the word where i was involved. I close that on good faith but another editor re-opened it which i don’t have any problem with. And about good faith i have contributed alot of my time to wikipedia while fighting with vandalism or reviewing new pages which i got award of too. But due to some dispute on ANI my NPR was revoked long back and due to that circumstances i asked my Rollback and PCR to be revoked. Thankyou if anyone need to know anything you can ping me now i will just be in peace with my personal life. Have a good day DIVINE 04:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

DIVINE, every day I review dozens of AFDs and while I know it is not a good feeling to have an article you created nominated for a deletion discussion, I'd estimate that 95% of the time it is not personal. An editor stumbles upon an article that they don't believe meets the standards of sourcing demonstrating notability which is expected of main space articles. That other 5% is when an editor notices that there is a possible problem with an editor's page creations and does target their articles for review but that is not what happened here. I don't know anything about your "personal life" and why you have brought that up or your revoked permissions or why you think a discussion on two blocked editors is a personal attack on you. Editors were saying that you shouldn't have closed that AFD but you were not the subject of the discussion here. It's fine to defend an article you created in a deletion discussion but this AN discussion was about two other editors (and possibly some IPs) and I thought had reached a natural conclusion was going to be archived soon until your recent comments. In a roundabout way, you admit that the AFD closing wasn't a good idea and so, if I were you, I'd step away from this noticeboard and go back to your own editing routine. If you were seeking support from your fellow editors on your work, AN/ANI is the last place I'd go to find that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• DIVINE has been a paid editor since oh so long ago. This just looks like rival UPE farms fighting, if you ask me. One of the editors DIVINE was coordinating with once upon a time, Ozar77, was determined to belong to the Vivek.k.Verma farm. Which group DIVINE belongs to or if they belong to any group, I do not know. But they have created articles for Nepalese subjects, Indian subjects and Western subjects. Now, that can happen with actors and musicians, sure, but minor businesses and businesspeople? I see that they even tried their hand at declaring one of their clients. What a coincidence that the one editor I had been accusing of UPE for five years happened to get a paid job! The harassment of OP with socks and IPs sounds familiar. The last time DIVINE was trying to get me removed from Wikipedia[26], there was an off wiki campaign to find out my identity with assistance from journalists and Nepali Wikipedia admins.(still live:[27][28][29][30],[31]) If you noticed that one of those gentlemen was named Prakash Neupane, you might find these interesting:[32][33] You may also want to search for "Prakash Neupane" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurav456/Archive. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
  • There's surely enough here to CU compare Yfjr with DIVINE. You will note that, when I was taken to ANI back in 2019 by DIVINE, it was over my dispute with Ozar77, not DIVINE. Who knows why? Maybe they just forgot to switch accounts.[34] — Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

    Doxing is a big NO! If you have any further evidence regarding socking, please post at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DIVINE. Regards, Bhivuti45 (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

    That's... not doxing. Sheesh. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

    Right, a failed doxing attempt[35][36]. Bhivuti45 (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

    My mistake. I thought you were accusing Usedtobecool of doxing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Lepricavark I am sorry you had this feeling but I am not here to carry a crusade against DIVINE or anyone else. I genuinely stumbled upon his AfD and shocked to see such a promotional article about a non-notable individual was created by an experienced editor like DIVINE. That was a red flag so I asked him to use AfC. Then Juli Wolfe pinged me on their talk page and provided me with the diffs. That grew my interest and I am pretty sure Yfjr is a sock and there may be more. So, far I only opened AfD for 2 of his articles that I think are not passing the criteria and opened a SPI case and informed about UPE on the Spam Talk page. If you find anything problematic then let me know. Bhivuti45 (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  Your first edit back after a 2-month absence is timestamped at 18:47 29 March. You voted in the Schnetlzer AfD at 18:53, having already concluded that it was a UPE creation. Within three minutes, you were draftifying the Pudgy Penguins article. Now I'm aware that coincidences do happen from time to time, but your claim that you just happened to stumble across those pages is stretching the limits of my AGF beyond the breaking point. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  I cannot help with that, sorry because what I did so far based on my findings, align with the guidelines. You are free to report me if you think I acted in bad faith. However, I am finding it surprising that a frivolous thread was open by a seemingly sock @Yfjr (after 7 years of absence) and now what @Usedtobecool has posted with diffs, specially[37] and [38], they don't merits some scrutiny for closing a AfD but a lot more for possible violation of Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use given the coordination with other UPE farms that are already blocked. Bhivuti45 (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Bhivuti has suddenly become very interested in AFD, participating in 36 different AFD discussions over the past 3 days despite never having participated in one before. (afd stats). Their participation speed indicates to me that they are highly unlikely to be interacting with sources, which is reflected in the bulk of their AFD comments being a couple words, saying that an article fails a guideline without saying how. [39] occurs 60 seconds after [40], [41] 69 seconds later, [42] 46 seconds after that, [43] 44 seconds later, followed by the Schnetzler AFD [44] 2 minutes and 34 seconds later. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, I am interested in AfDs now but I do check the sources, not in all cases but in some cases when I feel it is necessary after looking at the article's contents, for instance[45] or [46] etc. Bhivuti45 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  This might be my last response here at AN per @Liz: suggestion while there’s many thing going on here and @Usedtobecool: have already concluded that there’s enough to CU me & YFJR or something whil SPI case is still pending against me and CU are checking. Usedtobecool filed SPI against me so long back, usedtobecool do have their own list of WP:RS Nepali sources which hasn’t been passed by anyone neither Wikiproject Nepal nor WP:RS (like that any editor from Nepal can come and claim the source to be eligible as most of them are in Nepali language). Still @Usedtobecool: is trying to connect with me somewhere or with someone per their personal assumption/opinion ( please listen to me again personal opinion) which can be seen here[47] while @UtherSRG: has responded them. While everyone is arguing here i want you all to check into deep about the previous contributions of Bhivuti45 and the articles they have created and the way they went missing after multiple users and administrators warn them to disclose their COI/UPE without any response & @GSS: might be watching out those problems mostly on Wikipedia. As @LEPRICAVARK: notified me on my talk page, i came here to response from my end. Also Bivhuti have filed case against me on wiki project Spam where i have provided link to their COI warnings before[48]. If administrators want to know something from me further please ping me or if I still feel suspicious to you: You can take any action which is preferable according to Wikipedia policy against me. Thankyou DIVINE 12:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  PS: Take “Arguing” as “Discussion/Discussing” DIVINE 12:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I just want to leave it beacause i don't want too much mental presuree and my anxiety is not helping me DIVINE 17:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• So, what seems like the most likely explanation here is a turf war between at least two different UPE rings/purveyors. Overall, Bhivuti45's participation seems like a mostly WP:GOODHAND account which on March 29, 2024 decided to participate frantically at AfD and to chase after DIVINE. I am on the fence about a wikispace partial-block to head off the disruption at AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  I honestly was looking at Bhivutui45 earlier and thought the same thing. I think a partial block isn't a bad idea. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a compelling reason why an admin shouldn't just indef Bhivutui45? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  At first glance I was under the impression that some of the gnome/referencing work they had done in article space was ok, but on a closer look I'm seeing that the reference work looks questionable (e.g. Special:Diff/728934564) and that there are fairly clear UPE articles sprinkled throughout in their deleted contributions (Allegiant (finance services), Jesu Segun London, Emmessar Biotech & Nutrition Ltd, Byron Cole). Blocking indef as UPE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

DIVINE (talk · contribs · block log · change rights · rights · deleted contribs · logs)

Tulsi (talk · contribs · block log · change rights · rights · deleted contribs · logs)

The oldest account I've identified for DIVINE is Dansong22 (talk · contribs · logs) ([49][50]). Dansong22 created an article for Arun Budhathoki[51]. Then, they created an article for The Applicant many times[52]. It was apparently an online magazine founded by Arun Budhathoki[53]. They stopped editing in July 2013, but they were still trying to protect the Arun Budhathoki article only weeks before[54]. They were evidently successful as the articles remained until 2019[55][56].

They came back with the DIVINE account, previously Azkord and Owlf, in June 2014 because they had found an actual paid-editing job: promoting Kenneth Beck (the deleted version)[57][58]. They created articles on Kenneth Beck[59] and CEO Connection[60], founded by Kenneth Beck[61]. Note that they're doing the same things previously attempted by CEOConnection (talk · contribs · logs), an obvious paid editor and SPA. On the same job were SPAs Salvatore.emery (talk · contribs · logs) and Radicaldoubt (talk · contribs · logs), around the same time and after. Xtools also lists CEO Connection Mid-Market Convention, CEO Connection Mid-Market Awards and CEO Connection Mid-Market 500, created within the same week. Next article that may be worth looking into is SkillBridge (deleted version), the last article they created that July before all but disappearing.

Ozar77 (talk · contribs · logs) appears on the scene in October 2016. They create Anna Note, which was "[t]he digital newspaper ... looked by its senior correspondents, Brabim Karki and Arun Budhathoki" (see en.everybodywiki(dot)com/Anna_Note). They then create, in order, Brabim Karki, the aforementioned senior correspondent, Rameshwor Thapa, employer of Karki and Budhathoki[62], Annapurna Media Network, the parent organisation, Kathmandu Tribune, a "digital newspaper" whose editor-in-chief is Arun Budhathoki (see now blacklisted kathmandutribune(dot)com/about/), Nepal Tribune Media, the organisation founded by Arun Budhathoki that owns Kathmandu Tribune, and Nepali Tribune the Nepali language version of Kathmandu Tribune if I remember correctly. In November 2019, they accept paid-editing job for the Vivek K Verma UPE farm and are promptly indeffed as a sock of theirs.

Gaurav456 (talk · contribs · logs) came to Wikipedia to write about Gaurav Adhikari and Y8.com. But of note is their persistence with Prakash Neupane, first created in May 2015 probably[63] and still live in draftspace, which is mentioned 15 times at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gaurav456/Archive. It's plausible that Prakash Neupane socks are a different case from Gaurav456 socks[64] but I will refer them as Gaurav456 anyway because it doesn't make a difference. Gaurav456 sock SeytX (talk · contribs · logs) nominates some of those Ozar77 articles for deletion in February 2018.[65][66][67][68][69] There are no related live edits by Ozar77 during this incident, but it does bring DIVINE out of semi-retirement. They respond to the AFD notification for Kathmandu Tribune on Ozar77's talk page within two minutes of it being posted[70]. They edit-war to remove an AFD template, characterising Nepali Tribune Media as independent media, calling its nomination an attack, and in general taking great personal offence at the suggestion that it should be deleted[71], and say the very same about Kathmandu Tribune[72]. Their participation in the AFDs was somehow worse[73][74]. See also the full thread at [[75]]. They are next seen in December 2018 in a hat-collecting run, doing anti-vandalism work and writing legitimate articles, which pays off spectacularly as they are by 9 January 2019, rollbacker, pending changes reviewer and new page reviewer, though not autopatrolled[76].

Meanwhile, Gaurav456 has given up on Prakash Neupane as their attempt to come clean and get unblocked fails and their sockpuppet investigation stops receiving new reports. Instead they're keeping their nose clean with NecessaryEdits (talk · contribs · logs)[77]. The February 2018 targeting of Arun Budhathoki articles by Gaurav456 starts to makes sense in December 2018; by all indications, Gaurav456 is out and DIVINE is in.[78] DIVINE has an advantage; they can get Prakash Neupane covered by Kathmandu Tribune. Prakash Neupane himself is an editor for Kathmandu Tribune now (see kathmandutribune(dot)com/author/prakash/]. DIVINE is still at it at Draft:Prakash Neupane. It's been created and deleted so many times in between, even I gave up at one point, though thankfully not Praxidicae.[79]

In June 2019, while I was still figuring things out, I found myself in opposition to DIVINE, having found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepal Tribune Media (2nd nomination) from watching deletion sorting for Nepal. On 6 June, Arun Budhathoki tweets attacking me(speaking from memory, the tweet is now_restricted) and DIVINE reports me to ANI the same day (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Account_compromised_and_User_Should_be_checked_clearly.). Prakash Neupane responds to the twitter conversation assuring that he will have Wikimedia Nepal find out and disclose my identity[80]. Evidently that didn't work out. There are some troubling aspects about how Nepalese Wikimedians, including those receiving salaries, grants and scholarships, operate. See, for example, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1990 Nepalese revolution. But, I am focusing on Tulsi's conduct here, who on 7 June, the same day as that tweet from Neupane, meets him in person to take his pictures[81][82]. They'd done the same in the past[83] and do so again in the future[84] While Tulsi has gone on to add Neupane's pictures to ten Wikipedias that have his article, not missing even a stray userspace draft on enWP[85], DIVINE has tried to repay with Tulsi's very own article on the English Wikipedia[86]. Tulsi was caught doing UPE work, creating previously known UPE articles, advertising his Wikipedia services on social media and using the NPR right to exclusively pass articles from one UPE editor who's since been blocked. After he was caught, on initiative from enWP, his global sysop and global rollbacker PERMs were removed. However, he continues to edit here, under no restriction against, for example, participating in marginal AFDs or the project space, and he remains admin at Commons, meta, mediawiki, neWP and maiWP, and irl agent for WMF and WMF scholarship awardee.

DIVINEs interactions with other editors leave much to be desired; ANI and threats of ANI are constant.[87][88][89] And they continue to waste volunteer time with the likes of Sandip Bista (Mr. D), Paul Hernandez (musician), Sangita Swechcha[90], Scott Woodward (marketer) (we're starting to look silly with this one)[91], Luca Schnetzler and Pudgy Penguins. After I posted here earlier, I received a cryptic message from Bangkok[92], a city which has no conceivable reason to care about me except for the fact that Prakash Neupane goes/went to university there[93][94] (DIVINE has created Bongkosh Rittichainuwat, Ozar77 had created 2019 Bangkok bombings). Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI and AN are the options where we can go through. This is not your first attempt to link with me to that above gentleman in your own words and SPI has been closed. You requested that ANI to be closed fast and still you’re behind me after 4-5 years. DIVINE 03:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: just few days back you concluded me with YFJR now Tulsi & i request you to file SPI again it might work with your personal assumptions. Run Xtool and check the pages that i have created (in your own words it might be like i have COI or UPE) with them all? DIVINE 03:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

In 2019, I tried without knowing much about how anything works. This time I've got the problem that much of the evidence is in deleted pages. DIVINE, I promise you, if nothing comes of this one, I will leave you alone, I might even leave Wikipedia. Twice in 5 years isn't too many to raise concerns about paid editing, I'm hoping. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: FYi: you are really good editor here in Wikipedia which Nepalese community needs and i request you not to leave Wikipedia and this is not any personal attack and you don’t have to leave me alone neither you have to favor me of anything here. Last year/two years back i was about to leave Wikipedia and still i can leave as i do have many works and many things with my own personal life where i am too much busy. I asked User:Primefac to block me and asked them can I start fresh and they said they cannot do anything later if i will face CU. Let me clarify Dansong isn’t me. So below i would state my personal opinion or debate as per your above personal opinion.

I am into the research field, and I never wanted or want to reveal my identity. Now, thanks to you, my path is clearer. You might know me as your professor, your boss, or someone you've disliked for a long time (none of which is me). Someone dragged me to SPI just because of voting to AFD, whether it was my AFD or previous AGD, both are one. You also voted on Mr. Gentleman's delete discussion, even though User:Suryabeej argued that I was Mr. Gentleman. Looking at your links above, Mr. Gentleman's Facebook profile indicates that he also studied at Harvard Medical School. If you received a cryptic message from Bangkok or Mars, I cannot help you with that. And what's the difference between Mr. Neupane, Mr. Budhathoki, and you? They discussed their own personal assumptions a few years back according to the aforementioned link provided by you, and now you're discussing them here on Wikipedia, mentioning their names multiple times. Why don't you email them to let them know they are being discussed here? Is Wikipedia/AN a public forum? And still, your reliable source list hasn't been approved by any of Wikiproject Nepal and WP:RS. In this whole conversation, what I can agree with you on is that yes, Wikipedia Nepal does have a gang, they have their own groups which they apply in their own communities, something I complained about before if you research in more depth. DIVINE 04:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

DIVINE, none of your story explains anything in the evidence I presented above. But maybe it will convince others, because you should have been blocked in 2012, more so in 2013, and absolutely, definitely by 2014, yet you're still here. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Look how you much rage you have against me i wasn’t even here in 2012 and i didn’t even knew what Wikipedia was. Review,revise your own texts above before you concluded me as SPI of YFJR now you’re providing many things which i don’t even know and i am just laughing here (which i can only do). I will rest leave it to admins and i would like to request @UtherSRG: please provide them with deleted materials for their in-depth research against me. And @Usedtobecool: please take time to check on User:Bibhuti too they also appeared like same as you appeared few years back if someone will check on your history. Hence i have requested admin to help you with your research here. If someone wants something please ping me thankyou. DIVINE 05:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no interest in this. Please stop mentioning me. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

There's something definitely going on with Prakash Neupane. I noticed in the 3rd AfD a respected editor voted keep in part because sources said Neupane had 2 million YouTube views. There is one song he did with others that has 1.4 million views but the links to his social media accounts go to accounts that no longer exist. Looking at his YouTube channel today, he has 46 subscribers and the video with the most views is only 1.5k. He says "This is the new channel of Prakash Neupane as the old channel got deleted". The only link to his other social media accounts listed, which are different from the ones in the song above, that works is Facebook. The others go to accounts that no longer exist. Also, his website in Draft:Prakash Neupane, which is a different address than the one used on his YouTube channel, does not work. S0091 (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Man after reading all of this I can see how much of a problem @DIVINE on this space breaking guidelines and continuing to get away with it. And no administrators doing nothing about is, soon his day will come. 2601:589:4E00:BE40:AD42:7786:D3A0:9ED7 (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: I am your Mr. Gentelman and i am Prakash Neupane. Admin please take action against me. DIVINE 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@DIVINE I noticed you just now requested G7 deletion (since reverted) for Justin Jin (entrepreneur) but that was created by @Deondernemers: (will also leave them a note). Are you saying you are Deondernemers?

For those following (or trying to), see also WT:Administrators' noticeboard#I am Prakash Neupane. S0091 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No but there is huge UPE farm out of wikipedia they asked me to join them which i denied an i do have proof of it. I am Prakash Neupane but leat me clarify i have never used any additional account. DIVINE 17:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

In light of the above, either DIVINE's account has been hacked, or they're a long-term self-promoting editor with possible UPE and sockpuppetry as well. Either way, an indefinite block is appropriate recourse, so I've done that. I have not closely investigated accusations against any other editors at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Rosguill. I have no idea what's going on here but I think this was a sensible call on your part. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I managed to edit-conflict with Ivanvector while applying the block; separately, Ivanvector ruled out the possibility of a compromised account, and also identified a salient legal and outing threat by DIVINE. So we're still in indef-land. Because the legal/outing block can easily be appealed with a simple disavowal, it bears mentioning that DIVINE's admission of being Prakash Neupane is tantamount to an admission of extensive amounts of undisclosed self-promotion, and likely collusion with UPE farms and/or less organized sockpuppetry, and that a successful unblock appeal must address all of these concerns. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This also raises some serious questions about @Tulsi who clearly knows Prakash Neupane but has not yet responded. S0091 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the ANI filing that just keeps on giving apparently. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to just indefinitely blocking Tulsi for the essentially-unresolved UPE concerns, described on meta where they resulted in a loss of global rights, and at User_talk:Tulsi/Archive_2#Paid_editing where they were left hanging other than Barkeep49 following up on everything to remove advanced permissions here. Now, strictly speaking, no one has presented new evidence of UPE since then; the collaboration with Prakash to add new photos of him to wikipedia projects carrying an article of him is relatively tame as far as actual editing goes, even if it is evidence of incredibly poor judgment. But, given the past behavior and the wikiflu, I don't know whether this much benefit of the doubt is warranted. Even if we decide against blocking here, we should notify the various projects where he still holds advanced permissions once we come to a decision here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill I'm not opposed to this based on everything you just described and the above. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Having said that, I'd like to hear what @Barkeep49 thinks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to review too much information to say what I think. I do remember being quite upset at the time, which is why I took the actions I did around their NPR patrolling and their permissions. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Given the history and ongoing concerns, I support blocking. Indef is not forever if they can make an convincing unblock request. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I definitely support blocking indefinitely and don’t change it. This guy has been creating paid articles for years thinking he was going to get away with it, and then being cocky about creating sock accounts and then making remarks like “I can literally get you banned off of Wikipedia”, And looking at his history he has many current paid articles that needs to be in the process of deletion because none of the articles there are reliable. 2601:589:4E00:BE40:8946:F528:3975:8678 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

His page curation log should have been entirely enough for an indef, as far as I am concerned. But we had divided concerns then, and no threads at AN/I. He also comes here in bursts. And other projects have no interest in doing anything about him. Even the WMF seems to be flying him off to their conferences still, so... rot from the head or something. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Per the above discussion, I've blocked and opened a discussion on metawiki. Based on past experience with metawiki admin recalls, I expect that it may be beneficial to write a Signpost article about this to encourage participation, as the other RfC about other-project admins doing UPE currently hasn't received any participation other than from involved parties. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah @DIVINE has done so much unfaithful contributions to Wikipedia with doing undisclosed payments under the table making articles that have no reliable sources. His actions were so pathetic and glad that justice has been served for those that has been involved because I have been seeing everything these past days and no one should be accused of false wrongdoings. Great job on the administrators for the consistent effort for making this a better place for editors. 2601:589:4E00:BE40:8946:F528:3975:8678 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Just catching up with the twists and turns of this long discussion thread. And now I'm very depressed. But I do applaud the diligence of editors like Usedtobecool who somehow kept track of all of this misconduct that occurred over years of editing. I'm sorry for what you've had to go through. I've been doxxed (twice) and it's not an idle threat when it is directed at you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that happened to you, Liz! I feel like quitting even contemplating the possibility. And thank you, it did take me a lot of time; I rarely investigate and write up ANI reports so long (you can probably tell). I have been careful about my anonymity from the beginning, but of course there are no guarantees. It caused me irrational stress for a moment when they said they'd reported me to the Police, because in Nepal, they arrest first, investigate later. But I don't think WMF will betray me that easy; I hear good things, at least regarding this particular issue. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

To be blunt...

1. Contributions from an anonymous IP who suddenly jumps in to WP:AN smacks of someone who is blocked trying to inject their thoughts. Whether it is someone who is block evading stemming from actions prior mentioned in this section or from somewhere else, I'm basically going to discount those opinions, but I'll listen to anyone in good standing who agrees with those thoughts.
2. An SPI for DIVINE would be appropriate to see if there are problems elsewhere. I concur with the block as well based on the aforementioned notes; if nothing else, it is preventative and a break will not hurt things in the long run. Buffs (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree on both points. I am especially concerned about the IPs contributing to this conversation with little or no prior editing at all. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• UTRS appeal #87097 is open. For your consideration, DIVINE is requesting unblock on UTRS. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  In their first UTRS appeal which they pretty clearly did not write themselves, they mentioned that they emailed me. They did not. In their second one that's linked above they mention emailing an admin, that also wasn't me but I'm not sure what they meant, their English is not great. I have not corresponded with them off-wiki, anyway. I did not see evidence of socking when I checked yesterday, but checkuser cannot prove a negative. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  He's said, he's reported me to the Police. So, that needs to be resolved. He needs to explain his relationship with Arun Budhathoki, his friends and businesses. He has claimed to be Prakash Neupane—who's borderline famous—and done a lot of things that may be unflattering, so he needs to get verified, or we risk BLP harm through impersonation. He's claimed to have received payments for AFD votes, so he needs to be topic banned from mainspace and AFDs. His threatening behaviour needs to be addressed. He needs to explain quid pro quo editing with Tulsi outlined above. He needs to make many COI/PAID disclosures. He's claimed he knows multiple other editors are UPEs, and has evidence of such. It would seem important to get that evidence from him, and not unblock him until we get proof for every accusation, or they remain aspersions and harassment. It would also be important to make sure he doesn't OUT anyone if unblocked and uses private channels. Why does he want to get unblocked? We didn't arrive to a block here from my evidence directly. He imploded before others had responded. Clearly, he wanted to quit then and was burning bridges on his way out. Has he decided within days that undisclosed paid editing is bad, and now he is a complete convert to our mission? If he starts writing more articles that look paid, what will we do, wait for definitive proof that he's been paid again? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  I told him in a UTRS ticket to email any evidence of UPE to the PAID people. If someone could look and see if there are replies on the UTRS 87097 ticket that need attention, I'm off for the weekend. Or maybe someone could action the 87097. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  Much has transpired since last I posted. I will carry over from their talk the most recent and perhaps from the UTRS ticket. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Legal threat is resolved on user talk. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request carried over from DIVINE's user talk

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

---

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

UTRS appeal #87097. It's too convoluted to carry here and rehashes ground already covered. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #87097 pasted contents, only minimal formatting

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

• Decline with the option to enact the WP:standard offer. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Decline. Other issues aside, DIVINE's English fluency looks to be insufficient to edit productively here. I am not impressed with the intelligibility of their comments at Special:Diff/1217936829#Unblock, in particular the comments beneath the unblock request. Apologies if this sounds harsh. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  They want me to copy over the UTRS ticket. Please. Somebody. Anybody that wants to. It looks like a big mess to me. And people will hate me if I do that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  I will do so. --Yamla (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Decline their comments are too difficult to parse, and at this point it is impossible to trust them. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Decline per Novem, Lepricavark, and at the pace that they've been pinging participants of this discussion, removing TPA again may be in order. Also noting that they've sent me two unsolicited emails via the Wikipedia interface--I have not bothered to read them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Decline per all of the above. Rosquill's point about unsolicited emails and pinging participants of this discussion is worrisome to me and indicates to me nothing about this editor's conduct would change if they were unblocked. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  There may be replies at User talk:DIVINE#Unblock which I do not understand, that might be worth looking at. Or they might be something else. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Another " Suka Ratom" reference, whoever that might be. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, those confused me too... Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Tentatively decline Without some clarity, I'm not seeing a reason to unblock at this time. I think a specific timeframe should be given rather than indef if the editor in question would like to come back. He seems to be willing to engage and change. 1 week? 1 month? 3 months? 1 year? WP:standard offer after that per UtherSRG. Buffs (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is the standard offer or a time-limited block a good fit in this situation? This editor may have WP:CIR (language fluency) and WP:UPE issues. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae the WP:UPE issues alone make me feel wary of a time-limited block and the standard offer in this case. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  SO doesn't mean they would automatically come back; it just means that we won't look at their unblock request for a minimum of six months, in which time they will have to demonstrate their improvement via work elsewhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that. I'm just saying in this situation I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the SO. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  After thinking about it a few minutes, I think I agree with you @UtherSRG on giving the SO after the requisite amount of time. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Both CIR and UPE can be overcome in time; their fluency can improve, which will help CIR, and they can divest from UPE issues and edit for the love of editing. Hence, the standard offer applies as that's the earliest reasonable showing for that kind of improvement. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm strongly opposed to reducing the block to a specific timeframe. This editor will need to do a lot of work to convince us that they can overcome their CIR issues, not to mention their UPE untrustworthiness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Decline, time sink who lacks the English-language competence to edit here, as the convoluted replies to the unblock indicate. Coupled with longterm PAID issues, SO is the least time that should be considered. Star Mississippi 23:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Decline, Agree that DIVINE can barely speak the English language with many typos while on here, and has numerous amount of PAID articles that he done for undisclosed amounts under the table. Here it is in plain sight. Juli Wolfe (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Maybe you should sit this one out Juli Wolfe and let others resolve it. You yourself were blocked for two weeks per WP:SOCK because you somehow thought it would OK to create another account to WP:!Vote multiple times in the AfD for an article created by DIVINE. Then, instead of reflecting on why you were blocked and learning from your mistake as you were advised to do by Liz on your user talk page, you continued trying to advocate/make a case against DIVINE and get others to do things on your behalf. Once DIVINE was blocked you made it known that you were happy on your user talk page even though you were still under block (you did self-revert that post a few days later), and then after you were unblocked you felt it was necessary to post this and this at User talk:DIVINE, where you gave DIVINE a {{Kitten}} and interestingly advised them to Learn from this experience. You're, however, correct with respect to the But as you know the saying, "Everything comes full circle". comment you posted on DIVINE's user talk page and this is which is why you probably need to step back not, have faith in the process and let others resolve this from hereon. You've been given a second chance that many blocked for sock puppetry do not often get. Let go of all the WP:DRAMA associated with this matter. If additional input is needed from you, someone will surely let you know. If you don't and continue on as before, you might find yourself on the end of a WP:BOOMERANG block. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC); [Note: Posted edited by Marchjuly to add an important word (the underlined "not") mistakenly left out of the fourth to last sentence of the post. -- 22:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)]

  Well said. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murder of "Linda Anderson"

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

Admins, Please review User talk:Myrealnamm (messages from 2A02:A212:A583:5980:93B6:AAA7:8A66:717A. This is making me feel like I have done something wrong, and if I have, please let me know. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP - they were violating IP at the Linda Anderson article, were part-blocked from editing that, and then came here to continue the nonsense. I will also revert and redact your talk page to be on the safe side. GiantSnowman 21:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

2A02:A212:A583:5980:F635:52:AA7D:81A7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also blocked. GiantSnowman 21:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Could an admin review the discussion on Talk:Cass Review

Hi

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

Thanks

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

This is singularly unhelpful. It's not clear which discussion on the page you want "reviewed", and you have provided no diffs of the supposed misconduct, particularly the claim that there is a "threat".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23, is it possible to send this info in a non public way? I don't really want to get into an argument with anyone. I just want someone to check it, I can see several places on the page with issues. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't address issues non-publicly unless there are issues of privacy that compels it, certainly not because you "don't really want to get into an argument with anyone". Either explain what's going on properly, or drop it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to create Portal:Portal sandbox

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

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

The error message is from the local WP:TITLEBLACKLIST and says Portal( talk)?:Portal( talk)?.* <errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-repeated-namespace-prefix>. I think whoever wrote that filter wants you to create Portal:Sandbox instead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Just for completion's sake, since your suggestion makes sense:

The broad version was added to the blacklist in Special:Diff/744108976 and linked to the following request as justification (which is from MER-C's talk page): Special:Permanentlink/744103964#Double_namespace_prefixes_blacklist_entry – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

We have Template:Template sandbox... RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You know what, I think the current blacklist might have a typo? All the others are Namespace:Namespace:~anything else~, but the portal one doesn't have a colon after the second Portal.

It's currently Portal( talk)?:Portal( talk)?.*.

If the colon was there Portal:Portal sandbox would have created fine, I think? – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know anything about filters to be honest. But if you've spotted an issue, I'm sure someone would answer a request to fix with extreme promptitude. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have experience with the titleblacklist, with filters and the language sure, but a lot of filter logs are visible to IPs, the blacklist logs aren't, and that particular one is admin-only(?).

I think it's a typo, because it was never mentioned in the request, all others have a colon and it was already like that in the request. MER-C would know, since they did that edit, and maybe they will come here if they got pinged in my comment.

At any rate that's separate to what Novem is saying (including in the new comment), which I say again makes a lot of sense. – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Queries about filters and potential issues with them are more likely to attract attention from editors with appropriate expertise at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The title blacklist is a distinct concept from edit filters and people at WP:EFN will have no familiarity with it. The error message displayed when someone who doesn't have the rights to overwrite it says to go here if you think the request is legitimate, which is wrong IMO and should point to the edit request process.

The title blacklist has no logs at all, not even visible to admins like myself.

143.208.239.27 is technically right that the blacklist entry for portals is overbroad and should have an extra colon since it currently stops all portals with names beginning with "Portal" from being created, but I'm disinclined to fix it since the chance of a legitimate portal having a name starting with "Portal" is basically nil, and the current content at Portal:Sandbox is something I would probably support deleting at MfD, regardless of whether it were called "portal sandbox", "sandbox", or something completely else. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery: Supposedly those logs would show up at Special:Log/titleblacklist, you do have a right called 'titleblacklistlog'. When I go there I get a permissions error, which at the bottom says The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Administrators. – 143.208.236.57 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I see "No matching items in log." there. The logging feature is deliberately disabled on WMF wikis per T68450 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Who would create a portal in the year of our lord 2024, though? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

There’s a reason for the consensus to keep them…for people who use it as an encyclopedia, rather than as the semi-official wiki of Real Life, the concept has value. The problems with portal creation in the past seem to have been mainly because people were creating niche portals better handled by a sidebar, rather than “proper” portals.

In answer to your question, I would, just because I can, provided I can think of a valid topic for one. It’s deep in my to-do list.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That page keeps getting deleted to remove the history. I was thinking using subpages for the sandboxing would be better. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the simplest solution would be to create Portal:Sandbox. Rather than modifying or overriding the title blacklist, which I imagine is there for a reason. I think Template:Template sandbox is an exception because Template:Sandbox already exists and is for something else (is not a sandbox). There are other sandboxes that follow the normal naming convention such as Draft:Sandbox. Please also consider if we need another sandbox, or if we can just reuse an existing one or use a userspace page. FYI, certain sandboxes are set up to be automatically cleaned by a bot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair. Will do. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I think the page needs to be permanently protected as well. Bennyaha (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles are not "permanently protected" as that would defeat the purpose of this project. They are only protected to the extent necessary to prevent disruptive behavior. For some articles that may be a long time, but not "permanent". Editors can also be blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Th whole protection part is new to me as I generally only make new pages and edited existing ones. I thought indefinite was one of the options. Bennyaha (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I just realised different IP addresses could be same person all made edits and negative comments

• 115.189.95.57
• 115.189.89.33
• 115.189.95.42
• 115.188.122.67

Bennyaha (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company inappropriately moved

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

---

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

@Jax 0677, you moved it to a title with a typo: "Motortcycle" Schazjmd (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reply - This is where I started the requested move before realizing that I could move the page myself. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

And it was moved to the title with a typo only yesterday by Boberger. The long term status quo is Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company. There is no need for a move discussion to revert the introduction of a typo into the name. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

^Confused^ I put the page where it should be. If you don't want the move request to Indian Motorcycle, just remove the request. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"Motocycle" is not a typo? —Alalch E. 15:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E., it's not; "Motocycle" was part of the name of the company for some time. (See multiple discussions on article's talk page.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand. When you identified a typo above indicating that the letter "t" should be removed from "Motortcycle", leaving "Motorcycle", this was an also incorrect rendition of this word in the company's name because this old name used the dated form "Motocycle" instead of "Motorcycle". Unaware of this I move the page from "Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company" to "Indian Motorcycle Manufacturing Company", believing the latter to be correct, and the former to contain yet another typo. Apologies —Alalch E. 16:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reply - The move request tag was removed by a bot, so i had to fix it to make it stay, and hopefully will not be removed again. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

stale unblock request on a CU block

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

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

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

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

---

• Shoot for the Stars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Special:CentralAuth/Shoot_for_the_Stars
• A checkuser will be needed.

Carried over below--

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

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

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

• Cautious endorse unblock This is better by far than previous requests. User is constructively editing on Simple Wikipedia.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Well, I don't see evidence of block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank the Maker. Panini! • 🥪 23:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock, with caution of course.
  

I'll keep it brief, but a quick analysis: SFTS has been overall a net positive for the Wiki project. See the table I made below.

If anything, his only past problem has been pulling the trigger too soon; taking things personally and getting flustered, or second-guessing his abilities in the first instance of pushback. Wikipedia is all behind walls of text, so it can be hard to read someone's good intentions incorrectly as times. When I was new, I once put a wikibreak template of my own on my user page after one of my first articles got overhauled and cut a lot of my content. I can't find the edit in my history right now, but it was sometime in early October 2020.

That, as well as ignorance, to take blame for a mistake. I have done this before as well. I Bring these two up because me and SFTS began actively editing around the same time, and the same age as well (we were both teens in the ~2020 year). Teens can be volatile, and change in a person is very rapid and ever-changing at this time. My first good article, which I wrote at the beginning of tenth grade, sucks. "Overpowered" is not only used in this article but it is also hyperlinked to game balance. Nevertheless, I was still a net-positive to the community, hence why I'm still here.

As noted above by Deepfriedokra, SFTS is still here, but is forced to carry this unfair baggage of poor judgement and short temper in his teens, hence why I feel another chance is in order. To judge someone based on their habits in their teens is not the best judgement. Of course, I do plan on helping him out further after this point if he were to be unblocked, and he can consult me for a second opinion if anything is to arise. I would also support a temporary ban from FAC for a grounding period. Panini! • 🥪 23:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

(There are a few old collaborators of STFS that I would like to hear opinions from out of curiosity, but I think that's some kind of canvassing) Panini! • 🥪 23:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Cautious endorse unblock as well Make the best of a second chance. I doubt you will get a third. Buffs (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock per Wikipedia:One last chance. I hope that the editor actually has matured. They are obviously able to create good content. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock I wouldn't phrase it the way others do, as this is Shoot for the Stars' fourth block that wasn't purely self-requested, but they have clearly shown they can contribute constructively and have grown older and thus plausibly more mature. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock as I don't think I can endorse an action that hasn't happened yet. This is one of the better unblock requests I've seen - user has taken time to understand what they did that led to the block, and that's a very good sign that they won't continue on that path. Sometimes people grow up. @Panini!: I'm not sure why but your table was not rendering for me (as in it didn't show up at all, I didn't know it was there until seeing it in the editor). I've converted it to a collapse which should work for everyone to see the impressive list of highlighted content. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock That was a well-written request, and there's no reason to think there hasn't been some significant growth and maturity that makes them ready to return to editing. Grandpallama (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Panini! and ROPE. ——Serial Number 54129 14:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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

1rr Arab-Israeli conflict warning

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

Can someone send it to User:Galamore ?

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

As I wrote you on my talk page. In the first edit, I didn't think it was a revert. If you look, you will see that the number of characters that I removed is not the number of characters that the editor before me added.... Anyway, after you brought it to my attention, I self-reverted this eddit. Thanks. Galamore (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} it can be sent to anyone who has edited in the area regardless of whether they have violated 1rr. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Added it here. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's a useful shortcut: T:DSA — scroll to the bottom where {{Contentious topics/list/single notice}} is transcluded. HTH. El_C 14:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

VoteRiders

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

It will likely come to nothing, but if it starts getting vandalised I'm sure there are now a half-dozen admins watching the page that can assist. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is highly promotional in tone. I see that an advert tag was added in April 2020 and almost immediately removed. I will add it again. Donald Albury 16:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Please block this user

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

 Done I've blocked for harassment. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of RS material

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

---

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

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

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

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

This is a content dispute being discussed at ADL as RS. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As reliability is ultimately always contextual, this should be discussed as a content dispute on the relevant article talk page. RSP is a log of past discussions for sources that have been extensively discussed, and it should be expected that it lags a bit behind actual practice in articles when sources shift in reliability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Perennial sources clearly state: "Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all." I have no idea why a content dispute has been taken to AN; this is pretty much an abuse of the noticeboard. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Infobox television

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

---

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

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

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

Television

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

Note that this user has added fake topicons to their userpage, including admin. FWIW. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The OP is clearly new and fumbling. I added a standard welcome template to their talk page to hopefully steer them toward something productive. Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Fumbling, yes. New, no. LTA blocked and global locks requested.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

How strict should we be with ARBECR?

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

• How strict should admins be in enforcing this? Should I be deleting sections such as Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#Addition of Indian reaction to incident, Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#Legality, Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#UK response to the attack could be added? Or does the community consider these to be poorly formed edit requests that are an exception to the rule?
• What about non-ECR editors opining on sections such as Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#Consulate NOT embassy in title?
• Also, what's the main idea behind this rule? Is it an anti-sockpuppet thing?
• Would EC-protecting the talk page make sense? For what duration? And it would need to be logged as a CTOP action, I presume?

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

In my experience it hasn't been enforced when new editors don't cause problems in ECR areas. Maybe the restriction exists as a pretext to revert edits that don't very closely align with guidelines, and to prevent SPA's in the area. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't comment on that, duh, but have an edit request:

Please move the talk page to Talk:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. To match the result of the move (I guess) at the top of the talk page.

Clicking 'article' from the talk page redirects and clicking 'talk' from the article redirects again, I'm surprised the edit request button in the article still works under these circumstances.

– 143.208.236.57 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Talk page moved to match the mainspace article name. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Convenience link -> Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_sanctions_upon_related_content

I'm interested in this question too. The following remedy seems clear.

• "Extended confirmed restriction – only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, with certain exceptions as provided below."

Non-EC editors can make edit requests. What I've observed, in practice, is that talk page comments that generally resemble an edit request with specificity will be treated as an edit request. Not sure how many non-EC editors actually notice or care about the instructions in the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} template. The EC restrictions are fairly strictly enforced for article content (unless it is something like a typo fix), mostly by editors rather than article protection (for reasons that have never been clear to me). Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

enforced ... mostly by editors rather than article protection (for reasons that have never been clear to me). Yeah, that doesn't seem ideal to me either. It's quite bitey to let someone make an edit then revert it, if we could instead just blue lock things. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. When I do it, I try to use an informative edit summary along the lines of

• "This is not an edit request. Editors must be extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except for making edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY."

But this kind of action is probably often interpreted as Wikipedia editors supporting Hamas barbarism/sadistic IDF war criminals etc. Non-EC editors who excitedly rush to truth-bomb the topic area can be a bit feisty. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Where talk pages are concerned I see it as a "helper" for implementing WP:NOTFORUM. If non-EC editors are making useful contributions on the talk page that actually helps improve the article, it would arguably be detrimental to clamp down on that, so IAR comes into play a bit there. But if there's loads of discussion and it's taking up lots of your time just to keep up with it, then the EC rule is a helpful way to limit the volume of discussion and hopefully keep it on topic. WaggersTALK 08:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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

How does one make it clear that it is an edit request without using the template? Do they have to suggest something in a "change X to Y" format? In your estimation, do any of the 4 sections I linked above qualify as edit requests? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the four sections you identify (note the page it now titled: Talk:Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus):

1. "Addition of Indian reaction to incident". This appears to be a good faith request to improve the article. One of three things should happen:
   • An ECR editor adds relevant content to the article
   • An ECR editor explains why the content shouldn't be added to the article. This could include it already being there, but should not be related to the non-ECR status of the requester
   • A request is made for the OP or someone else to suggest a specific wording to be added.
2. "Legality". This is unambiguously an edit request.
3. "UK response to the attack could be added" is the same as #1.
4. "Consulate NOT embassy in title". This is a move request rather than edit request (but we cannot expect non-editors to know the difference). It should have been answered in a much less bitey way, but saying "this needs discussion before being implemented" is correct.

So these are all good faith requests to make changes to the content of the article and so should be responded to as if they were made by ECR editors. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That was discussed at ARCA, the template is not strictly necessary and obviously there is some editorial discretion involved but personally, I would allow #1 (assuming that's an RS), remove #2 and #3 (with edit summary "not an edit request") and remove the opinions in discussion (or strike them if already replied to). Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"Consulate NOT embassy in title" looks like quite a good example of what often happens when the edit request only rule isn't followed. It can get a bit chaotic, especially if other non-EC editors join. One question is whether non-EC editors can participate in that kind of discussion. I think they should not for a variety of reasons, their involvement should be limited to their own edit request and necessary clarifications. This opinion at ANI might be of interest. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The two most important rules here are:

1. Any good-faith comment must be answered in a civil, non-BITEy way. Rejection is sometimes correct, but rudeness or even BITEyness isn't.
2. If it looks like a request, and accepting the request would invilve editing the article, it's an edit request. The templates help attract the desirable attention to it, but are not necessary for it to be a request.

Animal lover |666| 17:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your second point. I also agree with avoiding rudeness and biteyness, not because it is right, but because it has no utility and can be counterproductive. It is often the kind of response that ban evading/fire starter editors who exploit the naivety of the assume good faith policy (rather than assume nothing) in ARBPIA want. In Wikipedia's system, which prioritizes civility over unbiased editing and honesty, an impolite adversarial response provides leverage. There is, in my view, little to no evidentiary basis for people's confidence in their ability to distinguish between good faith actors and bad actors using deception to tunnel through the 500 edit barrier. Another important rule is that any lack of strictness in the enforcement of rules is, and will continue to be, efficiently and effectively exploited by bad actors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Tangent about creation of articles

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

I WP:CSD#G5 if there has been no significant editing by an extended-confirmed editor and it isn't immediately obvious that the article is notable, doesn't fall foul of NOTNEWS, or is otherwise problematic. If I don't delete it I immediately ECP the article. I have restored some of these to draft and user space at the request of EC editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You absolutely should not be nominating or deleting such articles per G5 unless the creator is a blocked or banned user, because there has been no consensus in any of the discussions that G5 applies to ECR enforcement. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should have this argument yet again, and it will continue to be the common practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We can have the argument as many times as you want, but unless and until there is a consensus to amend the speedy deletion policy then your and others' actions are going to be in breach of it and discussion of desysoppings for wilfully acting contrary to policy is going to happen sooner or later. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

And honestly I don't think we should even be deleting an article by a banned or blocked user simply because of who created it. If I saw such an article in my own area of interest, I'd want to fix or whatever. If I saw someone else delete it, I'd want to recreate. It just seems silly to be so glued to this rule that we can't relax it for a reasonable contribution just because of who created it. I feel like this rule probably was intended to make such deletions easier if needed, not to delete useful articles. Valereee (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any benefit in deleting a promising article simply because it was created by a non-EC editor. That particular article looks like it's a BLP1E, though. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit of a gotcha because as soon as the article is given (for AI area), the talk and editing templates, then via WP:ARBECR, the creator will no longer be able to edit it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a problem, though? If the article is worth keeping, let's not delete it simply because of who created it. Fix, draftify, whatever is the right choice. Delete if that's the right choice. But automatically delete without assessing seems shortsighted. Valereee (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Uhuh, who is making that choice/doing the assessing though? The submission for approval process seems the best way so draftify + submit for approval might work. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

No real objection to draftifying and submitting for approval, but in theory the person considering deleting could assess or move along. If you aren't a good enough judge of the topic, maybe the next person along will be. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it will depend on the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators. Levivich (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

So far looks like endorsing ScottishFinnishRadish modus operandi as did, as far as I can tell, a prior RFC from about a month ago. More complicated than I had thought, though I cannot readily see why we are happy to limit new editors to edit requests on talk pages but are willing to permit whole articles to be created (by the same group?). Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "willing to permit whole articles to be created" is really an option that anyone is entertaining, and limiting new editors to edit requests doesn't mean that we automatically and every time revert any and all edits by new editors that are not edit requests. If a non-XC editor made a good edit to an article that is covered by ECR but not actually ECP'd, I don't think we'd always in every case revert that edit. Similarly, I know that when a non-XC editor makes a comment on a talk page that isn't an edit request, we don't always and in every case revert those comments. Sometimes, call it IAR if you want, we let them slide. So even if we do not permit non-XC editors to create new articles in ECR areas (and in I/P there is an edit filter designed to technically prevent that from happening), but if one slips through, I'm not sure it follows that deleting the article is always in every case the right approach. And that doesn't mean that leaving it alone is the right approach either, there are other options (draftification, userfication). But hey, I'm in the minority on this. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

...and it's worth noting that WP:ECR explicitly says "administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations," so ECR already contemplates the idea that article creations in violation of ECR might not be deleted. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW for a concrete example, see Palestine studies. That's an article that I'd long thought Wikipedia needed and had contemplated someday writing. I'm glad someone else did it. That person happens to not be XC. It's a violation of WP:ECR. Nevertheless, I don't see how Wikipedia benefits by having that article deleted, though. That's a concrete example of a good ECR article creation violation. Levivich (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the discretion part, the rules need not always be strictly applied, although I think they should be most of the time. Still, why can't the new articles just go through the submission for approval process usually recommended for new editors. If they are good, they are going to get approved, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree with you (and AFC is how the Palestine studies article got published). But that would be impossible if we went about G5'ing or otherwise CSD'ing such articles. In fact, this is why I voted for draftification in the RFC, and why I'm strongly opposed to CSD'ing them. Levivich (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If it was draftify + mandatory submit for approval I could go along with that. A couple I encountered before were articles just showing up in mainspace (and with POV titles), which can still get sorted out but is just a pia to do. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like SFR's approach is being endorsed, certainly the misuse of G5 is not. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Rough count is 11 of 17 responses endorsing the use of G5, even if not their preferred method. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a good thing RFCs aren't a vote because almost none of those responses even attempt to address the explicit opposition to expanding G5 (and in at least one case has not given any explanation for their opinion at all). Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedian Input on Community Values and Research Ethics

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

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

Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

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

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

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

blocked from updating external links

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

You were warned to stop adding links to those two websites to every hall of fame inductee, but you did not stop, and so now you are blocked from editing any article. Please familiarize yourself with our guidelines on external links and on link spamming. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, IP! I'm happy to unblock once you understand that this isn't something Wikipedia considers constructive. Valereee (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't be so eager. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User unhappy with the AfC comments on their draft

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

---

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

Just doing their job. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the inappropriate content from the draft that made it very hard to read. Noting the draft was then declined by @Theroadislong: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

And I will suggest that if one requires Google translate to edit here, then perhaps one should edit on a Wikipedia in one's mother tongue. And that perhaps the AfC reviewers know more about article creation than the one. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As I expected, you defended a colleague who commits irregularities and deleted all the evidence and arguments brought by me. Congratulations for practicing censorship and breaking Wikipedia's rules!2A02:2F05:820E:7000:DCE9:17D7:220C:E739 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hogwash. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You don't put stuff like that in a draft. And I certainly did not remove the commetns you dislike. And I will ask you to calm down and stop ,making presonal attacks. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep going in this vein and I foresee a EE topic ban or worse in your future. We have zero tolerance for nationalist editors who're only here to pick fights. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 06:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

28 sources brought to the article were ignored without an analysis of them, false statements were made about the identity of the draft editor, my work as an honest user of Wikipedia was mocked. And you defend an grandmaster editor that commits so many irregularities. I repeat, this is not democracy, but censorship. And the threat of blocking, because the evidence provided does not suit you, is a clear sign of censorship and solidarity with a user who breaks the rules. I express my displeasure with these practices that undermine democracy and human rights!2A02:2F05:820E:7000:DCE9:17D7:220C:E739 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no. It's all right here and linked above for all the world to see. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: DoubleGrazing

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

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

Religion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard

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

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

Arbitration motion regarding Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Backlog at SPI

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

I've been waiting on an SPI on a pretty routine set of socks for over a week. It does seem like a pretty bad back-log. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it does...and there seem to be a number of SPIs that have been attended-to but haven't been cleared from that noticeboard. Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I tried my hand at 2 and unfortunately picked to the problematic ones. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

My sympathies. The sock master/puppets that I & a few other editors have been battling continue to be obsessed with changing a sourced from impeccable reliable sources circa/approximate dates (like say just a year or an "either this year or that year" date) to a specific date and he/she/they seem obsessed with changing circa/approximate dates to specific dates in November. This behavior has been going on for at least months on a range of articles. Lately they've stepped up the funfunFUN and I am wary of somehow getting inveigled into a 3RR situation. This is not a content dispute, this is a situation where this editor has engaged in repeated reverts, changing referenced information and always using as their source user-edited sites like FindAGrave. There's also some circular sourcing going on where they cite wikidata and when I dig down on wikidata it actually says the circa/approximate/year-only dates are correct. Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You have a lot of really good points, and the fact that colonial peoples often bury the histories of indigenous peoples on Wikipedia is and has been a major concern for a long time, but your tone is not great and will turn many people against you. Try calming down and explaining again in concise, neutral language, instead of just attacking Skitash.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. After going over Skitash's history, there is a lot of whitewashing the history of Arab imperialism, colonialism, and their abuses against indigenous peoples of their conquered lands, but that is a matter for ANI, not here. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Should I redirect the post to ANI? Taluzet (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"colonial peoples" Are you referring to me as such? If this isn't a personal attack, then I don't know what is. Skitash (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's an observation. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. This appears to be a continuation of this ANI from last year. An ethnic dispute being dragged to Wikipedia is never going to end well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand, I took the initiative to report them only after seeing numerous other contributors to Maghreb related articles have had the same issues of erasure whenever they mentioned Amazigh people or gave the Amazigh term for something, some asking for a report to be made, so I tried taking action to assure admins are at least aware of the connotation of User:Skitash 's articles and the biased perspective of Maghrebi history they give off Taluzet (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Your accusations lack merit and are merely unfounded aspersions. I have always contributed to Wikipedia with widely accepted sourced content, and accusing me of discrediting Amazigh/Berber culture or being an Arabist is baseless.

"calling Tamazgha a "fictitious entity", when other similar articles like Akhand Bharat don't use this connotated and biased language against it. I am assuming you didn't bother reading the article or any of the cited sources there, but I will present them here. The following sources explicitly state that "...its replacement with multi- dimensional entities: a domestic region (the Rif, Tafilalt), the external region (North Africa) or a fictitious entity (Tamazgha) whose borders transcend states and nations?",[99] "They imagine a Tamazgha land that transcends the current nation-states that they live in." and "This nation lives in an imagined geography in Tamazgha, a region that stretches from ‘Touareg lands in Niger to Siwa in Egypt to Kabylie in Algeria and, of course, to Morocco’".[100] That is simply the very definition of Tamazgha according to reliable sources. Even the body of the Tamazgha article explains that the term is used "to imagine and describe a hypothetical federation spanning between the Canary Islands and the Siwa Oasis, a large swathe of territory including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Egypt, the Western Sahara, Burkina Faso and Senegal."

I have no idea what your point about "nativity" concerns but that makes absolutely no sense. The content you deleted in Culture of Morocco is sourced and backed by official census data. Your point about it being "illogical to think the that 18% of the 25% censed Berber speakers acquired it as a second language" is merely your unsubstantiated personal opinion. There is no contradiction between 92% of the population speaking Moroccan Arabic and 26% speaking Berber, as Morocco is a multilingual country. I have no idea why you would accuse me of undermining "even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source" for reverting your unwarranted and unjustified sourced content removal.

The Berber names you mentioned were not only removed by myself, but also by others as they were complete WP:OR. A discussion is currently underway on this matter, and there are plenty other editors who agree with my perspective and have expressed concerns that IPs have been going around and arbitrarily changing these unsourced Berber names without an explanation. As we know, Berber is not a single, unified language, and there are no existing dictionaries for the various Berber languages that exist.

Speaking of neutrality, I find this ironic as it appears that the sole purpose of your account is to use Wikipedia as an ethnic WP:BATTLEGROUND, focusing solely on pushing an agenda in Berber-related articles. Going through your contributions, all you have been doing is deleting sourced content you don't agree with for nonsensical reasons and replacing it with whatever you like[101][102][103] and adding unsourced content.[104] Nothing more. This pattern is evident on your talk page, which reveals that you disregard all your warnings regarding sourced content removal.

Furthermore, I'd like to draw attention to this ANI from last year in which I reported Taluzet for edit warring, misinterpreting sources and a lack of willingness to engage in constructive discussions, in which many editors argued that Taluzet is clearly WP:NOTHERE (interestingly, Taluzet harassed one of these editors on their talk page for participating in the discussion). Skitash (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You used a source that states the percent of Moroccan Arabic speakers overall, including L2 speakers, interpreting it as the percent of native (L1) speakers, especially in a comment that just serves to say that only Moroccan Arabic speakers really make a significant portion of the speakers.

About the names, why do the Arabic names not require sourcing? Are names in different languages treated differently?

I don't understand how using my account on a specific category is wrong, I don't push any agenda aiming to undermine the existence of another people.

I would like to apologize for the behavior on the ANI mentioned, I was new to the website and this was my first dispute with any user, I haven't even contributed to Wikipedia all that much this year, just mostly helping in the French Wiktionary, the issue of you contributing to the whole wiki with a clear bias is what brought me to return and file a report in the name of all Amazigh and Maghrebi wikipedians concerned about how this negatively affects the article. Taluzet (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"interpreting it as the percent of native (L1) speakers" When exactly did I do that? The sentence simply states that "92% of Moroccans speak Moroccan Arabic" and "About 26% of the population speaks a Berber language". These are straightfoward, objective facts according to the 2014 Moroccan census, and nowhere does it specify native or L2 speakers in the lead. Besides, this sourced content has been present in the lead for several years and was not added by me. Arabic, as the fourth most spoken language globally, is easily verifiable, unlike Tamazight, which consists of several mutually unintelligible and uncodified languages. Skitash (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It clearly says "92% of Moroccans speak Moroccan Arabic as a native language". If you didn't write it then why did you immediately revert it when I made the correction?

All titles are written in an orthography that was standardized by the Moroccan IRCAM, it's pretty easy to verify if you simply ask a Wikipedian that writes it. Taluzet (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

We need to realise that WP:NPOV does not mean that all points of view should have equal billing, but that those points of view represented in reliable sources should be covered "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". Without the sources being presented we can't tell whether Skitash has been following this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have included all the sources in my response here. Please take a look if you will. I am puzzled as to how my reversion of Taluzet's removal of long-standing sourced content backed by government census data constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV and "undermines even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source" as they have claimed. Skitash (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

My comment was directed at Taluzet, who doesn't seem to be arguing on the basis of reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I already told you, the census is not about native languages, it's just about spoken languages, seen by the fact the percentages in each column don't add up to anything close to 100% Taluzet (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, you will get a lot of conflicting sources on the Maghreb, mostly due to the fact that those sources achieve different goals. For example, on that ANI concerning the usage of the word Tamazight/Amazigh and th self-identification of Berber people using that word, Skitash presented a source that states "Historically, these groups did not call themselves "Berbers" but had their own terms of self-referral. Kabyles, for instance, refer to themselves as "Leqbayel," Shawiyas as "Ishawiyen," and so on", which is a true statement (apart from the 'Historically', since it's a point about modern ethnonyms, and not ancient ones which were more likely to be the widespread Amazigh and Tamazight), because these 2 groups, as well as most groups in Algeria, do use these newly adopted ethnonyms traditionally, but the point he references that in which is "Historically, Berbers did not have a collective term of self-referral but had their own terms to refer to themselves." is not correct, as the names Tamazight and Amazigh are widespread today in traditional use and even more widely attested in pre-modern times, through ancient sources, toponyms and expressions, but the article Berber languages as presented in this version [105] uses a language that suggests it wasn't used in the Berber world prior to modern linguists' promotion of this term.

So I blame Skitash of nitpicking and extrapolating these sources to achieve a goal of discrediting Amazigh language Taluzet (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're referencing a content dispute that took place last year, but what you're contesting is a sourced objective fact that is present in multiple Berber-related articles. The statement you mentioned, "Historically, these groups did not call themselves "Berbers" but had their own terms of self-referral. Kabyles, for instance, refer to themselves as "Leqbayel," Shawiyas as "Ishawiyen," and so on", is found word for word in the source. What you're bizarrely trying to do is dispute the findings of the author, a cultural anthropologist who conducted research in Algeria, by saying that you're right and the author is wrong and replacing this well-sourced information with a dubious unreliable source from 1986. Skitash (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The author of the "dubious unreliable source" is Salem Chaker, one of the founding fathers of modern Tamazight linguistics, anyone in the field should know him, as well as the famous "encyclopédie berbère" he directs. Taluzet (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It is dubious and unreliable. Your source is WP:UNDUE, it's nearly 40 years old and does not warrant replacing the already established credible RS. We've already discussed this previously, and your misinterpretation of sources has been evident. The source you provided doesn't support your claim at all, and you have consistently made WP:OR assumptions and ridiculous claims such as "Mazax is obviously the same word as amazigh"[106]

Anyway, this noticeboard is about behavior rather than content disputes. Since you accused me of not being neutral, then why did you hardly respond to any of the the counterpoints I made in response to your baseless accusations? The only thing you addressed was the issue on Culture of Morocco. If your concern was solely about the "native language" part (which was not added by me and was present on the page for several years), why did you delete the whole paragraph along with its reliable sources rather than just those two words? This is highly unusual, and suggests that you're distorting my edits to portray them as non-neutral when this clearly isn't the case. In fact, you're the one using Wikipedia in a non-neutral manner, as evidenced by your clear intentions to edit war with the goal of pushing a POV, your persistent personal attacks and your warning-plastered talk page (indicating a disregard for them). Given this pattern of behavior, I believe you should be blocked for being WP:NOTHERE and violating WP:NPA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOR, WP:EW and possibly even more. Skitash (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

First of all, the source you are using for Tamazgha is very clearly biased and violates the neutral point of view rule, the author states "These contradictory attitudes contribute to a growing sense of cultural and linguistic alienation and exacerbate feelings of exclusion among Amazigh, thereby complicating national integration." and also "The royal initiative is an encouraging one provided the king shows stronger political will to enforce it in face of a hostile administration and an outdated vision of national unity that still prevails among influential Moroccan elites."[107] clearly showing the author is addressing the issue of Tamazgha in a hostile manner, as he deems it to be a challenge to the national unity of Morocco and the kingdom, presenting the situation with a lot of bias for the Moroccan state. Paraphrasing such articles in your definition of Tamazgha as 'fictious entity' I believe is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia

Surprisingly all the warnings in my talk page are from you, and every other contributor in Berber related articles I've asked have had the same issue of you fighting against Tamazight representation in the Wiki, I have not had any issue in my other contributions.

Here are various examples online of this issue, where you can see User:Skitash is known by many for his political tendencies and him acting upon them in Wikipedia, by using and paraphrasing dubious sources that go against the consensus of the geneticists and linguists of the region, apparently even removing Kurdish town names too to replace them with Arabic :

[108]

Talk:Maghreb

[109] Taluzet (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not the only source present in the article. Multiple reliable sources corroborate the exact same perspective. If you took a brief moment to read the Tamazgha article, you would learn that it describes what Berberists see as "the geographic embodiment of a Berber imaginary of a once unified language and culture that had its own territory". This is essentially the definition of Tamazgha, which has been agreed upon by scholars and other Wikipedia editors[110][111] and has been present in the article for over a year at least. Are you suggesting that Tamazgha exists, and is a real political entity stretching across the entirety of North Africa and encompassing 12 modern-day sovereign states? I don't see what you find so "hostile" about the author's tone, but this further underscores my point that you often baselessly label editors, authors and scholars as non-neutral based on your own viewpoint. I challenge you to provide a source that asserts Tamazgha is a sovereign nation state that exists.

Regarding those links you attached, I have no regard for what like-minded POV-pushing individuals that promote disruptive editing and an ethnic agenda have to say about me and the various other Wikipedia editors they have targeted. What I find interesting is that this has given rise to several recently-created meatpuppets and sockpuppets such as AmazighAcademic, Elyelm, Rumihoney, SaraWiki123, Yassaa.m, Aniguran and Algerien berber (I wouldn't be surprised if you were among them) who all share things in common: to use Wikipedia as an ethnic battleground, delete sourced content and stir up edit wars, behaviors that largely mirror your own. Were you not aware of how these several meatpuppets disruptively edit warred against me and other editors until admins stepped in to protect Tamazgha and Abd el-Krim? Skitash (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue with your edits in Tamazgha is calling it a fictious entity right at the beginning of the definition, by paraphrasing a biased article. Your objective is clearly to discredit the concept of Tamazgha, and discrediting Berbers seems to be the objective of a lot of your edits in the Maghreb Wikipedia. I am not asking you to call it a righteous nation-state or anything, just to be treated as any other unofficial 'great' homeland is like Kurdistan or Akhand Bharat, that are called concepts or geo-cultural regions, because that is the neutral term, that does not send a biased message to the reader.

But it is only one example of you misusing sources in order to skew the message given by Wikipedia articles so that it can fit your personal narrative of erasure of Berbers in the Maghreb and replacing indigenous names and mentions by Arab ones.

Your reputation among Maghreb circles is not to be ignored, and even neutral observants can clearly see you are pushing a colonialist and arabist agenda into Wikipedia, that - as others said - is trusted and used by a lot of people afterwards as a 100% legitimate and objective source.

I have no responsibility in the actions others have taken against you, it is sad that these people take the situation irresponsibly which ends up in the favour of your quests of erasure of Berbers simply through your knowledge of Wikipedia etiquette and taking advantage of their ignorance, I decided myself to take the matter to the admins Taluzet (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be entirely based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. "Fictitious entity" is what RS describe it as, and has been in the article for over a year, with agreement from other editors. "just to be treated as any other unofficial 'great' homeland is like Kurdistan or Akhand Bharat, that are called concepts or geo-cultural regions, because that is the neutral term, that does not send a biased message to the reader." Why don't you present sources describing it as such? Kurdistan is distinctly different, being a geographical location united by language and geography. Tamazgha isn't a geographical location, it lacks a clear geographical definition and whatever lands it claims do not share the same language and culture. If you have any concerns, go ahead and take them to the talk page of the respective article.

The rest of your argument largely echoes your initial accusations me against me and ignores my responses to your unfounded claims and personal attacks which you have failed to address, and regarding "neutral observants can clearly see you are pushing a colonialist", no reputable, established Wikipedia editor expresses this view. On the other hand, I know Wikipedia editors who think you're clearly not here to contribute constructively as seen in the previous ANI.

Moreover, I contribute to articles pertaining to the entire MENA region and revert vandalism in a broad spectrum of topics, not solely focusing on Maghrebi-related ones like you do. Portraying my account as solely dedicated to the Maghreb is misleading and dishonest. Skitash (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I addressed all the points above, I apologized for my behaviour in the ANI that happened a year ago, and I was unexperienced in Wikipedia etiquette as it was my first ever such interaction in this website.

As for "not solely focusing on Maghrebi-related ones like you do", first of all I only really contributed in Berber related stuff, not the whole Maghreb as long as it was political (as you do), and are you really blaming me for that, because you literally do the same to the Arab world, the difference is I chose to keep myself to a subject I am familiar with (Berber linguistics), not acting as an authority on every minority in the region by misusing biased sources and avoiding sources of experts that tackle the subjects in question directly, like when you used the work of cultural anthropologist Jane E. Goodman which is exclusive to Algeria to tackle on a universally Berber, complex linguistic question, and then proceeded called the work of the notorious Salem Chaker "dubious and unreliable".

You're showing this ethnic bias you're blaming me for to Arabs much more than I do, and you're extending it over to minorities under the Arab world.

I didn't say your account was exclusive to the Maghreb, but I have heard many complaints about your actions in the Maghrebi Wikipedia. Taluzet (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, feel free to continue reiterating same unfounded accusations you've been repeating for the past several hours, without offering any revision links or meaningful points. Clearly, you must be the real expert here, knowing more than all those cultural anthropologists, scholars, credible authors and editors you disagree with and accuse of bias. My job here is done; we'll just have to wait for the administrators to come to a conclusion. Skitash (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

References

|

RFPP backlog

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

I wouldn't describe it as urgent. Many of these requests are inappropriate/not going to result in protection. -Fastily 00:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Noted. In any case, it has now been cleared. (Thanks, Callanecc!) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding Sri Lanka

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

This case request is resolved by motion as follows:

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

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

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

Need help at WT:WHITELIST

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

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

More generally I would appreciate not being the only admin regular there, which I have been for months. I only started doing it because requests were being archived without reply prior to that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't comments on your thread because I'm not inclined to whitelist per your request as I'm not convinced it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I notice you also tend to get rather impatient, PhotogenicScientist, and you seem to forget that administrators are volunteers who are not required to respond on your timetable. Or at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

you seem to forget that admins are volunteers I'm not sure where you're getting that from, considering I said "admins are volunteers" right here. And I waited 4 days actively on RSN, 7 days actively on WT, and another 7 days with no action on WT - does that seriously qualify as someone who tends to get rather impatient?

Look, feel very free to continue to ignore my request, Dennis Brown. I'm not holding it against you, or anything. Just asking here for support from any other admin. (Which I was advised to do from the RSN thread, by the way) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

posting COIs (actual/potential) under TBAN

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

The TBAN is considered to be imposed by the community so there's not really an "admin in charge" of it. It's always good to ask when you're unsure; personally I don't see an issue with the specific task of adding COI disclosures to talk pages. DanCherek (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I guess then read this as a more "is this okay?" then "I'm going to go do this now." *smiling sweat drop emoji Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not see adding COI tags to previously-edited articles as a violation of the tban, and in fact I think we should be encouraging it as an indication that Rachel is operating in good faith. Valereee (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

CAT:RD1 severely backlogged

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

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

Appealling topic ban & 1RR

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

Quoting Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions, "Tamsier is topic banned from all edits related to the Serer people, and is also under a sitewide 1RR restriction. Both restrictions are broadly construed. They can be appealed to the community, for instance at WP:AN, but no sooner than 12 months from now, and are enforcable by blocks." Tamsier, when contesting the topic ban, you are allowed to specifically mention the topic ban. Thanks for being cautious! --Yamla (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• As the banning admin, I'm not going to opine on this appeal, but I'll provide a few courtesy links for clarification: please see my recent warning here, the 2018 discussion which led to the ban (the header says 2015, but don't let that worry you), and the formal notice in 2018. Bishonen | tålk 13:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC).
• Also see the ANI discussion here. I'm clearly involved and although Tamsier has been more than civil with me since I discovered he was back that's a 180degree change from when he was last editing. User:Drmies was also a target. Here is what I wrote in 2018:

"Tamsier, I'm going to be blunt. I have always been in favor of more representation of African subjects and have even spent money on sources besides of course time to improve some of them. Your enthusiasm for improving these is great. But I had a serious problem with your sourcing and content, which I think comes from your sincere belief in the old Serer religion and its truth, that the Serer have been in Africa forever, etc. This has made it difficult for you to follow our policies and guidelines when editing Serer related articles. I think that any unblock request needs to be made at WP:ANI via your talk page - there will be people who will repost comments you make here to your ANI request. I'm sure nobody, including you, wants a repeat of what happened that led to your block. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)"

I've got no time to spend on examining current edits, but I would like to know, Tamsier, if your belief in how long the Serer have been in Africa has changed. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks Yamla for doing that. Much appreciated. Hi Doug Weller, I think there has been misunderstanding regarding those people (I'm trying not to mention their name here as this is a Wiki page too, just in case I'm not suppose to) being in Africa forever. This might be due to the different styles of using the English language (and/or writing style) by people from different cultures. However, I have not purported and do not purport that group "has been in Africa forever." The only think I can do is report on what the sources say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's were a lot of our disagreements stemmed from. To answer your question directly, absolutely no. If we are to go with the scientific view that humanity originated from Africa, it would not make sense for me to advance that group of people have in Africa forever. Do I believe or have I ever held the view that they have been in Africa forever? Absolutely no, because they couldn't have by sheer logic. If that is the impression I gave in any of my edits or comments, then I'm sorry about that, because that's not what I meant to do, but only reporting what the sources say as it pertains to their own history and the history of the region they settled in. I hope that helps in clarifying any misunderstanding. I noticed an editor (I can't remember who it was as I was on the move at the time) posed some important questions but later deleted it after looking at my talk page which were answered there. As mentioned on my talk page, I totally forgot about this topic ban and 1RR as it has been 5 years since I came back. The edits were not in anyway of me trying to game the system. To the contrary, I genuinely forgot. The fact that I logged on and edited rather than using an IP demonstrate that it was genuine forgetfullness (I'm not young anymore, lol). I have not been on Wiki for years, and totally forgot. Had it been an ordinary block, the system would have alerted me, and would have jogged my memory. However, as it was a topic ban, it totally escaped my mind after all these years. That is the honest answer. I just thought I take the opportunity to mention it here as well.Tamsier (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  When reporting what sources said about an ancient existence of the Serer, which you can mention here, did you always attribute their statements? Doug Weller talk 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I’m sorry if you took me literally when I said forever, I thought it obvious that was hyperbole. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I think it's plausible that, after five years absence, Tamsier forgot about the topic ban. However, they have an unsettling block history, and some of their edit summaries since returning are concerning:

• Undoing disingenous edit and POV pushing by User:Catjacket. You can't call them Fula! They speak Pulaar but that does not mean they are Fulani. I've seen your edits on other articles doing the same thing! Also, fixed the link to Futa Toro.
• Reverted Fula & Wolof POV motivated by anti-Serer sentiments and hate. Will be going through this article in the next few days. Starting now. Dubious claims motivated by hated of the Serer and tribalism & not backed by RS will be removed. This is an encyclopedia. Take your hatred and POV elsehwere.
• Removing silly tag motivated by hatred and anti-Serer sentimens (the only reason for adding the tag there was because of ref to a Serer King, not because of Lat Dior, so sad). Read the article about the battle & you will know what the battle was about. Please do not bring tribalism and religious hatred on Wiki. Also, it is the Kingdom of Jolof, not the empire which ceased to exist in the 16th century. Addeed refs

If Tamsier can edit actively for six months while complying with the topic ban and avoiding past problems, that might demonstrate that the topic ban is no longer needed. Schazjmd (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Schazjmd, the links you've posted was me addressing some concerning editing, adding references, and correcting issues, one of which pertaining to an ethnic minority group, who are a minority anyway and how dangerous it could be to lump them into a wider dominant group just because they speak the same language. The editor and I had actually had fruitful discussions on the relevant topic page and reached concensus. Another issue which you missed was me reverting an IP who changed the population size of the group from 1 million to 5 million without sources: Restored revision 1216800884 by AnomieBOT (talk): Reverting IP POV when discussion is still going. Also, they have increased the population from 1 m to 5 million without sources. Take it to the talk page. With regards to your six months proposal, as I have stated earlier, I am here to help in a collaborative manner. I have also not been on Wiki for 5 years as stated, and took responsibility for my actions and apologised for that. I have never had a topic ban before so this is all knew to me as stated above. I didn't even appeal it a year after the ban. Yes, it is true that I want the ban and 1RR lifted, but I also want to be treated fairly here, and not having to be doubly punished for a sanction imposed several years ago. I hope you would agree that sanctions are not punitive or designed to humiliate editors especially when they have taken responsibility for their actions and agree not to do it again, which I have and still do.Tamsier (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Doug Weller, I didn't see you later comment. Sorry. When the statements or accounts are supported by multiple sources/scholars, I simply add the inline citations so the reader can examine the sources themselves. If I am not mistaken, and do correct me if I'm wrong, I believe what you are asking is if for example source A says so and so.., whether I add in the article in quotation marks source A says so and so... rather than just paraphrasing and providing the inline citation. If that is what you are asking, yes, sometimes I do quote the text and attribute it to the author and provide the inline citation, and sometimes I paraphrase it and provide the inline citation. If quoting is your preferred option, I totally accept and respect that. However, as an active editor, and I have lot of balancing act to do. I have to be weary of copyright violations; and making sure an article is not full of multiple quotations thereby making the article more like a copy and paste rather than an encycolpedia. By paraphasing and adding the relevant reference as an inline citation to the claim, I believe that would help the reader to examine the source the claim referred to. You have been on Wiki for many years, and are more experience, and I do appreciate that different people have different way of doing things, and I have no problem adopting your technique (which I've done on many articles anyway) if that is the community's preferred way of doing it. Which ever method is best to help the general reader but also balancing copyright violation and piling quotations after quotations on an article which in my view comes off as copy and paste. Perhaps 1 or 2 quoations in an article is fine, but multiple quoations rather than paraphasing, in my judgement as an active editor, could end up doing more harm. However, I do believe that providing quotations in some cases rather than just paraphasing is crucial. As I edit, I try to make that judgement call. Sometimes, of course, I may make the wrong. However, by adding the inline citation to the claim being supported, at least that would give the reader the opportunity to examine the source themselves. I hope I've answered your questions, and if you think I've missed anything or misunderstood your question in the way I answered it, please clarify. Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• I said I wouldn't opine on Tamsier's appeal, but I will say something, in view of the shocking edit summaries that Schazjmd quotes above, and which are only a few days old: "motivated by anti-Serer sentiments and hate"... "motivated by hat[r]ed of the Serer and tribalism"... "Take your hatred and POV elsewhere"... "Removing silly tag motivated by hatred and anti-Serer sentimens"... "Please do not bring tribalism and religious hatred on Wiki". What a lot of hatred and what a lot of assumptions of bad faith. It's much too similar to the attacks and the bad faith assumptions that Tamsier was indefinitely blocked for in 2015 (the block that was eventually converted to the topic ban we are discussing here). I'm sorry to see it. Is this really the user who says above "My mentality is totally different from when I started over a decade ago"? Tamsier, those edit summaries were written by you on 2 April, 12 April and 15 April. This April. So is it your contention that you are now a reformed character with a totally different mentality, even though you were still an aggressive bad-faith-assuming battleground editor a week ago, as seen in those edit summaries? I don't really care if that was you "addressing some concerning editing, adding references, and correcting issues", which is your defense above. I care that you seemingly can't address issues without ascribing bad motives and attacking others as being motivated by "hatred", a word you keep using. That's terrible in my opinion. It's completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. I don't see anybody speaking to or about you in that way. I'm also not impressed by your reply to Doug Weller: Do I believe or have I ever held the view that they have been in Africa forever? Absolutely no, because they couldn't have by sheer logic. Your literal reading of what Doug said looks evasive — merely a way of changing the subject. Surely you knew what he meant? Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC).
• What Bishonen says. I remember that it was precisely this zeal that led to various admonitions and finally the topic ban--it seemed clear to me that when it came to Serer matter, the editor simply could not be objective and detached. That's a real shame, of course, since we need editors in those topic areas--but what we do not need is editors who, the moment they are invested in a topic area, disparage the motivations of editors who make edits they don't agree with.
  So the big problem I see is signaled by this edit, and its edit summary, and I'll quote part of it: " I can't with the Wolof Pov pushing. This is just too much! Editors should really take a deep look of Wolof Pov pushing on the Wiki project. The problem is bigger than I thought". Now the article is fairly recent, but the subject wasn't Serer (in our article) until Tamsier. Fine. Maybe he is. Maybe the sources are good. And it's certainly true that there's not direct, sourced statement that said he's Wolof. The problem though is the thought that this article would have been created/edited to make a man a Wolof and deliberately leave out that he's Serer. User:BastianMAT, who created the article, is a Wolof POV pusher? So, no, I don't think lifting the topic ban is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 22:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC).

Hi @Drmies: I believe you made the above edit but couldn't reply direct as it was unsigned and the name is not coming up on my computer. It was not the creator of the article who added that. How do I word pov on the same topic area, on multiple pages - a problem which is bigger than both you and I? Most of which (as per what I've seen so far) has nothing at all to do with the Serer either (first time I'm writing it here since I'm told it is okay), but bigger than I I initially thought, and some of whom are IPs drivebys, meat or socks, etc. The article did not even have a source for that. I was the one who sourced it. If we are adding cats for something, surely the topic must be discussed and sourced. It's like adding Category:Yoruba people to the King Charles article when nothing in his biography mentions he is Yoruba and certainly not sourced. When you run into too many of these - most of which I've seen but have not even touched, what can one say/do? Some of course would be innocent mistakes, but as an active editor who work on these types of articles, I am more likely to come across them than someone who occasionally edits these types of articles. I didn't even mention the editor by name, just the problem and highlighted the fact that it is a major issue - having seen so many - most of which I haven't even touched. The article's creator you mentioned was not even the person who added that. When is the correct time for me to call a spade a spade especially when I see the same issues on multiple articles? All I'm asking for Drmies and @Doug Weller: is to be given a chance rather than throwing the book at me.Tamsier (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC).

@Tamsier: No one is throwing the book at you, you have to do what anyone appealing a topic ban would do, prove that your behaviour has changed. You obviously haven't done that. But you did get the book thrown at you when you were sanctioned five years ago, and yet you say you forgot? I find that surprising to say the least given how important a topic this is for you and the drama that surrounded your editing that led to the sanctions. I'd also like a direct answer to my question. When do you think the Serer tribe emerged? I'm sure you have an opinion on that. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, so one little category edit is enough to suggest that there is a huge POV problem, a major issue, bigger than the editor initially thought. So I'm going with no: if Tamsier is going to rant in edit summaries rather than start a decent discussion, with diffs and arguments (they could have done that given that they forgot about their topic ban), then this collaborative project is not for them. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• An edit summary like this to me demonstrates a battleground attitude not compatible with editing a thorny topic. Even if we look past the TBAN violation as accidental, I would oppose lifting the restriction at this time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Persistent copying without attribution

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

Hello, I was made aware of this by Iveagh Gardens, and will now clamp down on making unnecessary pages going forward. Quayshires (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. And also more specifically, remember to attribute any copying within Wikipedia. Copying within Wikipedia should probably be limited anyway, as each article has its own purpose, so it's better to let them develop in their own organic way, rather than copying text that was crafted for a different article. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

In a small addendum, can I urge you to read your talk page notices. I see there was a comment on your talk page about copying without attribution, with a warning of a block if there was continued infringement. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Quayshires, I know you have been given a lot of articles to read, but copyright is taken very seriously here as it has legal ramifications. Making unnecessary pages is a lesser matter than copying without attribution, so please read WP:copying within Wikipedia again and make sure that you understand it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CCI is the usual venue for reporting mass copyright violations, in case you need it in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Ghosting & constantly reverting

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

---

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

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

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

Revdel request

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

---

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

Never mind - done

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

Appeal to remove topic ban on politics and 0RR restriction

• Bcmh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The user was topic banned from articles about poltics and placed under a WP:0RR in 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bcmh, your block was lifted on 28 Sept 2023 since when you have made just TWO edits in mainspace. On what basis are we supposed to be assessing your appeal? Cabayi (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cabayi my impression, which is totally open to correction, was that my former behaviour warranted a period of being restrained in totality, regardless of other topics that are available for editing, especially so because there were many articles that I wanted to edit but thought that they could be approaching the bounds of what the ban was about - politics - and I honestly thought that it was better to just be restrained, would I now be correct in understanding that an appeal to remove a ban should include a longer list of edits? Again, I do not deny that I have only made two edits but it was borne out of a good faith but possibly mistaken intention as outlined above which is open to correction by yourself and others Bcmh (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see how we can determine if you’ve changed. A topic ban is given as a sanction in expectation you will edit elsewhere, if we knew you wouldn’t we could have just blocked you completely. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

We need to see edits from you so we can determine if you have changed and that the behavior that led to the topic ban will not repeat. Two edits isn't enough to determine that. I'm sorry you have been operating under a misunderstanding, but the point of a topic ban is to redirect your efforts elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

sigh, could I ask how many edits are needed if more than two? is it 20 or 200? and does the six months restart again from today? or is it a more subjective assessment than number of edits and time? just trying to ask for some help and clarity here, thx Bcmh (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

could I also seek some clarification on whether it is permissible for me to edit an article that I created and have made many productive contributions to, and have many more to make: Reserves of the Government of Singapore; as well as other related articles that I did not create but are related to the one that I did, such as: Central Provident FundHousing and Development Board, GIC, Temasek Holdings, Monetary Authority of Singapore, Post Office Savings Bank, Singapore Land Authority - these are topics of Economics, Pension Funds, Public Housing and life in Singapore that I am familiar with, had made productive (and not disruptive) contributions prior to my ban and were not subject to my former behaviour which only took place in these two articles President of Singapore and Next Singaporean General Election which I do not seek permission to edit at this time.

I understand that a topic ban on politics is to be widely construed, but politics is so wide-ranging that it could be possibly linked to anything under the sun that has any involvement or interaction with elected politicians, furthermore, adding to these articles was not at all where my former behaviour manifested, so I'm hoping to be granted permission to edit these articles (except the election and president articles) since I need to show more edits and that I have changed. Thank you for your consideration. Bcmh (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The topic ban does not affect your ability to edit articles that you created, unless they are about areas you are topic banned from.

As for how many edits, the number is "enough that we can determine that you have changed". It certainly isn't two but I can't give a specific number, nor is it about a specific number. Probably at least dozens, if not a hundred. The ban was appealable after six months; there is no time limit on when you can next appeal, but it will likely take you a few months to build up the edits to show that you have changed. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

As the topic ban is from "articles about politics", I would certainly stay away from editing an article called Reserves of the Government of Singapore. If you want to appeal a topic ban in the future, it's best to steer well clear of anything which might reasonably be considered as being covered by it; looking like you are pushing boundaries or toeing the line of acceptable behaviour generally isn't considered favourably by people assessing an appeal. If you are interested in Singaporean topics, surely there are articles in, say, Category:Culture of Singapore or Category:People from Singapore which you are able to improve and which stay well away from your TBAN. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Revoking the autopatrolled user right of The Anome

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

---

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

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

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

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

I don't see why this is an admin issue rather than an NPP issue, as Autopatrolled only exists to reduce the eternal NPP backlog. Iffy★Chat -- 13:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Because assignment and revocation of the autopatrolled user right is managed by administrators. – Joe (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I already tried to discuss this with The Anome in the linked discussion, but they rehash the same arguments here, with some personal comments added. No, this is not just about notability, this is about sub-par articles for a number of reasons, sometimes notability, sometimes being completely unsourced or sourced solely to unreliable sources, sometimes BLP issues. And I guess anyone who knows my editing career here will see the folly of statements like "Fram seems perfectly happy for there to be tens of thousands of articles about sportspeople which definitely do not meet the notability criteria". Fram (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@The Anome: Nobody enjoys being frammed, but if you'll put up with me passing on some advice that was given to me when I was in the same position: it's best to ignore where it's coming from and how it's delivered and focus on the message. In this case, I think the thing that you might have missed, since your articles have been autopatrolled for—correct me if I'm wrong—ever, is that when we're assigning it today we don't just look for a record of creations that aren't deletion-worthy, but of an essentially unbroken record of flawless creations. And honestly, as someone who handles a substantial proportion of WP:PERM/A requests lately, I wouldn't even think of granting it to anyone with unreferenced articles in their recent creation history. That'd be basically asking for a framming for myself. I really think you should consider cutting this off here and now by self-revoking the right and having your articles reviewed for a while. When you feel you've recalibrated to current sourcing expectations, you're an admin so you are free to reassign it to yourself. But if it's revoked from you for cause here, you'll lose that option. – Joe (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe. I've removed my autopatrolled bit, as suggested, and will follow your suggestion of re-assigning it in a few months when I'm happier I'm compliant with the current rules. I'm very interested, though, in the fact that this experience actually has a name, "Framming". Does Fram have a history of this kind of tendentious complaining?

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

"Hi, I'm insulting you, deliberately misrepresenting what you said, making things personal instead of actually looking at the merits of your complaint. Oh, and do you want to work together?" Fram (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that I've now cleared the bit in a policy-compliant way, resolving the issue to, presumably, your satisfaction. Why are you still posting here? — The Anome (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know that I needed your permission to (checks notes) reply to a question you asked directly of me??? Unbelievable. Fram (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You seem very angry. Perhaps it is better this conversation ends now, as it neither improves the encyclopedia or achieves any policy goal, and this is just cluttering up WP:AN for no good reason. Goodbye. — The Anome (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You seem very angry Way to lower the temperature, TheAnome. Oh, wait, I forgot—you were deliberately trying to raise it, by provoking Fram. In your eyes, an editor has complained about you; that complaint has been upheld by at least one of your colleagues, but you still think the original filing was tendentious. Rather myopic, tbh. ——Serial Number 54129 15:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Conflict of interest editing by Dennis Brown

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

---

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

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

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

This seems like a stretch of WP:COI. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:COI states that an editor has a financial conflict of interest whenever they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. I would say that owning a stake that pays dividends that exceeds what an average paid editor would earn is not at all a stretch of that definition though, as recent discussions have highlighted, editors seem to have a wide range of understandings of that same text. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Feels like this should be at WP:COIN, not here. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It concerns conduct by an administrator, hence the administrators' noticeboard. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I can find no record of Denis Brown editing AT&T [118] and only one record of an edit to History of AT&T [119]. While I am open to saying that if you own stock in a company you may have a COI, I'm not seeing any examples of a problem here. Am I missing something? - Bilby (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking further, the best I have found is some minor edits to AT&T Corporation [120]. Joe, unless I really am missing something, I think you are being played. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't look, honestly, just took Dennis' word on it. I'm really puzzled as to why he would keep bringing it up if his edits were unambiguously uncontroversial, given that this is an explicit exception to COI. – Joe (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Suppose I have invested in a total stock market fund. Do I have a conflict of interest with Economy of the United States? Why or why not? What about the fund's constituent companies, which are numerous?

Many people have small investments in numerous stocks. I would not consider stock investing a COI unless it is most of a person's net worth, or something that meets SEC reporting requirements (which IIRC is owning 10% of a company or more). MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I—and I assume most editors and readers, if they reflect real-world demographics—don't come from the kind of background where people own shares in big companies. What I see here is Dennis saying "I own part of this company, I get a lot of money from it, and I might have made edits that affected its value", and that makes me think that he probably shouldn't be writing articles about that company. – Joe (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is closer to MrOllie's here, though I'd personally declare a conflict of interest well before a single stock was "most of a person's net worth". Joe, keep in mind that many people own shares in big companies through the nature of having a pension (even a state pension). They just don't necessarily know about it. It's also pretty easy for holdings in a particular stock to pay out more in dividends than the hypothetical average paid editor would get. --Yamla (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• This should be interesting. I will stipulate that I own at least one share of AT&T stock somewhere in my retirement account, just to make it easy. By all means, provide all the evidence I was intentionally trying to benefit myself financially by editing any AT&T article. Since this is a necessary step to go to Arb and obviously your goal is to get my admin bit removed, this would be conduct unbecoming of an administrator on your part, and harassment, unless you present at least some evidence that demonstrates I have edited contrary to policy on COI. Instead, I think you are trying to use this as a cudgel to silence me on COI policy issues. THAT is conduct beneath what I would expect from an administrator. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

One more thing: You admitted you had thought about blocking me "I've considered it, more than once..." Exactly what would you have blocked me for? In that same discussion, I told you "Your stance on COI smacks of politicking." and this report demonstrates that I was correct. I assume you did your homework before you came here. You should not be working at WP:COIN. You really shouldn't be an admin if you are that incompetent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't block you, obviously — that would be a massively inappropriate. I'm sorry that you see this as me trying to get your admin bit removed. I'm not. But you have been repeatedly raising this issue yourself, in multiple venues, over nearly a month now, and just directly challenged me as to why I wasn't hadn't taken admin action over it, so I assumed you were asking for it to be tested against community consensus. I'm not sure what my political motivation would be? – Joe (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, owning a stake in a company can result in a COI in relation to that company. The question here becomes whether Dennis Brown’s stake is sufficiently large to cause that COI, and in part that determination comes down to the user in question and how they see their stake.

Given that Dennis Brown has explicitly stated he sees the amount he owns as "not trivial", I think that this is sufficient to establish a conflict of interest in relation to AT&T that should be disclosed if Dennis Brown wishes to make edits in relation to AT&T. BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Seems simple enough. Dennis Brown wants to be blocked, presumably to provide him with a platform. So block him. Then everyone can get on with tings. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• I agree there's a compelling case. There's no need for arbcom here - this isn't about administrative actions but actions as an editor. Not sure if a block is the right thing - my preference is a formal admonishment and warning, and a reminder that editing articles on topics you have a financial relationship with (as defined at WP:COI) is prohibited and further transgressions might lead to a block. A topic ban on publicly traded companies could be another decent way of dealing with this. WaggersTALK 14:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Well except it is not prohibited (WP:COI does not prohibit editing articles on subjects with which you have a COI). WP:COI is a behavoiral guideline and uses 'strongly discouraged', and like all guidelines which 'discourage' something, is designed to enforce best editing practice, not absolute rule. If it was a rule, COI would be a policy and it would use the wording 'must not'. In this case the guideline would be disclosure of any potential COI (which Dennis has done). The guideline is clear that being an investor (which is what you are when you buy stock in a company) would fall under the COI umbrella. But practically speaking, anyone with a diverse enough stock portfolio will have a COI on any number of companies and no one is seriously suggesting editors look through their stock lists before editing because they might own 100 shares in something. Thats even if they are aware and its not handled by a broker/fund. So before things like admonishments and warnings are bandied about, has anyone actually posted a diff of any edits that even remotely approach the reason why we have the guideline in the first place? Is Dennis skewing articles to pump up/deflate the stock price? As that is the only point where his financial interests could be at conflict with editing in a neutral manner. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Good points well made. In which case I suggest we close this as no further action before it turns uglier than it already is. WaggersTALK 14:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be that in all other contexts we expect established editors, and especially admins, to adhere to "best editing practice" and do not worry about whether it's a guideline or a policy. WP:DISRUPT, WP:N and WP:MOS are all guidelines, for example, and we generally don't go out of our way to emphasise that being deliberately disruptive, creating articles on non-notable subjects, or writing articles in all caps is "not prohibited". And let's not forget that the only reason we are talking about this is because Dennis himself started going on about how he owns this and that and how his edits might have earned him money. – Joe (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel somehow the point behind Dennis' comments in the relevant discussions has flown so far above your head its in orbit. But leaving that aside, genuinely, do you want to get into this? Because I (and I am sure others) am more than willing to make the time and effort to do a deep background check on every advanced tool user and find the COI they have failed to disclose according to the wording of the guideline. Granted I could probably stop at just looking up employers, but I would start at the top of the hierarchy and work my way down. Because that's the end point of this, tool users will start getting checks into the motivations of their editing on a level thus far unseen. Because you will have demonstrated thats the way to take people down. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Very much in agreement with this. Joe, until you can point to a substantive edit Dennis Brown has made to AT&T (as opposed to hypotheticals for the sake of argument), then this looks like nothing so much as personal grievance. Frankly, all this section has done is given me qualms about your status as an admin. I would implore you in all good faith to let this drop and have everyone be on their way. As ever, though, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I did try to stress from the outset that I don't think this is a really big deal and that my only goal was to hear what the wider community thinks about an issue that Dennis himself brought up himself (repeatedly). I hadn't commented on the issue until today (others have, at length) and don't have any prior 'grievance' with Dennis. If that is reason to doubt whether I should be admin then good grief yes, reasonable minds do differ.

I do understand the rhetorical point Dennis was trying to make with this example. It wasn't exactly subtle. And he has cleverly chosen that example such that it falls into the well-established exception for uncontroversial COI edits, so there was never any real risk of being called on his bluff, and he could get in a few consequence-free personal attacks on the way. So congratulations Dennis, I suppose, and stupid me for taking him at face value when he said that anything [he] wrote could have affected the stock price or dividends of any of these stocks. – Joe (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

So... we're talking about scandalous edits like this? For someone who has complied with our guideline-not-requirement to disclose COIs? This "a newbie would get banned for this" stuff isn't persuasive here. It comes up frequently, and just isn't true. First, there is no scenario where a newbie would be divulging that they own some stock in a company whose article they made minor edits to -- that's part of the perils of Editing While Admin. When newbies get banned/blocked for COI reasons, it's because they've been making non-neutral/promotional edits and a COI is discovered. In this case, does anyone have any evidence at all that Dennis made any non-trivial edits, let alone bad edits, to an article with a COI? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Like many academics in the UK, I am a member of the Universities Superannuation Scheme and have some investment in their funds. I have no idea what assets they invest in (other than Thames Water that has been in the news). Do I need to abide by COI rules for all the companies my pension scheme invests in? And would it make a difference if I owned the same portfolio directly instead of via a pension scheme? —Kusma (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No. COI is not about disclosing what you don't know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Given you clearly don’t consider yourself to have a "non trivial" stake in those companies, no. There difference here is that Dennis Brown thinks he has a "non trivial" stake in AT&T. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Backlog at Category:Requests for unblock

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

• Well, I did one, and it took ten minutes--that's why we have a backlog... Drmies (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Had to briefly process why they would took so long. One supposes the RfU backlog will persist past the extinction of humanity, as Wikipedia's servers (to quote EEng), "...deep in their underground bunders, whirr and hum and blink..." In all seriousness though, it isn't too big of a deal, just thought a few admins might wanna chip away at it a bit. 12.32.37.18 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is not an urgent backlog. Most of the accounts in the category are blocked with good reason and are unlikely to be unblocked anytime soon. It takes time and effort to decline frivolous requests and that's hardly a good use of volunteer time. -Fastily 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  There'll always be a queue; there need not always be someone calling for it to be emptied. NebY (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've seen it much worse than it is now. 12.32, do you have a particular interest in seeing unblock requests reviewed? 331dot (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not really, to be honest. I'm a school IP, but feel free to run a CU (there'll probably be no accounts unless some were made and promptly blocked before my time here). Just saw a massive backlog and went "huh, maybe the sysops would wanna know about this". 12.32.37.18 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

MapTiler

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

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

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

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

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

By regional block you mean a rangeblock. Yes, this is a thing, and yes it can be set to deny account creation, but no it can't be done indefinitely since it's impossible to block just account creation without also blocking editing from that range. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 20:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

yep, a rangeblock may be a tool that could be used here, you would need a checkuser to determine if it is likely to be useful or not. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yup, a rangeblock can be applied, but only by admins who know this stuff well (usually checkusers). So, while usual editors may report such people, admins will have to judge the measures which need to be applied. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all, I've opted to check with HJ Mitchell regarding the possibility. The Kip 20:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hah, 80 confirmed and suspected sock accounts is nothing! Take a gander at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AlexLevyOne, for instance. Deor (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Good gourd. The Kip 21:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

"[..]it can't be done indefinitely since it's impossible to block just account creation without also blocking editing from that range"

This is not true? There are active blocks that only prevent certain actions (including ones that only prevent account creation) and don't prevent editing. It isn't done indefinitely because IPs aren't supposed to be blocked indefinitely (though there are some exceptions), that's all. – 2804:F14:8092:9F01:F9F8:9351:41E7:923 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The IP is right. In reality these types of (P-ACB) blocks are only useful if done by checkusers (them again) in some limited circumstances, and the CUs have evidently taken a look here and done some appropriate actions. The technically curious may notice that Wikimedia issues a GeoIP cookie for advertising. Any time they want to make this data available to others would be great. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:DENY is good advice on this matter. Don't turn sock puppetry into a contest for high scores. Don't bold the number of sock puppets someone has created in effort to impress people with how disruptive a sock puppeteer is. It's just going to encourage them, and other sock puppets, to get a higher score. These are generally bored, lonely youngsters who are looking for attention. If you think a sock puppet needs a range block, you can ask a CheckUser. However, if the case is regularly attended by CheckUsers at SPI, one can expect that they've looked into range blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reporting User Saqib for Harrasing other Users

Dear Administrators,

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

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

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

Thanks Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 01:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you show diffs Maestrofin (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Maestrofin i was super busy thus I was not able to reply, now I did. Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 10:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• See previous report at ANI: [121].--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Another boomerang Maestrofin (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Faizan Munawar Varya, for anyone to assess your complaint, you have to present evidence, in the form of diffs/edits, demonstrating that what you argue is true. I can safely say that no action will be taken without them. You have to back up your claims with evidence or this process could backfire on you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

yes maam I do understand but due to my busy schedule im replys and if you see contribution history of Saqib and the recent article has been created its just sake of creating it and has no content in it and recently he reported me on evidence Sockpuppet and started requesting for delectation of my pages and also deleted all images uploaded by me on commons evidence, as requested were initiated by saqib He has been accusing me for paid wikipedia editing, I dont need money for editing wikipedia God blessed me alot and known journalist I respect writing for promotion of good literature. Its very unfair to see the admins are being supportive to him without looking at his personal editing history. Does it mean should I stop creating BLP because someone assused me of taking money for it, everyone has topic of contributions I do my research before creating any article related to any place or person or thing. DOES it mean I should stop editing? because I looks like Saqib is determine to block me from my editing rights, and few users are seems to be supportive towards him. Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 10:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

here are some difference and examples for his invalid behavior for example an article of former health minister Abdul Qadir Patel as I said I do my research before creating any of person place or thing article and gather correct information before uploading it, so he has been keep adding however the all article was re-written by me because I think we should take responsibility of article and I edited then updated with correct citations again he did added CN and added tag of unreliable sources it looks like he is not reading it you may check by your self evidence difference 1 that I have provided references. Even on his talk page I told him that we are all here to respect and help each other as one team to improve Wikipedia and he accused me of bribing, if we dont support eachothers in articles updating and adding more content so whats the point of creating projects? evidence difference 2.

Further more, I do agree that I was not able to edit or update or contribute properly but does not mean someone paid for writing and judging and stocking my personal profiles, it looks like harassing and reporting fellow editor all places it does come under that.

Please its my humble request toward saqib that stop thinking negative for people and lets contribute wikipedia together, yes if there is any policy issue you can discus but you can not accused other editor of taking financial benefits without valid grounds. Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 10:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The only issue seems to be that you are too neutral, and don't conform to Faizanalivarya's POV or the opposite. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

there is no boomerang at all, you started his invalid behavior of reporting other respected editors, I was not able to reply because I was busy so stop judging people based on their real life success yeah. Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 10:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

• This looks like canvassing. Ymblanter (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wow, it looks like you guys are keep supporting him good work, yes I did speak with him its on my edit history as editors if someone is doing wrong we should raise voice against him and our brother @Saqib is certainly being very bad towards others not only me so This is actually an evidence he is doing with everyone Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 10:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

While this isn't a major concern, what worries me more is that Faizan holds WP:RPC rights , considering their editing pattern and behavior. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you seen any evidence that he has used WP:RPC rights? I have them too, but have rarely, if ever, used them, and had forgotten that I had this ability until I checked just now. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

hi there I was busy so was not able to reply, yes I didnt use these rights because I was inactive last year, I have been busy and was not able to contribute. Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 09:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow Saqib now you are trying to prove that I am sockpupeet? and you put the claim that I have been getting financial benifits out of editing Wikipedia? yes I did write Editor Wikipedia because i am editing since October 2010. Yes I do meet celebrities because I am a one of them I am digital influencer. I have YouTube, channels with more than 2.7 Million subs as I do YouTube automation and personal youtube has about 16k Subs and I have good fan following because I do business coaching and I have trained many individuals on Blockchain, Dropshopping and Amazon FBA. What evidence do you have to prove that I am taking financial benifits? its just a false claim, I am super busy in some projects I will be free in few days so its my humble request guys can you not see he is trying to report me every where, what is this? do you not see that he is doing wrong. and you guys are supporting him for no reason. Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 09:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Guys In the nutshell what I would say that we are here to create wikipedia a good place for everyone clean and support our fellow editors in editing and all terms as team, if we keep fighting on talk pages when we will edit real article ? and today I have decided to create videos to encourage others for editing. Please send me message on my talk page so we all can work together, @Saqib is also my brother. What only thing bothers me is @Saqib is trying to frame that I created BLPs of only famous, and highly notable personalities, and known people who try to improve their invalid information about them Wikipedia. And I strictly follow the WP:N Wikipedia notability guidelines very very strictly even I self request deletion If I found the a person is not much notable.

Mostly I edit to improve pages article on wikipedia. I hope we are peace and please remove this mind set that I charge money for editing, I dont need its purely volunteer work and I have also change my user profile to avoid any COI. Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 11:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Nazism, really?

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

---

Userbox

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

---

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

GThis user is a Grammar Nazi.

Source: User:KomradeKalashnikov/Userboxes/Grammar Nazi

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

Userboxes aren't "approved", and anyone can create one. I'm not sure why you decided to bring this to AN - if you have problems with it, you can talk to the creator or take it to WP:MFD. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this should go through WP:MFD. I would encourage TheSpacebook to {{Atop}} this section and file an MFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"if you have problems with it, you can talk to the creator" You want me to communicate and negotiate with someone who creates Nazi-like content? WP:NONAZIS. Plus, I’m not versed enough on the intricacies of anti-Semitism or Nazism to engage in a debate about something, but I can clearly recognise Nazi symbols. TheSpacebook (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

While "Grammar nazi" is a common term that is not associated with Nazism, I think that logo pushes the bounds a bit too much. Would be better to use something less suggestive like a book or pen. — Masem (t) 03:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• This appears to be precipitous, and very likely an overreaction. While in questionable taste, I am doubtful this is some kind of crypto-Nazi imagery and would certainly not support any administrator intervention at this point. I am somewhat disappointed by the OP's shoot first and ask questions later response to this. Perhaps they are unaware that the term nazi is often used as a synonym for a martinet or someone who is very strict in a particular subject area? I also note that there has been no notification as required of all reports at AN. No communication of any kind, no notification (required) and a likely unjustified failure to WP:AGF. You may color me unimpressed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• KomradeKalashnikov helps out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas, creating userboxes that other editors request. This particular one was requested by another editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas/Archive 24#Request - February 9, 2024. I don't like the image either, but I'm guessing they just grabbed the first result on Commons when making it. Anyways, not seeing anything that MFD can't handle. DanCherek (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  MFD is not needed yet; just talk to the editor about it, I bet they'll be receptive to someone pointing out that the design is a bit too close to actual Nazi symbolism to be in good taste. They'll probably just redesign it to something more grammary and less Nazi. Levivich (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a Soup Nazi userbox? Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see this as glorifying Nazism or Hitler, and it is a common term, "grammar nazi", so not sure what the big deal is. We're a big tent, not everyone has the same sense of humor, but I think we are better off spending time dealing with people who are actually trying to inject bad POV into articles, rather than worrying about userboxes with pop culture references in them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Discussion about the OP

• @Dennis Brown I agree. I've often seen the term used and have no problem with it. For me it doesn't imply that the person is actually anything like a Nazi. I do have a problem with the OP though as they've deleted their talk page which now reads "Not to be confused withThe Space Book" with two innocuous userboxes. As User:Acalamari said in the declined Arbitration request here., this user shows up at the drama boards to often. Comments there included suggestions that they were trolling and that a ban might be appropriate. It's ok to remove all the warnings etc from a user's talk page, but making it look like a user page just seems to be another example of the problems I and others have seen with this editor. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  You prodded me to go look at this: [123], which shows 10% of his edits are to articles. 53% are to WP: and WP Talk: I'm not sure what s/he is here for but it doesn't seem to be to edit articles or build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  If someone's actions are brought to WP areas, it's likely that they will spend a lot of time there. There's also the fact that many big issues are discussed and resolved just so ONE edit can happen. Others contribute in WP in order to enable others to edit. I wouldn't look that much into WP vs mainspace percentages. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, the post was about the image, which clearly displays Nazi symbolism, NOT the phrase "grammar Nazi". The ‘not to be confused with’ on my talk page is a clearly a joke, no? And my user boxes are also satire (which is where I came across the userbox), I’m just trying to WP:ENJOY myself. Lots of editors have userboxes on their talk page and I haven’t made a user page as I want one place for everything, people can still leave comments. And the comments were removed as I’ve reflected and had a fresh start. How can anyone have an issue with this as per WP:DRC. What is the problem here? I’m here to build an encyclopedia, if you look at my recent proposal User:TheSpacebook/lifeline, clearly a lot of work has gone into it to make Wikipedia better and solve an issue that keeps popping up. 53% of my edits being backend shows I’m personally more skilled with suggesting and building improvements. And I used the correct avenue to suggest it (village pump). But I do have some drafts on my computer which I’m meticulously fact-checking each cite for mainspace articles too.TheSpacebook (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  To add to the above. My issue was that Nazi symbolism is being used a humorous manner, NOT the phrase "grammar Nazi". And I’m not versed enough on the intricacies of Nazism and anti-Semitism to debate anyone on it, but I can clearly recognise Nazi symbolism. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  And I’ll also just add my extensive edits on the Where is Kate? article to keep it reliably sourced and free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies (the other editors I was working with to do this also thanked me for helping in the effort) has now been deleted from public view. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Update: I’ve placed all the relevant items on my talk page into a 'talk page banner' (something I just discovered). It looks less like a userpage now. I just want to manage as little amount of pages as possible, to keep it compact. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  @TheSpacebook Of course you are free to remove comments. No one should leave comments on your userpage, that should be yours alone to manage. You might want to read WP:ARCHHIVE and set up one for your talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Amazing! Thank you for telling me about that. I can see that bots can do this automatically, which saves a lot of time. I thought every user cut-and-pasted the comments into their archive. I’ll get one set up then, thank you! TheSpacebook (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  TheSpacebook, please stop modifying your comments after people have responded to them. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry! Currently travelling and I don't have Grammarly on my phone. Just thought the topic was a bit more serious (Nazism and anti-Semitism) that I shouldn’t be misrepresented on. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  You have been told not to do this often enough that you should have learned your lesson. Don't modify if they've been replied to, just reply saying something like "What I meant to say was...". Doug Weller talk 13:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  The OP is clearly taking the piss. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  By notifying that Nazi symbolism is being used in a humorous manner (my issue wasn’t about the phrase)? Or that I suggested and programmed a solution to the issue of the inclusion of suicide helplines, which often gets raised, in a manner which is more subtle than a banner or disclaimer (User:TheSpacebook/lifeline)? I have now reverted my comments to the pre-reply state and followed the advice, by replying. It’s just a serious topic. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Community ban

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

---

• Propose community ban. I'm sorry to do this and I hope I don't take too much flak for it. I find TheSpacebook immensely tiring. Many editors have made suggestions to them, including myself. Occasionally, TheSpacebook will agree to those suggestions and then rampantly ignore them. They cause an utterly disproportionate amount of wikidrama and rarely contribute constructively to building an encyclopedia. I'm sorry to say, I think Wikipedia is simply better off without them. --Yamla (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest if you are tired of the poster, you skip over his material. I would also advise him, presuming he is reading, to get off this page ASAP. Carrite (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

(I put this comment in the wrong place, but won’t delete to avoid edit conflicts) The pie chart is inaccurate as the Where is Kate? edits have been deleted. Me, along with other editors worked tirelessly to keep it free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies, whilst it was going through the deletion procedures. It can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Consider making this sanctions proposal in its own subsection, or it may get too messy to close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Since no else has, I have done so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• (ec) When I saw the OP's contribution pie chart, combined with nearly a week of radio silence over the Easter holiday, I was concerned that this might be a troll account intent upon creating mayhem for the sake of mayhem and NOTHERE. A respected Wikipedian made the good argument in a thread about him at WPO that pie charts for newbies venturing into controversial areas are apt to be unconventional — particularly when comments on project pages are edited and re-edited, as the OP is wont to do.

OP explained he was on vacation with his family over Easter and has engaged meaningfully, if critically, off-Wiki. My worst suspicions have been set aside, I believe this is a newcomer intent on addressing problems or engaging in quality control of content at WP, particularly in the area of BLP. I've advised him to do some conventional editing here to build some social capital before wading into the next content swamp, but that doesn't seem to have appealed to him. I would advise that people treat this account as a well-intended newbie, however, as I believe that is the case here. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The pie chart is inaccurate as the Where is Kate? edits have been deleted. Me, along with other editors worked tirelessly to keep it free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies, whilst it was going through the deletion procedures. It can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This comment wasn't a reply to you by the way, but I’m not going to delete it as per the edit-conflict-ice I’m skating on being razor thin. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

But thank you for this comment, I believe it accurately reflects my intentions, in a way that if came from me would sound suspicious. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• And the comments were removed as I’ve reflected and had a fresh start. Does not look like it at all. For me, every single watchlist update from AN today has been this editor making minor edits. It's annoying just seeing it in the watchlist. I can only imagine how disruptive it must be to actual attempts to edit the page. I am starting to think they need a ban from editing highly watched, highly edited pages at a minimum. I don't think I'd support a community ban just yet because there have been some good things, I think. Lesser remedies should be tried to encourage the good, and keep the bad in check until they start doing better. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  This was about edit-warring, contentious topics, and canvassing off-wiki (which I haven’t done for any of my new suggestions) etc. Off-wiki, I have worked to pool opinions on topics, so I’m better informed should I bring it on-wiki. My suggestions were taken to the right place: BLP talk page, village pump etc. I bought this humorous use of Nazi symbolism straight to the Admin noticeboard due to how serious the issue is, and I’m not educated enough on Nazism and anti-Semitism to engage in a debate about it, if I was to put it up for deletion. Admittedly the comment editing is a place I need to work on; to note, I was on a train and some of my comment edits were sent when there wasn’t a reply, but weren’t received by the Wiki servers as trains in the UK are known to be intermittent with the connection as they pass through areas like the countryside. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  So what we are looking for is you acknowledge the concerns raised. Moxy🍁 15:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I said "Admittedly the comment editing is a place I need to work on" in the comment you just replied to. And I notified this noticeboard about the humorous use of Nazi symbolism (not the phrase 'grammar Nazi') as this issue is way above my pay grade to engage in a deletion debate about. I fail to see how I’m not acting in good faith.TheSpacebook (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Neither I nor Moxy questioned your good faith, but you're not making it easy. You brought your good faith up, then went on to make 20+ more edits, which included appending an unsigned note to Sandstein's close with some interesting edit summaries. I am assuming Carrite did not say lightly that they're convinced you're a good faith newb, and not a troll as it increasingly looks like you are. Good faith or not, you need to stop or be stopped. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's my best guess anyway. The WPO thread is worth peering at, YMMV. Mark me down as opposed to a C-Ban and Good Block tossing him from here for a day for failure to listen to pretty much anyone... Will he figure it out? Betting heavily against but we shall see... Carrite (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I’ll just make one more comment, me taking this straight to AN was reactionary. But in hindsight, I should’ve taken it to MFD. Thank you to those who made me aware of this process. I was just shocked to see a userbox humorously displaying Nazi symbolism (again not the phrase ’grammar Nazi’, rather the image of the userbox), and thought it required immediate attention. I also should’ve made absolutely clear that my issue wasn't the phrase 'grammar Nazi' too (a phrase I was already aware of). If you look at my specific actions (and look past me being unaware of certain procedures and policies) I hope that editors can see that my intentions and the issues I raise are well meaning and in good faith. Thank you for telling me about MFD and the talk page archiving bot too. My talk page is always open to drop a link to policy if I go against it, and it will be always well received. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Before Doug tagged me above, I'd already seen TheSpacebook appear yet again in my watchlist on this dramaboard. While I actually agree with TheSpacebook that the image of the userbox was inappropriate (and the userbox itself is questionable, as it can be read as anti-Semitic and / or making light of the Holocaust), the manner in which this was handled suggests that it was meant to cause as much drama as possible. Besides the abysmally low percentage of mainspace edits, the user doesn't take on board feedback, as evidenced by being told yet again not to modify their comments after people have already replied. Support Yamla's proposal for an indefinite block and community ban, with the rationale WP:NOTHERE. Acalamari 17:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I said my previous comment would be my last, but I must respond to this. Me bringing this straight to AN was to quickly get the userbox taken down if deemed inappropriate. If I took it to any deletion request (such as MFD), or even WPO, it would’ve caused way more drama than having admins (which is a small group) quickly take action on what I deemed to be a serious matter. There are wider implications of opening discussions about Nazism and anti-Semtism, and with the current climate, it’s best not to open up such discussions due to how nasty they get. The discussion about whether the userbox was anti-Semitic or not would’ve turned sour extremely quickly if a large group of editors got involved, it’s best left to the experienced admins. I’m glad we agree the image in the userbox was inappropriate and could read as anti-Semitic. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I’ll add again, that the low percent of mainspace edits currently doesn’t take into account the deleted article Where is Kate? Myself and other editors worked tirelessly to keep it reliably sourced and free from promoting conspiracies: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Spacebook, you've made eight edits to this page in the last 15 minutes despite multiple editors saying this is a problem. Either stop posting or learn to use the preview screen -- ideally both. You are literally digging a hole for yourself at this point. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  The problem raised in this discussion was that the comments that had be replied to but admittedly editing comments in general is something I need to work on. With the discussion being directed at me, it’s important that I’m not misrepresented, so I’m trying to get the responses posted as quickly as possible. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Spacebook, the problem is that: No. No edits need to be replied to. That's you [erroneous] thinking. I'm telling you this: if—instead of rep[lying to all those comments that just needed to be replied to—you ha had said something like, "well I'd like to reply, but I recognise that's not the best response, so I'll step away for the rest of the day", then I could almost guarantee that Yamla's proposal would rapidly lose traction. Because for the first bloody time since you first edited—in between all the noticeboards and requests for arbitration (!!!)—you would have shown a degree of restraint and self-reflection that people want to see. But. ——Serial Number 54129 18:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked TheSpacebook from this page for 24 hours for disruptive editing, bludgeoning, still not using preview or making sure their statement ready to publish, and throwing dirt all over the place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. But I’m not going to put any money on them learning their lesson. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Good block. We don't need unnecessary drama, and TSB seems to have a track record in that department. I would strongly advise them to devote more of their energy to building an encyclopedia and less to starting or throwing gasoline on dumpster fires. All of which said, I respectfully oppose a C-Ban at this time as premature. Let's see if they take any of this onboard. But yeah, there needs to be some changes going forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Oh I agree a C-Ban would be premature. They should be given another chance. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Good block, too lenient if anything.

  Star Mississippi 01:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• How many times are we going to have to ask TheSpacebook to preview their edits before submitting? This is a very basic thing to figure out, and their refusal to get it is emblematic of their broader inability to learn from their mistakes. They either can't or won't listen, and at this point the community has expended more than a reasonable amount of time and effort trying to help them. Two pblocks from this noticeboard in a span of less than three weeks is flat-out ridiculous. I realize that several editors whom I respect have stated above that a cban would be premature, but I'm not so sure I agree. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• oppose C-Ban We're going to block someone and not allow them to respond with a defense? "How many times are we going to have to ask TheSpacebook to preview their edits before submitting?" Really? Just wait until he's done. Give it a couple of hours and reply. Is it really so bad that he makes corrections/better states his point? Yes, he shouldn't refactor it AFTER someone replies. I'm not seeing DE, bludgeoning, etc warranting of a block. If someone advocates blocking someone and they vigorously defend themselves, I think that's reasonable. If you're in a trial, you get to have a chance to say your thoughts and respond to EVERYTHING people say. The idea that a person's reputation can be besmirched and people think "Well, he's responded to 5 comments, anything more is too much!" *clutches pearls* is a bit unreasonable IMHO. Let him say what he wants. If he's got a point, let him make it. If he doesn't, then he won't and he'll look like jerk doing it. If he's not defaming anyone or doing anything else illegal, just let it roll. Are we being charged by the byte now? Buffs (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is a public noticeboard. It is nonsensical to suggest that we should give an editor a couple of hours to finish editing their comments before we respond. Nobody here is that important. Asking an editor to use the preview button is a reasonable request. Yes, we all make mistakes and need to fix our posts on occasion, but The Spacebook has demonstrated a well-documented failure to improve in this regard despite repeated requests from other editors. But undoubtedly in the future they will quote your ill-considered remarks above as if they negate the concerns expressed by everyone else, so thanks for that. The Spacebook made 80 edits to this page within a span of 15 hours, so the notion that they were not allowed to defend themselves is preposterous. Buffs, the only thing your rant accomplished was that it demonstrated that it is not possible to reasonably defend The Spacebook's behavior. In light of the fact that the only defense that has been mustered so far is incoherent and devoid of substance, let the record show that I support a community ban at this time, just as I will likely support it again when we end up back here in a few weeks. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Point is well taken, I think, that it's not really........ kosher, ethical, what have you ........ to run a c-ban mob here when the accused is unable to respond. I would like to think those who have supported it realize that there won't be a consensus coming out of this particular incident and that we can just put down the executioner's axe for a week or two to see how things play out. If Spacebook is acting in good faith, he will quickly correct course. More shenanigans will be received most unkindly, it should be clear to him. He's been posted on what he needs to do and warned about what he needs to not do, let's see how he responds in action rather than blabber. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see a mob. Besides, the prospect of a community ban was first mentioned several hours before TheSpacebook talked their way into a pblock. I don't believe that we should stop discussing a proposed sanction because the editor in question earned themselves a separate sanction. Given that TheSpacebook has not corrected course on issues that were previously raised the last time they were in the community's crosshairs, I see no reason to kick the can further down the road. YMMV, LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  A similar issue came up at ANI and I find it fairly bizarre. Even if the block was for the same issue, it's been pretty much standard practice for at least 10 years and I think much more, that a block does not end discussion on sanction of the editor unless it's felt that the block is sufficient to resolve the issue. I mean in some cases it is, but in other cases here may be discussion of a longer block, ban or other restriction be it a site one or a more limited one. Some admins even say (as happened at the ANI) that I'm blocking but not intending to end the discussion on wider sanction. And of course blocks and site bans under discussion, including appeals, generally take place when the editor cannot edit the relevant notice boards. I mean even if we put those aside and only take cases where an editor has just been blocked but there's a suggestion for a wider sanction; I suspect there's at least one case a month where this happens. So I don't understand why there's suddenly a suggestion we cannot do this as editors need to be able to directly participate in the AN//I. I'd note that personally I've advocated that in all such cases including appeals, editors should be unblocked with the proviso they only participate about them provided we can trust them to obey such a condition and they don't do something which makes their editing untenable. (This would likely have worked in the ANI I mentioned.) However this has never gotten community support so standard practice is the editor can post on their talk page and someone copies it over. Also even if we did do that, this seems to be one of the cases where it would not work since the block was largely because of their behaviour here in this AN. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  My point is in response to process. I resent your implication that my response was a "rant" (especially when your response was longer than mine). "undoubtedly in the future they will quote your ill-considered remarks above as if they negate the concerns expressed by everyone else, so thanks for that." Well I guess that all dissenting points of view must bow down to your inherent wisdom and all opposition will lead to "future crime". Are you serious? Geez. I posted my DISSENT with his opinion above. My opinion is my own. If he misquotes me as if to say the entire community believes as I do, you can correct him and an administrator would be well within his purview and capable enough to dismiss such a claim.

  My concern is procedural and focused on the precedent it sets. People should be able to voice their concerns (even inartfully) and make corrections to make their point. While it should be done in a clearer manner than TSB has done, opposing views have still made their points. His changes only hurt his case, not help it. Let it go and this will resolve itself. Buffs (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well I guess that all dissenting points of view must bow down to your inherent wisdom and all opposition will lead to "future crime". Are you serious? Geez. I posted my DISSENT with his opinion above. The ranting continues to not be helpful. You seem to have decided that you have the moral high-ground because you are defending an editor under fire, but unfortunately your comments have failed to engage with reality. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'd support a temporary ban from project space. Let them show they can contribute to the wiki before a cban. Pinguinn 🐧 21:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose a community ban at this time, but
  • • User:TheSpacebook - In the past few weeks, there have been three editors who have made real nuisances of themselves, among other things seeking to Right Small Wrongs. We have a guideline that Wikipedia is not intended as a place to Right Great Wrongs, but I found it necessary to write an essay about editors whose efforts to Right Small Wrongs hit them like a boomerang. Two of those three editors filed stupid Requests for Arbitration that were dismissed. Two of those editors have been indefinitely blocked. As you can see, some editors think that you should join them. For now, I disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support: At the since-declined arbitration request, I said I had no further plans to interact with this user, so I do not wish to go into excessive detail here, but this user has continued to do all of the same stuff that everyone has told them is a terrible idea that will waste time and cause giant amounts of drama, including the guy on Wikipediocracy who doxes people, in one of the several new threads Spacebook has created on there since the last AN thread about them. jp×g🗯️ 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as an overreaction at this point. They've been here four months and fucked up a few times. Who hasn't. Bloody hell, we've got long-term editors fucking up all the time. If they carry on fucking up, then they've fucked up. And not just up, but right up. But that'll be for then; right now, they should be given a chance to adjust literally the single main thing that has drawn the broadest ire: their keyboard diarrhoea. If they can manage that (and yes, not running to ANI, arb com at the drop of a hat would be an added bonus!) and do some basic spadework in article space, then we got a win. And if we are being trolled, frankly, to fuck, then he won't be able to resist coming back for a bit more—the Lokian lust for commotion reveals itself—and we say goodbye. No messing, end of. ——Serial Number 54129 12:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. Four blocks and an ArbCom case request all inside in three weeks is too much, and the issues that led to those blocks (disruptive editing x3 and alleged canvassing) are not the kinds of things that are solved with a TBAN. I said at ARC that their behavior was indistinguishable from trolling; the fact we're back at AN again is not doing much to change that. Giraffer (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle. I'm not comfortable with the idea of boomeranging an editor that came to a noticeboard to report their concerns about nazi imagery, even if there's some other underlying issues with their behaviour. I don't like the possibility that this might have a chilling effect on other editors with good faith concerns. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think jumping straight to a CBAN is the answer here. Furthermore, I agree with the thoughts by Clovermoss. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposal 2: Project Space Ban

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

---

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

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support, particularly after their reply to Yamla "I would suggest if you are tired of the poster, you skip over his material.". Absolutely clueless. Honestly, I would prefer an indef block, but recognize that might be a little harsh. This project space ban would cut their current output by over 50% and would be a good start, and the lesser of the available "evil" solutions. A reasonable compromise. We do not need this person in WP: space, at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Dennis, point of order: Carrite posted that, not TheSpacebook. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but I still maintain that they are clueless or they wouldn't spend over half their time in WP space doing these things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. A time-sink who is here to drama-monger, not improve the project. We've already lost one good admin over this user, it's time to put an end to the nonsense. Since they seem unwilling/able to stop, a forced one is needed. Note, I would also support a larger block. Star Mississippi 01:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  What admin did we lose over this user? Levivich (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  GeneralNotability didn't technically turn in their bit but ceased editing after resigning OS and from ArbComm after their block of this user was taken to task. It is just my opinion but the loss of their work is significantly more than Space's. Star Mississippi 03:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe you know something I don't know, but I don't know that GN's absence has had anything to do with anything related to Wikipedia (as opposed to RL), and even if it does even partly have to do with the poor way GN was treated by some over that block, you can hardly blame the editor who was blocked for that. I'm not even saying Space hasn't been disruptive or shouldn't be sanctioned, but it seems massively unfair to saddle them with GN's absence. Levivich (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  You don't think it was related to being doxed earlier in that same day? jp×g🗯️ 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think GN's absence probably has multiple reasons and maybe that was one of them, maybe it wasn't, I don't presume to know, and I won't assume it (and it's none of my business anyway).

  More importantly, it doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion because Space didn't dox anyone and isn't responsible for those who did.

  If we want to hold editors responsible for that, I could post a list of names. If we want to hold editors responsible for choosing to associate with it, I could post a list of names for that, too. Space at least disavowed it clearly, as have others, but not everyone, including not everyone participating in this discussion.

  If we want to sanction people for harassing GN, I'm all for it and could post a list of names, but Space wouldn't be on it. Let's not blame this person for it while allowing more culpable people to continue editing without blame. Sanction people because of what they do, not what others do. Levivich (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support as better than nothing, but still not enough IMO. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• I would suggest an exception be made for the teahouse (but not other help desks). I was also thinking AFDs but I think they can appeal for that carve out after a few months of writing articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree with any exceptions. They can partial appeal as needed, when it is appropriate. If you carve out an exception for Teahouse, we are likely to be back here in a month seeking to add it back. Cut the head off the snake, let them actually edit articles, and grow up a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking they may need help if they start to make significant mainspace contributions; WPO is their preferred help desk currently. But I don't have strong feelings, since user talk space would remain available to them. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with any exception for XFD. XFD is a quarrelsome arena. We have had three ArbCom cases about conduct in XFD in six years. I do not have a strong opinion about a single exception for the Teahouse, but they would be likely to annoy the friendly regulars by editing their typos as the regulars respond to them. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I'm just voicing an opinion here but I don't think a Project space block would be effective as that covers everything from RFDs to AE to AN to to RSN to AFDs to Teahouse to Policy pages. I think if there is a support for this block, it should be a partial block from particular noticeboards where disruption has occurred and it should be limited to, say, 3 months. But after reading through this discussion, I think a specific page block would be better than a namespace block. If an editor starts to game a partial block, that would also be immediately apparent in case the editor doesn't get a clue and there needs to be follow-up. I wasn't aware of the situation with GN but I hope that withdrawal isn't due to conflict over a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, but to me, they need to be removed from the entire administrative portion of the website and limited to actually editing articles. If anything, the restriction should be MORE restrictive, not less. If they can do that successfully for 6 months, they have a basis for a partial appeal. Otherwise, I would support an indef block for NOTHERE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree. They are claiming the block is punishment, I've told them it gives them a chance to edit articles and develop their editing skills. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Realistically, do we really want them editing articles? Does it not seem highly likely that they'll just start wikilawyering over article content and talking other editors to death until those editors simply walk away from the articles in question? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Better to just give some metaphorical rope anyway, and see if they do. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I realize that this is the conventional approach, but I'm not sure I understand why. When someone repeatedly drains community time and demonstrates a battleground mentality, why don't we simply believe that they are what their conduct says they are? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

In this case at least, their behaviour has only been limited to project space. Jumping to a CBAN/indef would be premature, as it is better to exhaust all possibility of them contributing constructively before considering CBANs and indefs. There are many editors with TBANs that still contribute constructively, would you say "ban all editors with TBANs as they have a battleground mentality and have exhausted the community patience"? That would clearly be at the detriment to the project. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I think you'll find that I'm saying we should ban this specific editor because they have a battleground mentality and because they have become a drain on the community's time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Matrix: Unless you're an admin, you may be unaware that they made extensive edits to the now deleted Where is Kate?, which may or may not have been disruptive, and made an extremely ill-advised move of another article. In their case, partly because they're still relatively new, visible edits don't give a representative picture of their activity. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That does change the equation quite a bit, but a full indef/CBAN is still a bit too early IMO. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 07:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a 6 month block would be more helpful, though the judge, jury and hangman seem to have already decided TheSpacebook's fate. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 15:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a very strange way of describing our normal consensus-based process. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean it like the process is flawed. I just meant that the discussion is basically over at this point, and TheSpacebook is probably getting TBANned unless a bunch of opposes come out of the shadows (which is unlikely but not impossible). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

From the looks of it the Wikipedia namespace block is more likely to be implemented than the cban proposal. It's still possible for you to scroll up and voice your opinion on the cban proposal if you wish to. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support, per my comment in the above section. jp×g🗯️ 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support, also per my comment above. Pinguinn 🐧 09:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. If they don't want to work on articles, then perhaps they don't belong on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support but I very strongly feel this won't be enough. I proposed the site ban above and still prefer that option, though some entirely reasonable people disagree. --Yamla (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty much per my reasoning above. ——Serial Number 54129 12:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Like Yamla, I'm not convinced this will solve the issue, but it's definitely worth a shot. Giraffer (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I think the only way they can continue to edit here is if they are forced to concentrate on articles. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I have avoided getting involved with any previous discussions, but I do read the drama boards every now and then. I have seen how much of a timesink this editor seems to be in project space, and this would give them a good chance to actually try and improve the encyclopedia instead of seemingly trolling the noticeboards. DrowssapSMM 15:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, I support this, too, and the community ban, as I stated above. Acalamari 15:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Not sure if this is a case of obtuse or intentionally obtuse, but it's pretty clear where this train is headed. Carrite (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per below. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support as a WP:TIMESINK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I think this is reasonable and gives a chance to this editor to find other places on the wiki where they can edit constructively. I mostly agree with the points raised by the supporters above. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary and an overreaction. They have just gotten a short block which was justified. This is starting to look like a pile on. Let's wait and see if they take what has transpired onboard. If not, then it's a lot easier to just indef them and move on. Why make things more complicated than necessary? Beyond which, I am not a fan of banning editors from noticeboards. As insane as it may sound, sometimes there are legitimate reasons why an editor needs to make a report. That said, if there is not a marked improvement in their conduct on the project, an indefinite block is probably not far off. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support with reluctance as the best option available to guide the editor into contributing to building and improving the encyclopedia before they talk their way into a ban. If the topic ban is implemented, the rules should be very clearly explained on their talk page, including what to do if a noticeboard discussion concerns them directly: how to post there a request to participate in a discussion or to have an argument copied over. The editor has a track record of not understanding or not fully reading advice and guidelines, and I want to give them every chance to avoid further blocks. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose on procedural grounds. Ad O above sums up my thoughts. This should not be construed as an endorsement/opposition of his actions. People need a place to report things. It's simple enough to say "no" and close it. Buffs (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  People have spent WAY more effort on this than was expended starting it. It should have been a simple "no" and we left it alone. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal 3: Project Space Ban from starting threads

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

---

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

• Support as proposer —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Racist message on my userpage

Hi all

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

Thanks

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

Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your quick reply Firefangledfeathers. Just out of interest is there somewhere with a list of things users can be banned for and how long they are banned for? Honestly I'm kind of suprised you don't get permanently banned for racism. John Cummings (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

We generally don't block IP addresses for long periods unless there's evidence the same editor is using the same IP address for a long period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the most relevant thing to read would be Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. Though we might indef a registered user for a blatantly racist comment, it's rare to indef an IP address. They change so often that shorter blocks are common. For the record, I would not oppose any other admin lengthening the block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the link and the reply and explaining why it work like this. John Cummings (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me like the same bitter human being has been using this IP for politicized POV pushing and BLP violations since November, 2022. Any other opinions? Cullen328 (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't sure enough. It's been a while and there's so little to consider. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

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

Blocked for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

CU data provides no reason to believe there was a recent compromise of this account. I can't rule out a compromise between 2022-03-14 (last time the user edited without vandalism) and a few weeks ago (when CU data would be stale). Thankfully, there's also no evidence of a slew of other accounts operating on the IP address(es) in question. Good block on behavioural grounds by SarekOfVulcan, though. Until the recent edits are addressed, this account shouldn't be editing. --Yamla (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Less good, perhaps, is that there's still no indication on the editor's talkpage that officially they've even been blocked, let alone the steps they should take to attempt to recover the account if they can. I wonder how they can "address the recent edits" when they (presumably) don't know they need addressing. Obviously, the log itself doesn't make that clear (and, of course, ain't intended to). And have stewards been informed? Happy days. ——Serial Number 54129 14:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I stuck template:uw-compblock on the user's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Good stuff! You are Roman Emperors; I am merely the slave behind you as you return in Triumph to Rome. ——Serial Number 54129 14:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Good block on behavior, at least. I wasn't sure if it was compromised or if the person after a time just decided to go off the rails. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Well spotted. I know the feeling. "Woo-ooh, I'm half way there"  :) ——Serial Number 54129 14:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please block this IP?

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

I've blocked the /64 range, and revdel'd one of the summaries (the other isn't that bad). If they continue editing the page using other IPs feel free to report to WP:AIV. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity  Thanks I thought I would've had to deal with that again. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Help — partial blocks and other new things

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

Partial blocks are easy peasy, you just select a page, pages, namespace, or whatever that you'd like to block them from and block. If you use twinkle it's built in there too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back! The page Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Administrators appears to be a good resource for administrators in your position. —Sirdog (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Partial blocks are like - "you know what I could really do with right now? an ability to block someone from a page or namespace". It's quite a rare occurrence, but you may know it's useful when you need it. First you select 'partial block', then select the page(s) or namespace(s) or other actions, then make sure you set the right option for the usual options (you usually don't want to prevent account creation as it's sitewide, and you also probably want anon-only). If it's your thing, you might want to brush up on Wikipedia:Contentious topics, Discretionary sanctions, or whatever they are. I confess it's a bit much for me and I don't think you'll go far wrong with going old school and just warn and indef people if they need it until you learn more :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a new development, but WP:/64 is almost universal practice, now. Though really, it should read "just check the /64", otherwise you end up with situations like this. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I always check the /64 behind a problematic IPv6 editor, it sometimes turns up a long trail of problems. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A p-block is like an article ban, except it's technically enforced, as opposed to leaving it to the user to adhere to or violate. And as mentioned, also across namespaces, and you also get more than one at a time — I believe it's up to ~10 p-blocked pages per user, unless this has been recently changed / expanded. El_C 23:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

P-blocks are really fine tuned instruments, extremely convenient to keep SPAs a bit more under control without needing to get out the heavy equipment; I need to use them more, but I rarely block anyway. Welcome back to the moppery. Lectonar (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nyttend I suggest reading though the back issues of WP:ADMINNEWS, it usually has a good summary of month-to-month changes impacting admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Partial blocks are semi-useful. I tend to use them only with established editors that edit in many areas, but are a problem only in one area. As for SPAs, if they are edit warring (the most common issue), a general block is needed to keep it from bleeding over to similar articles, but others may feel differently. Partial block is a more gentle block, which is why I think it works for established editors with one off issues better, as it "spanks" them a bit less than a full on block and allows them to stay productive elsewhere. ie: it is better tuned to prevent disruption rather than punish them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)