Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive372
Latest comment: 1 month ago by 88.97.192.42 in topic Image link removal request at Shubhanshu Shukla
WP:ASPERSIONS by Zemen
- Zemen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
First the user was already reported in september by user:HistoryofIran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Persistent_attacks_and_provocation_by_Zemen.
During a discussion they commented me with, "Fixed. is that really the core of the problem? It doesn't seem reasonable to rename the entire template based on a few links related to one region. please keep your national biases out of this discussion." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_12&diff=prev&oldid=1295230194 . They seems not have learned from the last report. Shadow4dark (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- so, what is the point? Zemen (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
More WP:ASPERSIONS by Zemen, why am I not shocked. May comment more later. HistoryofIran (talk)
- This is absurd, can someone tell me which WP:ASPERSIONS? Zemen (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Clearly, the aspersions in the one and only diff that Shadow4dark cites. By itself this is not very similar to the previous report, where you were shown to be commenting on other editors' ethnicity in a way that very definitely did merit sysop attention. In this case you're attacking people for having "national biases". It's not wonderful behaviour on your part, Zemen, but unless further diffs are forthcoming, I would anticipate no stronger sanction than the waggy finger and frowny face of mild community disapproval.—S Marshall T/C 16:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- If it were anyone else in my position, they likely would have responded in the same way. Please review the edit history of Template:Life in Kurdistan to see how Shadow4dark consistently attempted to impose one particular viewpoint. When those edits did not succeed, he nominated the template for deletion. Zemen (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is a WP:CTOP and you did the comments in these topics. Shadow4dark (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
If it were anyone else in my position, they likely would have responded in the same way.
- That is not very reassuring, considering you also tried to justify your attacks against me, and just a month ago you were not being very collaborative when I expressed my concerns about your edits on your talk page [1] (where you once again threw WP:ASPERSIONS against me, "I will bring it to an admin to review your non-neutral reverts."). Can you please elaborate on what exactly happened, with diffs and everything? HistoryofIran (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't mix separate issues. This discussion is about a different matter, and the issue between you and me was resolved long ago. If you still believe I acted improperly and want to pursue it further, you are free to raise it in a separate section. Also, all I said in my talkpage was:
I’m the bad guy now, got it?
just a way of saying 'I was wrong', not a villain speech. I honestly don’t understand what was inappropriate about that. Zemen (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)- Actually, this is the perfect place to raise it, since this report is about you, particularly your WP:ASPERSIONS. By all means, please elaborate on what exactly happened this time, since you're also justifying this one. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- What you're referring to is part of a past issue that was already addressed and doesn't directly relate to the current situation. This discussion should remain focused on the specific concern raised in this report. If you believe the previous matter is still unresolved, you're free to raise it in a separate and appropriate venue. As for justification, as I said, please review the history of Template:Life in Kurdistan. When Shadow4dark was unable to attach the name "iraq" to the template or remove the existing name "Kurdistan", he nominated it for deletion. When that nomination lacked strong grounds, he then tried to redirect attention toward me, the template’s creator, using a minor comment as justification. Zemen (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's still not inappropriate as it's part of your WP:ASPERSIONS against others, and it's not going to be swept under the rug no matter how you much you try to dismiss it. And your explanation is not much better, but I am not going to bother further. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Zemen, I have no idea who is right here, but that doesn't matter. Unsourced accusations of bias make it impossible to have a discussion about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- What you're referring to is part of a past issue that was already addressed and doesn't directly relate to the current situation. This discussion should remain focused on the specific concern raised in this report. If you believe the previous matter is still unresolved, you're free to raise it in a separate and appropriate venue. As for justification, as I said, please review the history of Template:Life in Kurdistan. When Shadow4dark was unable to attach the name "iraq" to the template or remove the existing name "Kurdistan", he nominated it for deletion. When that nomination lacked strong grounds, he then tried to redirect attention toward me, the template’s creator, using a minor comment as justification. Zemen (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, this is the perfect place to raise it, since this report is about you, particularly your WP:ASPERSIONS. By all means, please elaborate on what exactly happened this time, since you're also justifying this one. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't mix separate issues. This discussion is about a different matter, and the issue between you and me was resolved long ago. If you still believe I acted improperly and want to pursue it further, you are free to raise it in a separate section. Also, all I said in my talkpage was:
- If it were anyone else in my position, they likely would have responded in the same way. Please review the edit history of Template:Life in Kurdistan to see how Shadow4dark consistently attempted to impose one particular viewpoint. When those edits did not succeed, he nominated the template for deletion. Zemen (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Clearly, the aspersions in the one and only diff that Shadow4dark cites. By itself this is not very similar to the previous report, where you were shown to be commenting on other editors' ethnicity in a way that very definitely did merit sysop attention. In this case you're attacking people for having "national biases". It's not wonderful behaviour on your part, Zemen, but unless further diffs are forthcoming, I would anticipate no stronger sanction than the waggy finger and frowny face of mild community disapproval.—S Marshall T/C 16:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The history, as far as I can see, is this:
- Template was created 3 days ago
- A couple rounds of reverts
- TFD
- ANI
Meanwhile, the template talk page is a red link. Seriously, both of you should know better than that. Don't just "pull levers" (revert, TFD, ANI) to get your way, actually talk to each other. There are obvious possible solutions here: if the links are only about Iraqi Kurdistan and not the other parts of Kurdistan, we can add more links from the other parts of Kurdistan. Or rename the template to "Life in Iraqi Kurdistan." The scope of the template and inclusion of links (including the Easter egg piping concerns) can be discussed on the template talk page (or at a WikiProject talk page or elsewhere). Approach this as if you're actually trying to reach an agreement with the other person, rather than making accusations of bias or trying to "pull a lever" to "win" the dispute. Zemen shouldn't have made accusations of bias and S4D shouldn't have skipped the template talk page and gone straight to reverts and TFD. Levivich (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- But also, this idea that "anyone else would have done as I did" needs to be caught and shot, right now. No. Say what's wrong with someone's sources, or their logic, or their calculations, or their choice of words. Do not say what's wrong with their attitude, nationality, ethnicity, politics, culture, or religion. People active in contentious topics need to grasp this or they don't last.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments. you're right, I should've used the template's talk page first. I can re-explain there why the template should remain titled "Life in Kurdistan" and not limited to a specific region. Zemen (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is not limited to this template. [[2]] here they removed region from this template but all of these articles are related to Kurdistan Region and not whole of Kurdistan. Maybe you can take a look as third party, user:Levivich. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I recently created Politics of Kurdistan, which covers all parts of Kurdistan, not just the Kurdistan Region. I added it to the template accordingly. If there's a better way to include or place the link, feel free to adjust it. Zemen (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's a fairly substantive backlog here if anyone has time/bandwidth/interest to pitch in. I'm giving it a little time tonight but haven't been able to keep up. Thank you either way Star Mississippi 02:20, 15 June 2025 (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.
RM backlog
There are currently 149 RMs in the backlog, the oldest of which is from April. Would be great if someone could close some of them. Thanks a lot! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've taken a whack at it. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- My RM closing activity has been minimal recently. I am between more venues myself (here and on the community front as well, leading a user group and a regional hub). Coupled with the section below, it feels like there is a flux of admin regulars in many venues. – robertsky (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Possibly deceased editor
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.
In a post at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed#User:IBCS backoffice, IBCS backoffice stated that the editor who created International Business Communication Standards had died. That editor appears to be Heinz Steiner, who has not edited in almost three years. I have e-mailed the editor. Assming I will not receive a response to that e-mail, is there sufficient reason to block the Steiner account? Donald Albury 18:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- We don't usually block accounts of deceased editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- OK. Donald Albury 18:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Technically, we ask stewards to globally lock the accounts of deceased users, which is a block on every Wikimedia project. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought that the accounts of deceased editors (or at least admins and longtime editors) were globally blocked by stewards, not by admins at the Project level. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'll just note that while I think I have identified the editor who died, the comment from the role account did not actually name the editor. Donald Albury 23:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- If the editor was User:Heinz Steiner, they weren't an active editor on the English Wikipedia. They only made 29 edits and didn't even have a User talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Heinz Steiner died September 2022. Nobody (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- @1AmNobody24: How do you know that? — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- He was a lecturer at Kalaidos University of Applied Sciences, they still got his profile on their website. Nobody (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- And looking at de:User:Heinz Steiner pretty much confirms they are the same person. —Kusma (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- He was a lecturer at Kalaidos University of Applied Sciences, they still got his profile on their website. Nobody (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- @1AmNobody24: How do you know that? — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Heinz Steiner died September 2022. Nobody (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- If the editor was User:Heinz Steiner, they weren't an active editor on the English Wikipedia. They only made 29 edits and didn't even have a User talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz, @Fathoms Below: PS: steward lock just disables the account – so any action made by the account is prevented, even logging – while global block usually means MetaWiki being open (to appeal) and users can still login to their otherwise globally blocked account. :) A09|(talk) 20:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'll just note that while I think I have identified the editor who died, the comment from the role account did not actually name the editor. Donald Albury 23:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought that the accounts of deceased editors (or at least admins and longtime editors) were globally blocked by stewards, not by admins at the Project level. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Technically, we ask stewards to globally lock the accounts of deceased users, which is a block on every Wikimedia project. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- OK. Donald Albury 18:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
OK, that seems conclusive. I've added {{deceased}} to their userpage and talk page - even if those didn't exist previously, this was still someone who contributed to the project so we thank him for that and RIP. — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing that, Amakuru. There are probably many more former editors who we no longer see editing and we were more familiar with who have died, especially during the pandemic, but we were never notified. We should honor those we do hear about. Liz Read! Talk! 18:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:Liz: Yes I think that is a norm. Because of anonymous accounts, unless there are real-life connections or family members, it goes unrecorded. It's like in the Middle Ages eg. Master of 1302. Happy to brainstorm ideas with anyone interested in this subject, maybe over at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians. -- GreenC 18:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing that, Amakuru. There are probably many more former editors who we no longer see editing and we were more familiar with who have died, especially during the pandemic, but we were never notified. We should honor those we do hear about. Liz Read! Talk! 18:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- And thanks to everybody who helped resolve this. This was the first time I've dealt with a deceased user. Donald Albury 20:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Somebody should put in a request for a WP:GLOCK at meta:Steward requests/Global - I would but I'm not autoconfirmed on Meta and that page is semi'd.Never mind - remembered duh, the talk page exists, requested there. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)- I've run into the same problem, Donald. Former admin Dreadstar died as well years ago and I wasn't sure who to tell so his account is still not globally blocked. I guess I know now where to request it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 11 June 2025 (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.
Opting out of XTools restricted statistics
Apparently, this project opts everyone in to the XTools restricted statistics. (rather disgusting practice imo) How can we opt out? The documentation says by deleting the respective user page, but I don't even have one. --Entinator (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Entinator, to my knowledge it is not possible. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- It is not possible. And what is disgusting is trying to censor public data and pretend you can put the cat back in the bag, as opting out is. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- The Xtools graphs can be very easily replicated with some python, and use publicly available information, it makes sense to show it to users instead of obfuscating it to only people who are determined enough to look for it. Sohom (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Who of you are administrators in this project? --Entinator (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sohom and I are both admins. Qwerfjkl is not. Which isn't particularly relevant here, since admins have no more authority than non-admins in this area. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was just wondering if it is normal that admins in enWP share their personal takes on privacy infringement rather than pointing people to the right place to resolve their issues. @Pppery You seem to be unaware that people in other countries of wherever you live have different concepts of privacy and not displaying a behaviour profile which could be "easily replicated" by a person with specific interest in you and motivation to code has nothing to do with censorship where I come from. To say it would be disgusting to try to do what the documentation suggests to be possible is rather rude. Thanks for your help.--Entinator (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Entinator The correct way to avoid that is not edit at all or to space out/obfuscate your edits in time to make the graph hard to interpret (I kinda do that unintentionally by travelling around a fair bit). If your worry is a nation-state advisory of any kind, they already have the tools to do what XTools does (and much much more), if you are afraid of your personal privacy through individuals stalking, you, in most cases the same applies. It makes more sense to make sure people are aware that these kinds of analysis are possible than to give a false sense of security through obscurity. In any case, what others have said, on enwiki there isn't a way to prevent this graph from being shown at the moment. If you have any specific other concerns with Xtools, mw:Talk:XTools is where it should go, not on the adminstrative noticeboard. Sohom (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was just wondering if it is normal that admins in enWP share their personal takes on privacy infringement rather than pointing people to the right place to resolve their issues. @Pppery You seem to be unaware that people in other countries of wherever you live have different concepts of privacy and not displaying a behaviour profile which could be "easily replicated" by a person with specific interest in you and motivation to code has nothing to do with censorship where I come from. To say it would be disgusting to try to do what the documentation suggests to be possible is rather rude. Thanks for your help.--Entinator (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sohom and I are both admins. Qwerfjkl is not. Which isn't particularly relevant here, since admins have no more authority than non-admins in this area. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Who of you are administrators in this project? --Entinator (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Just because I don't see it said so explicitly above: everything that happens on wikipedia is logged. every time anyone edits any page, it becomes part of a public log alongside their username, timestamp, etc. All versions of all pages are always visible forever (with very rare exceptions). This is by design. Those logs are accessible both here on the website and through the database, and there are many tools like xtools which use them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
IPBE for my bot
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.
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but could IP block exemptions be given to my bot? I'm about to run some more trial edits and it's throwing scary error messages. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (💬 • ✍️) 11:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- @CanonNi: Are you running it from toolforge? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Not yet. I'm doing some adjustments on my machine first before deploying it to Toolforge. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (💬 • ✍️) 12:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- @CanonNi: I granted you IPBE for a month based on some CU magic. If you haven't switched over to toolforge by mid-July, poke me and I will extend the right. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. I'll be switching to Toolforge once the BRFA is approved, so one month is (hopefully) more than enough. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (💬 • ✍️) 12:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- @CanonNi: I granted you IPBE for a month based on some CU magic. If you haven't switched over to toolforge by mid-July, poke me and I will extend the right. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Not yet. I'm doing some adjustments on my machine first before deploying it to Toolforge. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (💬 • ✍️) 12:00, 17 June 2025 (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.
HotCat's bug
Can't add [[Category:Date of birth missing (living people)]] via HotCat. HumanRight 22:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I wish that was a feature rather than a bug; that category is just an open invitation for BLP/WP:DOB policy violations. -- Ponyobons mots 22:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- So just need to add [[Category:Lliving people]]? Or should be add [[Category:Date of birth missing (living people)]] manually? HumanRight 22:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- You might want to ask your question at Wikipedia talk:HotCat or WP:VPT. The question isn't really related to admins in general.-- Ponyobons mots 22:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- So just need to add [[Category:Lliving people]]? Or should be add [[Category:Date of birth missing (living people)]] manually? HumanRight 22:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Necrothesp
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Necrothesp for Necrothesp to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for him to maintain his toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdewman6 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 June 2025 (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.
Histmerge policy guidance
Hello, Administrators. I was referred here from WP:THQ (courtesy link to thread here or permalink here) as I'm a bit unsure as to how to proceed with the HISTMERGE policy/guideline concerning the article at Phil Silva and a draft at Draft:Philip Anthony Silva, which both touch on the same subject. The existing article was created on 14 June whereas the draft was created much earlier on 4 June. Looking at WP:PHIST, I'm sort of erring on the side of simply redirecting the draft and not filing a request for histmerge as the content itself was different and would generate a mess if histmerged, but I would like some input from relevant users (and perhaps to clarify in future instances what I should do when this problem arises). Courtesy link to the difference between page content is located here. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 01:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- As a purely technical matter, there are not significant parallel histories here; the only version of the draft that is parallel to the article is your AfC decline, which I could just bury entirely. This instead turns on the threshold question of whether there is a cut-and-paste move in the first place. Right now I'm not seeing any evidence that the article creator was even aware of the draft, which would make me suggest just BLARing. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Pppery – Thanks for letting me know. I was also leaning towards BLAR'ing it; if someone else concurs with this viewpoint I'll just go ahead and do it. — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 04:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- @3PPYB6: I concur with Pppery. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Pppery – Thanks for letting me know. I was also leaning towards BLAR'ing it; if someone else concurs with this viewpoint I'll just go ahead and do it. — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 04:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm still awaiting PCR clearance.
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.
About a week ago, I applied to be a pending changes reviewer, but it's been quite a long time and I still haven't got a response. Can you give me the right, please? I have enough experience with BLP and the MOS, and it's my goal to help revert vandalism.
Thanks, Starfall2015 let's talk profile 10:48, 18 June 2025 (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.
RFA page deletion
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, admins! I noticed this RFA, that appears to be an RFA of a user whose account is only 4 months old and hasbjust 12 edits. I didn't know if I should request speedy deletion or not. Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔ 10:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn't WP:G6 apply to obvious WP:NOTNOW RFAs like this one? 88.97.192.42 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's a generally safe rule of thumb to assume that if one has to ask whether the CSD criteria apply, then—as they are deliberately narrow—they probably don't. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:50, 18 June 2025 (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.
Renamed user 51d8e37f423f387b945466ae745b1808
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.
- Renamed user 51d8e37f423f387b945466ae745b1808 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User vanished; account globally locked. Please remove rollback. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2025 (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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Are the article and the associated AfD covered by any contentious topic constraints? If so, which ones? The scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict one seems a little fuzzy as I see it on various Israel vs Iran articles for some reason. If not, it might be a useful way to compare the impact of restrictions like ARBECR on AfDs etc. (including where there has been offsite 'canvassing', although who knows what impact that ever has). Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Given that contentious topics are broadly construed, I'd think that WP:ARBPIA applies. TarnishedPathtalk 09:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, WP:CT/IRP applies directly. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, my, this AFD has only been open a day and it's already a mess including several confusing notices at the top of the page. I think we have to assess whether this discussion is ECR protected. Liz Read! Talk! 09:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz I'd suggest ECR protection is a good idea given that anyone who isn't ECR shouldn't be participating. Otherwise it will take up editors time removing comments which shouldn't be there. TarnishedPathtalk 09:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, my, this AFD has only been open a day and it's already a mess including several confusing notices at the top of the page. I think we have to assess whether this discussion is ECR protected. Liz Read! Talk! 09:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Sean.hoyland, I've just placed an extended confirmed notice on the AFD, removed a number of comments by IP address per WP:ARBECR and struck the comments of an editor who has recently been blocked for socking (and also undisclosed WP:PAID). TarnishedPathtalk 09:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'd agree that is the best course of action, especially as there clearly seems to be some off-wiki co-ordination going on here. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- At least one Twitter account that regularly tries to canvas has been making noise about this apparently. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'd agree that is the best course of action, especially as there clearly seems to be some off-wiki co-ordination going on here. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- It would seem to be rather perverse to designate the Arab-Israeli conflict as a contentious topic but not the Iranian-Israeli conflict. It seems that some people have not realised that Iranians are not Arabs. Maybe things need to be clarified? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well, post-1978 Iranian politics is already a CTOP, so I guess its wars, etc., are probably covered by it too. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think the difference between Arab-Israeli and Iranian Politics is that A-I is under automatic ECR for any edit related to it (other than standard exceptions like edit requests). Iranian Politics isn't. But I think this is the perfect instance of "broadly construed" - since even though Iran isn't "arab", their relationship with Israel involves multiple proxies in the Arabian peninsula, so the Iran-Israel conflict falls more than within "broadly construed" of the Israel-Arab conflict. To me, this includes even their... "interactions" (I hesitate to call it "diplomacy") that don't involve their proxies at all.Now, how to clarify this, since Arab-Israeli CTOP is ArbCom - would it need a request at WP:ARCA to add something to Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict clarifying that the vast majority of Iran-Israel "relations" are under this CTOP already because of broadly construed? Or should there be further discussion (here or elsewhere) to confirm what we seem to all be thinking here that it should virtually always be considered part of it first? In any case, I wouldn't want to try to clarify it myself but I definitely think that a clarification on that page (and/or elsewhere) would be beneficial to avoid having to rely on an editor "taking the chance" of it being disputed (in this case User:TarnishedPath - thanks by the way for the quick action). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Berchanhimez you suggestion of a request at WP:ARCA is probably a good one. TarnishedPathtalk 06:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Eh... I think this really should be a community clarification of the CTOP, but if an ARCA to clarify ARBIPA applies here is necessary... I guess. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I guess this has probably been discussed before somewhere before given the presence of templates on many Iran vs Israel pages, but I don't know where. Either way, I agree it needs to be clarified and documented somewhere so that the coverage of ECR is clear. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I have just left this template/category related note that is somewhat relevant (from a 'what is the topic area?' perspective). Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Eh... I think this really should be a community clarification of the CTOP, but if an ARCA to clarify ARBIPA applies here is necessary... I guess. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Berchanhimez you suggestion of a request at WP:ARCA is probably a good one. TarnishedPathtalk 06:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Actually ~2% of the population of Iran is Arabic. I don't think the majority of editors here are mistaking Persians for an Arabic population, being honest, but much of the conflict between Iran and Israel is directly related to Iranian support of Palestinian fighters. As such I would agree it is in the Arab-Israeli CTOP as well as the Iranian Politics post-1978 CTOP and that it is without even having to be broadly construed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder if there is anyone that supports the ARBECR rules who thinks Iran-Israel conflict related things, 'broadly construed', should not have the same rules as the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic area, and if so, what would their arguments look like? Iran and Arab being different words doesn't seem like a good argument given the purpose of the rules. And editors (including ban evading actors) that focus on Israel related conflicts don't behave as if there is a boundary between the sets of articles. They are all part of the same landscape they wander around in. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder if there is anyone that supports the ARBECR rules who thinks Iran-Israel conflict related things, 'broadly construed', should not have the same rules as the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic area, and if so, what would their arguments look like? Iran and Arab being different words doesn't seem like a good argument given the purpose of the rules. And editors (including ban evading actors) that focus on Israel related conflicts don't behave as if there is a boundary between the sets of articles. They are all part of the same landscape they wander around in. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- WP:ARBECR as it was originally written explicitly prohibited participation in an AfD or other internal project discussion. In 2023 it was amended to further limit the discussion that is allowed (namely by prohibiting all discussion, with the exception of making an edit request). While that amendment removed the specific reference to AfD, it was not meant to suddenly allow participation in those discussions. Moreover, articles about the Iran–Israel relations, Iran–Israel proxy conflict, etc. (including those two) are already generally ECP'd as primary articles for WP:PIA. (Hence why I ECP'd this AfD, though I had not seen this thread before doing so.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 07:19, 16 June 2025 (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.
Unnamed anon topic-bound 1RR appeal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In May 2024, I was topic banned from GENSEX for tendentious editing and battleground behavior in the topic back then; the closing administrator was theleekycauldron. In December 2024, my topic ban was reduced to 1RR, closed by Beeblebrox (then named Just Step Sideways). Now, I am appealing for this restriction to be lifted completely, per Red tailed hawk's suggestion that avoiding disruption and edit warring for the next 6 months
would offer a clear path back to good standing
.
- I have complied with the 1RR restriction, doing very little reverts at all, GENSEX or otherwise. As such, I am certain the restriction is no longer preventative.
- I believe continued use of a formal sanction only serves as a punitive reminder of behavior from more than a year ago that, as I mentioned in the appeal that resulted in a reduction to 1RR, I no longer agree with nor stand by. I am aware this is a heated topic, but I can assure you all that I will not add to the heat and only contribute good-faith, mostly quiet productivity, as can be seen in my edits. (examples: 1 2 3 4 5)
- My partially-successful appeal had a handful of editors consider me an "unsafe person" in this topic, but I believe that when ignoring the context of the past and purely looking at the present I have proven that I will no longer be an "unsafe person" and will be entirely neutral.
Since it's been nearly a day with no !votes possibly due to TLDR, I'm hatting what I consider superfluous points that reiterate my commitment to good behavior. Everything in this hatnote remains true, but hidden for readability's sake since most of it is repeat info from the previous appeal. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
TLDR: I fully understand how to not repeat the same mistakes, and have shown that I am able to edit productively in this topic and will rarely ever revert - GENSEX or otherwise - so continuing any sort of formal sanction no longer serves any preventative function. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments by uninvolved editors (Unnamed anon)
- Just noting that the first topic ban was decided here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and User:Licks-rocks civility concerns. Unnamed anon, I think it would be appropriate for you to post notifications of this discussion on the User talk pages of both admins involved with imposing editing restrictions on your account. I think you should take care of this step as soon as convenient. Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: I just left a message to theleekycauldron. Beeblebrox has not made a single edit in over a month, so I'm not sure if I should; let me know if messaging Beeblebrox despite their inactivity is still okay. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds fine, Unnamed anon. I think you did your due diligence! Liz Read! Talk! 09:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- I tentatively support this appeal. The appellant claims understanding of the causes of the sanctions and the consequences of recidivism. I faintly recognize the editor and don't recall experiencing any problems with them. This seems safe to me. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support - No issue. Wareon (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments by involved editors (Unnamed anon)
- To my own surprise given the history of the original topic ban and my involvement in it: support. I did a quick spot check of anon's recent editing history and I like what I see at Talk:J. K. Rowling. I haven't looked too closely but I get the sense they are productively participating there. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether Unnamed anon considers me un/involved or not, so plonking myself here for good measure. I support the appeal; not only is it convincing in and of itself, but their general editing demonstrates sufficient maturity that the t-ban is no longer needed. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:08, 15 June 2025 (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.
Bbb23 recall petition certified
The petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Bbb23 for Bbb23 to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA) has received 25 supports from extended confirmed users. An RRfA or participation in an administrator election is required for them to maintain their toolkit. For further information, please consult Wikipedia:Administrator recall.—Alalch E. 15:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Seems we have our 3rd(?) successful(?) application of this recall process. I believe after the previous 2, there was some discussion that a 30 day threshold for the 25 signatures could keep the Sword of Damocles hanging far too long. I feel, but clearly not everyone agrees, that in this case we went the other direction and moved too quickly. Having seen how it worked out, I feel that a petition should need to be open for a minimum number of days (3? 5? 7?) before the 25 signature threshold is applied to close it as successful. This is a discussion-based process, and we need time for discussion to occur, for people to get up to speed, make up their minds, and potentially be influenced by the words of others (including the admin being discussed). We do have an emergency desysop process where such a delay is not acceptable. In my mind, such a minimum-days rule would be in addition to the existing rule that a petition is closed as unsuccessful if 25 signatures are not reached in 30 days.
- Where and when would something like this be worth discussing, as a change to the recall process? I see there were semi-recent abortive attempts (1,2), but I'm confused what's next. This is a young and quite powerful process. We should try to learn from each time it is applied and make course corrections if warranted.Martinp (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion will also take place in the RfA. I'm not convinced it makes a difference. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- To my knowledge I believe Bbb23 has elected not to re-apply for adminship, so I don't believe a RfA will occur. GalStar (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Unless you expect people to remove their signatures, extending the number of days before the 25 threshold is accepted seems like it would do little but let the more editors add their names. CMD (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I thought Martinp meant that there should be a period of discussion before it's opened to signatures. Could be wrong. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I did mean "let people sign anytime after it's started, but only close as successful after a minimum of 5(or whatever) days". So that people could remove their signatures if new facts come to light, or the admin responds in a good way, or whatever. In this case, I'm not sure it would have made a difference, but had Bbb23 responded in a certain way, I could see some signatories un-signing. But there are many ways we could implement something that feels less bring-out-the-pitchforks-quickly, including discussion before voting (as you just wrote). That all said, I'm not sure a footnote on AN to one petition being certified is the right venue to have a good discussion. But where is? Martinp (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I thought Martinp meant that there should be a period of discussion before it's opened to signatures. Could be wrong. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Probably worth noting that there has already been one previous Recall that was raised due to overzealous blocking, so this one is not entirely new ground. CMD (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- For a summary along with some of my opinions: Per WP:CLOSEDARP, this is the 5th application. All petitions have reached the threshold so far and all petitions have been closed early as a result. (Though there was some discussion about the first two discussion being closed after the 25 signatures were reached, but before the time expired.) This is currently the third shortest and third longest recall by time. (With quick rounding: 5 hours, 8 hours, 9 hours, 9 days, 10 days.) Regarding the reasons as to opening a petition, this most recent one one was the shortest and instead pointed to diffs rather than explaining, so there will be some assumptions here: Three of the petitions involved conduct, two of the petitions involved blocks, two of the petitions involved limited admin activity, and one of the petitions involved content deletion.
- With regards to the first two recalls, both had periods of time where no new signatures occurred. The first had just over four days without new signers and the second had over five days without new signers. As I recall, that put some concern on increasing the number of signers required. With regards to the three most recent recalls, all of them have been over within half a day. Additionally, all of them have been this year as there was a gap of four months without a petition being opened.
- With regards to at least this recall, it has been discussed off of Wikipedia. In fact, there was a direct link to the recall posted roughly within the last four hours it was opened. I believe that similar situations have occurred for the prior recalls. (Personally, this is the second time a recall situation has occurred that made me think it was not fully fair for the user involved.)
- For the majority of the recalls, the discussion sections of each have had comments that have varied from talking about modification to various rules or procedures to making suggestions for the future. Examples include: There was discussion on if petitions could be opposed and additional discussion on if they could be snow closed due to the number of opposed; discussion on if other rights would/should be removed; discussion on ending the recall process entirely; discussion on if recall should be done when there are still unclosed discussions at AN/ANI; and discussion on if recall can/should be done when there was not a recent prior AN/ANI discussion nor a recent talk page discussion. (I would not be surprised if this is not a full summary given the first two recall discussion sections.)
- And finally, I would like to point to WP:RECALL/RFC, Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Reworkshop, and Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall. For WP:RECALL/RFC, it details the discussions that led to recall being created and, more importantly for this, the discussions that have requested changes to the procedure and rules. For "Administrator recall/Reworkshop", this was a plan to rework how the recall process functioned. As can be seen here and seen here as you linked to, this process concluded without the RfC occurring. I am unsure if it was due to a decrease in activity or another issue, though. (I will note here that most of the discussion occurred during the four month period where no recall petitions were open.) Finally, the archives of the talk page for recall has had a number of discussions in the archive over adding or modifying the rules and procedures.
- Personally, I would not mind it being modified to simultaneously add a day to the length and add a wait period of one day before signers can endorse the petition. Basically a 24-hour wait period which seems to have been suggested (intentionally or not) above. I could also see increasing the number of signers as a possible discussion point, though that has been debated in the past. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion will also take place in the RfA. I'm not convinced it makes a difference. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- So, this petition was open less than 9 hours, on a page hardly anyone knows about much less has on their watch lists, and then summarily closed as a fait accompli? Does this seem fair to anybody? How about people not on-wiki, or even awake, during those few (nine) hours? Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Everything was regular. Letting the collecting of signatures run for longer would only have meant that when someone finally certifies at some point past the 25-signature mark, the number of signatures collected is greater than 25. In this case it was 26, because it is difficult to close at 25 with signatures coming in rapid-fire mode, as they were. The closer also needs to check every incoming signature for validity. It is more appropriate and courteous to close when the threshold is reached than to leave it running for longer and collect a needlessly large number of extra signatures. —Alalch E. 07:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Example text WP:RECALL petitions are a one-way support-only process - if 25 signatures are logged then the petition is successful. There's no part of the process that involves opposing it. The space for editors to voice their opposition to the editor being desysopped is at the subsequent RRFA, only that Bbb opted not to go through RRFA and instead simply await a desysop. Because of the way this process works, the amount of time it's active is not really relevant - 25 sigs in nine hours is the same as 25 sigs in 30 days, and there's nothing that people who object to it could have done in that time anyway. I suppose you could argue that opponents could induce signatories to change their mind via comments in the "Discussion" section but that doesn't seem to be the way it generally pans out. Making the recall more visible or forcing it to run for a longer period would almost certainly simply result in more signatures rather than fewer. Anyway, if you want to propose changes to the recall process then you're free to do so at the relevant forums, but for now it seems to me it's working as the community mandated it to work. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- The process needs reform then. TarnishedPathtalk 10:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:RECALL/RFC, Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Reworkshop, Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall's archives, and Wikipedia:Administrator recall/January 2025 request for comment for prior attempts.
- Note: This is a comment opposing such action, but a comment pointing out that it has been attempted before and has stalled out. If there is new motivation to trying again, it might occur this time. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I also believe that the process needs reform. We lost Graham87 already as an admin, who at least kept editing. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Graham is the one who actually went through the re-RfA process and handily was rejected. Are you seriously complaining that the community in massive numbers agreed that he was no longer fit to be an admin? What the heck does that case especially have to do with recall reform, Gerda Arendt? SilverserenC 22:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- The process needs reform then. TarnishedPathtalk 10:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- It seems way to easy to do this. Do people really want to get rid of one of the admins who is most active in WP:SPI work? TarnishedPathtalk 10:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- People, ie the community, want to be rid of admins who abuse their positions, other editors, and especially new editors. Why do you want to keep abusive people in our community around? SilverserenC 22:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's
way to [sic] easy
, but only five (!) petitions have been initiated over the last eight frickin' months... Tewdar 22:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)- And it really feels like Master Jay and Gimmetrow's should barely even count, comparatively, because that was more the community stepping in to deal with an abuse and gaming of the system that really should have been more aggressively dealt with prior to that by bureaucrats. Imho, at least. SilverserenC 23:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- How often do we see a proposal that gets 25 supports within a day? That's not easy, that's an unusually-high level of agreement on Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree that the fact the recall petition gained traction so quickly was a sign something needed to be done, and quite swiftly, too. I will state for the record that I would've supported it, but I was away from my computer at the time. I do not believe that there are any issues with the recall system at present, and I would declare myself as being open to the process for any of my userrights if the community felt I was not using them properly - that is just how sure of the system I am. Patient Zerotalk 23:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the noticeboard discussion preceding the petition is the reason for the rapid sign-on. If there were one thing I'd change in the recall process, it would be to require a noticeboard discussion of some sort (that is, no specific requirement other than that a discussion occcurred) prior to a recall petition. That would provide notice to the admin in question of the concerns and help inform petition signers of the nature of the issues in a more balanced way than if just a petition without a prior discussion was advanced. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Haven't all of the listed recall cases had a prior noticeboard discussion about the editor that led to them? I'm pretty sure they did. It might not need to be an explicit rule, since it seems like something that just happens naturally as a lead in to the petition occurring. They don't occur out of the blue. SilverserenC 23:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think I’d like for that to be made an explicit rule, in all fairness, just to be sure. We have only had a few recall petitions take place so far, so it’s likely the system or the “politics” could change with time. Therefore a requirement to have a discussion on AN beforehand is an appropriate safeguard. Patient Zerotalk 23:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think the fixed duration for the petition period along with the once-every-six-months limitation results in experienced editors only starting a petition if there is an active discussion thread with significant attention, which provides a ready base of editors to register their opinion immediately. If newbies start learning about the recall process, it's possible the time-consuming petitions that many worried about will appear. isaacl (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- In practice, we have had either one or two of the petitions where the creator didn't follow this, if memory serves. It was one of the petitions where the main issue was limited admin activity. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- That situation was being discussed on the bureaucrats' noticeboard. isaacl (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, right. That slipped my mind. Though, it looks like the fourth petition was never discussed other than a warning to the user weeks before it was posted, from what I see. (Though, wrong once, likely wrong twice.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- That situation was being discussed on the bureaucrats' noticeboard. isaacl (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- In practice, we have had either one or two of the petitions where the creator didn't follow this, if memory serves. It was one of the petitions where the main issue was limited admin activity. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Even when a pre-RfC discussion has dozens of editors in it, getting 25 supports in under a day is unusual. I completely agree with you that prior discussion should be had, and I think there were multiple prior discussions in each recall case so far. WP:RECALL already says "Other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted before a recall petition is initiated," and that verbiage seems to be doing its job, so far. Levivich (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Either that or the posts off-Wikipedia that drew attention to the petition. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Haven't all of the listed recall cases had a prior noticeboard discussion about the editor that led to them? I'm pretty sure they did. It might not need to be an explicit rule, since it seems like something that just happens naturally as a lead in to the petition occurring. They don't occur out of the blue. SilverserenC 23:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the noticeboard discussion preceding the petition is the reason for the rapid sign-on. If there were one thing I'd change in the recall process, it would be to require a noticeboard discussion of some sort (that is, no specific requirement other than that a discussion occcurred) prior to a recall petition. That would provide notice to the admin in question of the concerns and help inform petition signers of the nature of the issues in a more balanced way than if just a petition without a prior discussion was advanced. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree that the fact the recall petition gained traction so quickly was a sign something needed to be done, and quite swiftly, too. I will state for the record that I would've supported it, but I was away from my computer at the time. I do not believe that there are any issues with the recall system at present, and I would declare myself as being open to the process for any of my userrights if the community felt I was not using them properly - that is just how sure of the system I am. Patient Zerotalk 23:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Just to address a point raised above -
Do people really want to get rid of one of the admins who is most active in WP:SPI work?
. A major factor for the recall here was blocks of accounts labled by the blocker as sockpuppets when (as the discussion above about reversing some of those blocks evidences) they reasonably were not. Therefore it's clear the community had lost confidence in that SPI work. I'll also note that a recall petition does not remove the tools - it merely calls on the admin being recalled to complete a WP:RRFA. Of the two questioned here, Graham87 went through with the RRFA and failed it. Bbb23 chose to (functionally) resign the tools instead of attempting a RRFA. I have (as I mentioned in some of the "gaming the system" discussions) some concerns about the useage of the recall system, but that's a community issue, not a systematic one, and as far as I can tell the system is working exactly as designed and intended. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BEANS alert. Let's say I'm a rogue billionaire who outright wants to destroy Wikipedia. How would I do it? I'd look for weaknesses in its policies that could be exploited. Get a bunch of worker bees in Moscow and New Delhi to create a few dozen accounts and putter around with a few thousand harmless edits each to reach whatever is the minimum credibility point, and then find (or manufacture) some justification for pecking away at those admins who would be the biggest obstacles to my efforts. Every active administrator has to make some calls, closing hotly contested discussions, blocking trolls, deleting promotional content, etc. Some of those calls will be controversial. If it only takes 25 !votes to put an admin on the chopping block, then my (hypothetical rogue billionaire) work is half done for me. BD2412 T 20:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- That wouldn't work because everyone would notice, and anyway nobody seeking to destroy Wikipedia would try it because removing an admin's admin privileges isn't going to destroy Wikipedia. Someone with a personal grudge against a particular admin might try it, but then still, everyone would notice, and it wouldn't work. Even if no one noticed, it still wouldn't work because the admin would pass RRFA. Levivich (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- My experience with the first petition leads me to disagree with your statement, in particular with your last sentence. There was a notable oppose bump when that RRfA was linked to off of Wikipedia. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is that opposes are irrelevant to this petition process. All it needs is 25 supporters. Hoping that the admin will not just leave altogether like Bbb, will sign up for an RRFA, and that the RRFA will pass are too late. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think its useful, its good confirmation that they weren't here to improve the encyclopedia but to play with a mop. Any admin who is not 100% willing to continue editing as a non-admin should immediately be shown the door. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I feel that's unfair. I would stick around if I were stripped of my admin rights because I enjoy writing articles more than I enjoy adminning but I would find it hard not to take a recall as a repudiation of my tens of thousands of admin actions over 15 years, as I think would anyone who was stripped of a volunteer role they had put thousands of hours into. It's not surprising that some of those people choose to stop volunteering in any capacity. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- It would in a way be a repudiation of your tens of thousands of admin actions over 15 years, what it wouldn't be is a repudiation of your tens of thousands of non-admin edits... So your argument is missing a step, it would be reasonable to not seek the mop again after mop actions were repudiated... But the logic that gets you to not editing if you really are here to build an encyclopedia is missing. In a general volunteer context it would be absurd to keep a non-profit board member or executive around if you were certain that they would cease volunteering at all if they lost their board/leadership position, thats not someone you want involved in the org that isn't volunteering thats a power trip. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back I feel that's unfair. I would stick around if I were stripped of my admin rights because I enjoy writing articles more than I enjoy adminning but I would find it hard not to take a recall as a repudiation of my tens of thousands of admin actions over 15 years, as I think would anyone who was stripped of a volunteer role they had put thousands of hours into. It's not surprising that some of those people choose to stop volunteering in any capacity. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think its useful, its good confirmation that they weren't here to improve the encyclopedia but to play with a mop. Any admin who is not 100% willing to continue editing as a non-admin should immediately be shown the door. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is that opposes are irrelevant to this petition process. All it needs is 25 supporters. Hoping that the admin will not just leave altogether like Bbb, will sign up for an RRFA, and that the RRFA will pass are too late. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- My experience with the first petition leads me to disagree with your statement, in particular with your last sentence. There was a notable oppose bump when that RRfA was linked to off of Wikipedia. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- A rogue billionaire or, if we want to sound more plausibly concerned, nation-state actor that sought to
destroy
Wikipedia and took the time to study its internal processes would have several methods at their disposal. The existence of recall as currently constructed would be but a trifling factor in selecting among them. Surface-level analysis obviously, but I suspect most of them would feature RECALL little if at all. There are some good reasons that have been raised in various fora to consider changes to the recall process without veering into the dramatic. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC) - A far simpler approach would be to hire enough people to gain the community's trust and become key contributors and administrators. They would then be able to sway consensus in the direction favoured by the sponsor. isaacl (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- What about an interface admin? Via common.js they would essentially have access to everyone's account at once. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm quite sure that if an interface admin modifies some global JavaScript to force everyone to sign a RRFA then the fact that they have done so will not escape notice since, among other things, edits to JavaScript, like everything else, are logged. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I assumed the person who posted the hypothetical in question was using "destroy" to mean that permanent harm was done to English Wikipedia's content in some way. Sure, an interface admin could subvert trust in Wikipedia, thus reducing the inflow of new editors and causing Wikipedia to lose editors. But as Pppery notes, any explicit changes they make are in plain sight and directly attributable to them. I think enlisting enough editors to sway consensus is more effective even as a way to subvert trust. isaacl (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- What about an interface admin? Via common.js they would essentially have access to everyone's account at once. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- That wouldn't work because everyone would notice, and anyway nobody seeking to destroy Wikipedia would try it because removing an admin's admin privileges isn't going to destroy Wikipedia. Someone with a personal grudge against a particular admin might try it, but then still, everyone would notice, and it wouldn't work. Even if no one noticed, it still wouldn't work because the admin would pass RRFA. Levivich (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Aut admin, aut nihil is the kind of attitude that convinces me we're better off without someone. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- OK, given Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Necrothesp and the ensuing bruhaha on the recall page, I reiterate my request that we add a mandatory step of a discussion of the issue on the appropriate noticeboard prior to starting a petition. I do not want that to be a barrier to recall, so there is no requirement that the discussion end in any certain way, only that it occurs and covers at least some of the reasons for the recall. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I second Rsjaffe here and thus also wish to reiterate my support for compulsory noticeboard discussions (either AN or ANI) prior to any recall petitions being instated. I would like this requirement to be in writing rather than a mere "hidden social rule", so as to avoid any further situations akin to the one Necrothesp faced. Patient Zerotalk 03:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- There is the risk that this merely makes opening an AN seem a perfunctory step towards opening Recall, and would directly frame AN discussions as a Recall step. Is there a significant difference to others telling the initiator to slow down here vs to slow down on the page? CMD (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's fine to talk about the requirement to have a noticeboard discussion prior to launching a recall petition but this is not the appropriate forum for anything to be done about that suggestion. This conversation needs to be relocated to the Administrator recall policy talk page if this is a change you want to occur. This is WP:AN so this is just a discussion we are having among admins that won't lead to any procedural changes. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- The CTOP alert system kind of functions in a similar way. The only reason I give them out is because I plan to take that person to AE if they keep misbehaving. A similar dynamic could be created if AN/ANI became a mandatory step in RECALL. No idea if this would be good or bad or doesn't matter, but just wanted to point out the pattern. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- There is the risk that this merely makes opening an AN seem a perfunctory step towards opening Recall, and would directly frame AN discussions as a Recall step. Is there a significant difference to others telling the initiator to slow down here vs to slow down on the page? CMD (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- 1. There is already instruction on WP:RECALL saying alternative dispute resolution methods should be tried first
- 2. A recall was started without first trying alternatives and it was quickly withdrawn.
- 3. Rather than seeing this as the system working correctly, exactly as intended, we want more rules ...
- When an admin makes a bad block, there are no calls for RFA reform or desysop to make sure it never happens again. When it comes to admins holding editors accountable, errors in the system are tolerated. But when it comes to holding admins accountable, errors are completely intolerable, at least to some. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hardly surprising, the number of admins is small and the failure to guard the pedia from rouge actors is damaging both to the pedia and to participation in the project. (Also reforming RfA is preenial for all kinds of reasons, there is no shortage of that.) And judgement calls are judgement calls, they are not algorithms. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- This brings me to one of my biggest bugbears about the Wikipedia community: there is essentially no feedback. This is especially true of maintenance and admin tasks. And what feedback there is is almost always negative. It feels like many people had concerns about Bbb23, Fastily, and Graham87 going back a long time but previous complaints have focused on isolated incidents and then things have snowballed quickly as a complaint about an isolated incident has become a lengthy discussion about a pattern of behaviour where the admin may not be aware that their practice has diverged from community expectations. At times, I miss the old Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. It would be nice to have something like that with a closing statement that sums up the concerns. In those days, the idea was that it could be used as evidence in an ArbCom case if problems persisted but that could be equally true of a recall petition.
As an aside, enwiki is very lucky to have so many dedicated and available admins; if you want to know what it feels like to have to wait hours or days even for urgent or simple admin interventions, I would recommend spending some time on Commons or Meta or the smaller Wikipedias. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Certainly the group of the willing and capable is small (I happen to think 'willing' is the more limiting factor) but it is certainly easier to create a bunch of accounts than to create admins. (I don't miss RfC/U, it was a cross between a circular firing squad and a pillory.) My bugbear is we have never created systems and spaces for admins to work out/on adminning issues -- improving adminship. Theoretically they could audit each other's 'important' actions from time to time, but the project is unlikely to give them space to do that (assuming they were again, willing to talk to each other (and had time)). (As an aside, Bbb23 had I believe that odd (to me) issue with checkuser rules a few years ago, which some see as his warning.)
- To get back to the present recall system, I think the problems might be: 1) it is a quick factional vote system which does not fit comfortably with a consensus system, and compounding the first is 2) it is more than likely to be final, regardless of the subsequent process allowed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Admins are humans - many forget that. GiantSnowman 18:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree very much with that analysis, Harry, particularly in the three cases you cite. I don't think it's true that there was essentially no feedback, nor that previous complaints focused on isolated issues. And this is particularly so, in my opinion, in the three examples you cite.
- Six and a half years ago, when I was a new editor, I took Bbb to ANI and to Arbcom because he repeatedly accused me without evidence of being a sockpuppet. Before me, there was a long line of new editors who had similarly been bitten. After me, there was a long line of new editors who had similarly been bitten. During the ANI and Arbcom case request, lots of people recognized that this was an ongoing issue. Still, the majority of admins and arbs said that the problem wasn't Bbb, the problem was that I was complaining -- that I should just suck it up. A few years later, Bbb was de-CU'd by arbcom. Then, lots of people opined that Bbb should have been desysoped, because the person who abuses CU should not be allowed to block people. But they weren't desysoped by arbcom, and now look ... a bunch of bad blocks had to be overturned. We had to create a system (recall) in order to address not because there was no feedback, but because the powers that be -- other admins and arbs -- would not take any real enforcement action, despite repeated, frequent feedback over many years.
- In Graham's case it was the same thing. You'll recall I made the oppose vote in his RRFA where I collected quotes from all the previous times that he had received the same feedback, and all the times he promised to do better, and he didn't do better. There was no lack of feedback in Graham's case. Graham made bad blocks during the recall ... that means he made bad blocks while receiving feedback.
- Fastily was the same -- look at their recall petition and you'll see lots of links and diffs to previous discussions going back years and years. I signed that one and added more diffs of my own to the pile. There was lots and lots and lots of feedback, it was just ignored.
- If you ask me, the issue isn't lack of feedback, it's enabling. Admins (and arbs, who are all also admins) enable bad behavior from other admins by ignoring the feedback, by having double-standards.
- You see this right now in the Necro ANI, where the first comment is an admin making the rather nonsensical accusation that the OP was forum shopping. That's an example of admin enabling that actually interferes with the giving of feedback. Thankfully, several other admins have responded positively in that thread and encouraged the feedback. So it's not like all admins do the enabling--in fact, it's a distinct minority of admins, probably 10% or less. But enough admins do the enabling to make it so the feedback isn't heard, it's dismissed as sour grapes, vindictive editors, forum shopping, etc. Then when the enabling stops, the admin is surprised. But it's not because of lack of feedback, it's because the feedback is dismissed by some. Levivich (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- We do have Wikipedia:Administrative action review; it can review one action or a set of actions, but
to reach a consensus on whether a specific action was appropriate, not to assign blame
. It's deliberately not an RFC/U, which may give it a better chance of being constructive sometimes. I don't know whether or not it's ever changed an admin's longstanding practice. NebY (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- This brings me to one of my biggest bugbears about the Wikipedia community: there is essentially no feedback. This is especially true of maintenance and admin tasks. And what feedback there is is almost always negative. It feels like many people had concerns about Bbb23, Fastily, and Graham87 going back a long time but previous complaints have focused on isolated incidents and then things have snowballed quickly as a complaint about an isolated incident has become a lengthy discussion about a pattern of behaviour where the admin may not be aware that their practice has diverged from community expectations. At times, I miss the old Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. It would be nice to have something like that with a closing statement that sums up the concerns. In those days, the idea was that it could be used as evidence in an ArbCom case if problems persisted but that could be equally true of a recall petition.
- Hardly surprising, the number of admins is small and the failure to guard the pedia from rouge actors is damaging both to the pedia and to participation in the project. (Also reforming RfA is preenial for all kinds of reasons, there is no shortage of that.) And judgement calls are judgement calls, they are not algorithms. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I second Rsjaffe here and thus also wish to reiterate my support for compulsory noticeboard discussions (either AN or ANI) prior to any recall petitions being instated. I would like this requirement to be in writing rather than a mere "hidden social rule", so as to avoid any further situations akin to the one Necrothesp faced. Patient Zerotalk 03:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I was opposed to triggering a recall with 25 mere-signatures. (note that I said "mere-signatures" not "merely 25"). Too low of a bar to toss an admin because even the best (just like many good potential admins) are likely to decline going through an individual RFA type process. But this has 25 substantial rationales given, not just 25 signatures. On a different note, we do have a systemic lack of course correction methods for admins. North8000 (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- @North8000 The process doesn't call for 25 substantial rationales or even any rationales, it just calls for 25 signatures. If you don't like the process, suggest a change. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. This is the system we have because this is the system that could pass. If you think those 25 people were wrong, go to RfA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's not hard to find two people who have genuine, deeply held concerns about an admin; three axe-grinders; and then 20 people who don't really know what's going on but signed because they read what the first five people wrote (to which the admin has no right of reply before the voting starts) or they wanted to get themselves noticed or maybe they just think there's no smoke without fire. My suggestion would be to require a filer and an endorser to have directly discussed the issue with the admin and been unsuccessful. That should have been fairly easy for Fastily, Graham, or Bbb. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- There were repeated attempts to discuss all three of them on their actions over months, if not years. Both on their talk pages and on ANI/AN. None of those recall petitions came out of the blue. They were just an inevitable result that would otherwise have gone to Arbcom instead. SilverserenC 22:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Which recall petition(s) do you think were signed by people who didn't really know what's going on but signed because they read what the first five people wrote or they wanted to get themselves noticed or maybe they just think there's no smoke without fire? If the answer is "none", why do you think it's not hard to find 20 people who would do such a thing?
- Which recall petition did not involve the admin replying? If the answer is "none", why do you say admins aren't afforded a reply? Levivich (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's not hard to find two people who have genuine, deeply held concerns about an admin; three axe-grinders; and then 20 people who don't really know what's going on but signed because they read what the first five people wrote (to which the admin has no right of reply before the voting starts) or they wanted to get themselves noticed or maybe they just think there's no smoke without fire. My suggestion would be to require a filer and an endorser to have directly discussed the issue with the admin and been unsuccessful. That should have been fairly easy for Fastily, Graham, or Bbb. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. This is the system we have because this is the system that could pass. If you think those 25 people were wrong, go to RfA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- @North8000 The process doesn't call for 25 substantial rationales or even any rationales, it just calls for 25 signatures. If you don't like the process, suggest a change. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- My post was basically "just 25 mere signatures is not enough". 25 sets of knowlegable and thoughtful-looking rationales given is enough. My suggested change would be: "25 posts by people with knowledge of the situation where they explain their rationales." North8000 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant suggest a change in the appropriate place, not here. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Funding versus bias
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.
OK, this may not be a chronic, intractable behavioral problem but I've been loggged in since 2008 & need to get something off my chest.
Wikipedia has recently been begging, for lack of a better word, for money.
Wikipedia simultaneously stands accused, now and in the past, of biased editing on political, religious and other contentious subjects.
These two factors - begging and bias - are rather severely at odds. Many people have quit editing (and obviously will not fund us) due to alleged bias.
I am not accusing Wikipedia of bias myself, far be it from me, but I do wish administrators would be especially careful with all items of NPOV they might see, while the project needs money (and public sympathy?). Looks to me like we might go belly up if not. Just felt compelled to share these thoughts at this time with no malice intended. Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- @SergeWoodzing There is basically no actual risk of Wikipedia running out of money and going offline. The most recent accounts are here [3]. Last year the WMF raised $185 million, had $286 million in assets (including $82 million in cash) and ended up with a surplus after expenses of $16 million. The actual cost of internet hosting for running the servers was a little over $3 million. By far the largest expense was staff salaries at $109 million, followed by grants at $26 million. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- OK so why all those big pink blobs all over begging us for money as if there is a horrifyhing crisis? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Because "begging" is a subjective term...it's a funding drive. No more. No less. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you spend even a little bit of time looking into WMF pages, it's clear that the organization is not on the brink of insolvency. And I think if you edit logged in, you should stop seeing the fund-raising pitches. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Personally, I like seeing the fundraising drives because they remind me to donate. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 01:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- If I were you, I would donate it to Miraheze instead. They deserve it way more than WMF 178.247.158.1 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- @SergeWoodzing and Liz: Fundraising banners (among other things) can be disabled in this section of your preferences. Graham87 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Personally, I like seeing the fundraising drives because they remind me to donate. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 01:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you spend even a little bit of time looking into WMF pages, it's clear that the organization is not on the brink of insolvency. And I think if you edit logged in, you should stop seeing the fund-raising pitches. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Because "begging" is a subjective term...it's a funding drive. No more. No less. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- OK so why all those big pink blobs all over begging us for money as if there is a horrifyhing crisis? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a bias in favour of reliable sourcing and against partisanship, quackery and woo. This is a feature, not a bug. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2025 (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.
Admin Bbb23
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm conserning about Bbb23's adminship.
Bbb23 blocked me as a sockpuppet wrongly about 3 months ago. I was unblocked soon. The reason of blocking was just the other user supported me on Yasuke's talk page and CU outcome was "possible".
I noticed the other 2 peolple who participate in Yasuke's talk page were blocked as sockpuppets by Bbb, and they are being unblocked now (not yet?). In this case, there was no evidence.
Please review Bbb23's recent conducts. He may have blocked us just because our postitions were against him. I think he shouldn't get involved in Yasuke's topic anymore, at least.NakajKak (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per the notification at the top of the page, you're supposed to notify people when you report them here. It doesn't appear you did that? I've done it for you now. As far as your accusations go, reading the discussions, it looks like some other editors disagreed with his conclusions made in his block, but I don't seen evidence that it was motivated by any disagreements he was having with you. Is there something more you can link to on that part of your argument? Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Given the amount of discussion by various editors with various positions at Talk:Yasuke over the past 6 months, the claim of ulterior motive seems spurious in absence of more evidence. A CU result of "possible" combined with a behavioral overlap, as described at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KeiTakahashi999/Archive, is typically enough to justify a sockpuppetry block. signed, Rosguill talk 15:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: Three admins, including a CU, thought otherwise. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- That consensus seems to have come in the context of the unblock discussion, per NYB's comment
I wouldn't typically consider "Possible" as technical evidence, especially in light of the explanation above.
Overall, my view of this specific complaint coincides with Onel5969's assessment below. If editors wish to present evidence of the pattern of behavior that they're accusing Bbb23 of, they can provide diffs. I do agree with Tamzin that the accusation of incivility against voorts is concerning, but I don't see how Bbb23 is ultimately "dodging accountability" here when their last word on this topic was to withdraw objection in light of the CU's more detailed explanation of the technical evidence. signed, Rosguill talk 16:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- That consensus seems to have come in the context of the unblock discussion, per NYB's comment
- I would not say that's true when the behavioral overlap is limited to agreeing in content disputes (in a CTOP where many people hold the same opinion) and using the source editor. I would probably endorse a check there, but I would not make a block based on that + "possible". I can think of very few admins other than Bbb who I'd expect to block on that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I guess my anecdotal experience filing cases at SPI is that the bar for a CU check is higher, and the bar for blocking once that first bar is cleared is lower. I have not extensively analyzed the behavioral evidence beyond that it was assessed sufficient for a CU check.signed, Rosguill talk 16:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- As the admin who ultimately unblocked the two possible puppets mentioned by OP, I would say that I would not have been surprised if the check was run, but neither would I have been surprised if it were declined. If I had requested the check myself I would have concluded that anything shy of "confirmed" was as close to an exoneration as CU data can get, and I would not have blocked. I'm aware I'm a noob in this area, though, and if presented with evidence I hadn't noticed, I'd have been quite willing to revise that opinion. -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I guess my anecdotal experience filing cases at SPI is that the bar for a CU check is higher, and the bar for blocking once that first bar is cleared is lower. I have not extensively analyzed the behavioral evidence beyond that it was assessed sufficient for a CU check.signed, Rosguill talk 16:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: Three admins, including a CU, thought otherwise. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- To my mind,
"may have blocked us just because our postitions were against him"
seems quite a serious allegation. I for one would like to see something tangible (say, diffs) to support it, rather than merely being told to go on a fishing expedition ("please review recent conducts"
). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)- I think that's basically a red herring; most online communities don't have standards of evidence for accusations of bad faith the way enwp does and I guess the filer doesn't know that. But I hope that the red herring can be ignored in the absence of evidence in favor of the real problem of Bbb23's block behavior, as laid out by Tamzin. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't spend a lot of time on these boards, but came across this. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong BBB23's behavior or actions. They blocked someone, that person objected and appealed, and the appeal was granted. I see no evidence that there was any malicious intent on BBB23's part. I do not always agree with their actions, but I never feel they are being malicious. Someone should close this discussion.Onel5969 TT me 15:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bbb23 didn't block you because he's biased against you. He blocked you because he, unlike every other SPI admin, is willing to block on only ~50% confidence, and despite this becoming an issue countless times, leading to many bad sockblocks being overturned, he's never done anything to correct that. Instead he does things like randomly accuse a reviewing admin of incivility for questioning the block. This is the same pattern of bad judgment and evasion of accountability that I described 2 years ago, to deaf ears. No doubt, the same will happen here, because someone involved in the Yasuke fray does not make for the most sympathetic victim. Oh well. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: To better outline the pattern of both bad blocks and evasion of accountability—and mind you, this is just cases I'm aware of because I was involved or someone told me about them, including those at issue here:
- July 2021: Blocked two users (1•2) for collaborating on an article. When another user said he could vouch for them being different people, replied
Based on what they've been doing, I figured they were either sock puppets or meat puppets. Either way, it's a violation of policy.
Never explained what policy was violated. Agreed to an unblock but with the caveatI suspect I have a broader view of what constitutes disruption or deception
; never explained what that would mean. - May 2022: Blocked all contributors to a draft about a PR stunt for meatpuppetry. When I pointed out that 5 were in good- or ambiguous-faith, including one whose only edit was to add a comma, and pointed out that we encourage editors to collaborate, replied
I not only object but pretty much disagree with your analysis, including what constitutes meat puppetry, what we 'encourage', and the definition of 'good faith conduct', but I don't think arguing with you over these things would be productive
. Never gave assent to unblocking any; I unblocked the 2 most obviously good-faith. - December 2022: Blocks a user for drafting an encyclopedic table in their userspace. At unblock appeal, refers to unblock as
a second chance
despite not having shown any misconduct in the first place. - April 2023: Again blocked users just for collaborating on a draft. When told by a third party that they were classmates, asked
What is your role in this?
and never followed up. User had to go to AN/I, where the blocks were overturned without any participation from Bbb. - May 2023: Blocked a user for alleged personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination). AN/I consensus led to the user's unblock and the WP:CHILDPROTECT blocks of almost all of their opponents. Responded to an inquiry about whether he'd created a chilling effect for reports of CHILDPROTECT violations with
Given all the positive comments by others about MPS's conduct, I doubt that the block had any kind of 'chilling effect'; nor do I imagine any future new user will even know about it. This reponse may not be fully satisfactory to you, but it's all I have to say about the issue.
- [I was less active in projectspace from Sep '23 to Nov '24, so don't take the 2-year absence of evidence as evidence of absence.]
- February 2025: Reported two users to SPI with note
I don't there's enough behavioral evidence to block without technical corroboration
. After receiving verdict of "possible", blocked both (1•2) despite not having presented strong behavioral evidence, and despite presumably knowing, as someone who was a CU until he had the right removed by ArbCom for abuse, that "possible" is not a high degree of confidence. After being counseled by Newyorkbrad (a former CU in good standing) that "possible" was not enough, resisted unblocking, and after a third admin concurred with Brad in entirely mundane terms, repliedLovely to hear from you again. At least Newyorkbrad is civil
. Only assented to unblock after the checking CU clarified that "possibly" meant 40km apart, which he should have already known it could mean. - April 2025: Brought two users and an IP to SPI where the only decent evidence was that one user had edited logged-out. After a check was declined, nonetheless blocked both accounts (1•2).
Did not respond to queries from unblock-reviewer; both were unblocked.Agreed to unblock after CU found socking unlikely.
- July 2021: Blocked two users (1•2) for collaborating on an article. When another user said he could vouch for them being different people, replied
- -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, this is a rough history of overzealous blocking and a lack of clear and civil communication when questioned or opposed. Thank you for assembling these. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Tamzin, I dispute the
Did not respond to queries from unblock-reviewer
in the last, since Bbb23 did respond to me the second time, and quickly. I can't fault someone for not responding immediately to a ping that involves doing some extra work (I'd presume that Bbb23 wouldn't remember offhand what the compelling evidence was), nor could I fault them for then forgetting about it. I don't dispute that the evidence for blocking was thin, however. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)- Sorry, think I got my talkpages jumbled. Fixed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- While recognizing that this list is not intended to be exhaustive, reviewing block logs, Bbb23 appears to have blocked roughly 2500 accounts and IPs since November 2024 alone. Even if we arbitrarily assume that problems with their blocks are 25 times as common as what you've laid out here, that would be a problematic block rate of roughly 2%. signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- 2% would be quite high. My own rate, as of this moment, is 0.08% (2/2,654). Judging from the fact that I can't recall having ever seen you on the receiving end of a dramaboard thread, Rosguill, I'd be surprised if your rate is much higher. But that's a bit of a misdirection. As ArbCom frequently reminds us, "occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship". However, what we do expect of admins, in all cases, is
to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions ... [and to] justify their actions when requested
. Some admins have been desysopped for failing to explain a single block, let alone doubling down on aspersions against those they wrongly blocked and casting new aspersions against admins who disagreed with them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)- Well, 2% is with the arbitrary inflation--what you've logged here is actually, coincidentally, also .08% since November 2024 (calculating a ballpark estimate for the rest of the range, particularly given the activity gap you noted, seemed like it would be wasted effort). I agree with you that we do expect admins to be accountable, but other than the one snide comment to voorts, I don't think the most recent case demonstrates much in the way a lack of accountability--to me it looks like a good faith disagreement over the degree of evidence required to identify sockpuppetry, which I think we all know is an inherently fuzzy and frustrating field to work in. And thus I'm disinclined to bandwagon on a complaint filed by an editor who (justifiably) feels personally slighted but who has already had their name cleared by appealing through the normal process. signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I hesitate to say this, but it has long been my suspicion that
I'm disinclined to bandwagon on a complaint filed by an editor who (justifiably) feels personally slighted
is the reason why Bbb23's blocks have not received more attention. I think it's a very understandable reaction. But I also think it means an admin can get away with a lot of bad blocks, simply by frequently blocking a large number of unsympathetic targets. -- asilvering (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)- I'd imagine a more even-keeled and relevantly-informed "venue" (to stretch the word) would be to ask admins who patrol requests for unblock fpr their opinions, and/or investigate a statistical sample that we can actually generalize conclusions from. Based on my own experience, I've at times been frustrated that Bbb23's block log summaries can sometimes be opaque and create more work for reviewing the unblock logs, but I struggle to think of examples of cases where I directly found their original block to be unreasonable, or where they obstructed attempts to unblock, which are what would raise concerns of unaccountability for me. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- As one of those admins, I can say that, when it comes to simple blocks like basic vandalism, where all the facts are clearly visible and the editor is almost certain to be immediately caught and reblocked if they reoffend, I have simply stopped asking Bbb23 for input. At best, the request is not responded to; at worst, Bbb23 will show up and insult the blocked editor to their face. A particularly discouraging example of the latter was my last straw. I'm not the only one. Even when I do ask for input, the results are not collegial. See for example User talk:Asilvering/Archive 18#AnonymousScholar49, where I am grateful to have received a sanity check from @Deepfriedokra. -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- asilvering What type of insulting are we talking about? Bad blocks are evidence of poor judgement that can be corrected. Hostility toward blocked users is evidence of a more fundamental issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien, I've tried to find my Last Straw case, but haven't succeeded. In the meantime, I see GLL has found a list, but one that particularly sticks in my mind is User talk:ISAAC CARES, where Bbb23 said
I don't think the user is sufficiently competent to edit here
because that editor had been... overlinking. -- asilvering (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien, I've tried to find my Last Straw case, but haven't succeeded. In the meantime, I see GLL has found a list, but one that particularly sticks in my mind is User talk:ISAAC CARES, where Bbb23 said
- asilvering What type of insulting are we talking about? Bad blocks are evidence of poor judgement that can be corrected. Hostility toward blocked users is evidence of a more fundamental issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- As one of those admins, I can say that, when it comes to simple blocks like basic vandalism, where all the facts are clearly visible and the editor is almost certain to be immediately caught and reblocked if they reoffend, I have simply stopped asking Bbb23 for input. At best, the request is not responded to; at worst, Bbb23 will show up and insult the blocked editor to their face. A particularly discouraging example of the latter was my last straw. I'm not the only one. Even when I do ask for input, the results are not collegial. See for example User talk:Asilvering/Archive 18#AnonymousScholar49, where I am grateful to have received a sanity check from @Deepfriedokra. -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'd imagine a more even-keeled and relevantly-informed "venue" (to stretch the word) would be to ask admins who patrol requests for unblock fpr their opinions, and/or investigate a statistical sample that we can actually generalize conclusions from. Based on my own experience, I've at times been frustrated that Bbb23's block log summaries can sometimes be opaque and create more work for reviewing the unblock logs, but I struggle to think of examples of cases where I directly found their original block to be unreasonable, or where they obstructed attempts to unblock, which are what would raise concerns of unaccountability for me. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I hesitate to say this, but it has long been my suspicion that
- I'd like to bring the Wikipedia:Zeroth law of Wikipedia into the discussion. Even if swiftly unblocked, discouraging or scaring away the wrong good-faith editor can lose us thousands of constructive edits. Blocks should never be issued on a hunch unless there is a credible risk of immediate, serious harm to the project, and unilateral blocks without warning on the basis of conduct should only be done in egregious circumstances. If this isn't codified somewhere, it needs to be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well, 2% is with the arbitrary inflation--what you've logged here is actually, coincidentally, also .08% since November 2024 (calculating a ballpark estimate for the rest of the range, particularly given the activity gap you noted, seemed like it would be wasted effort). I agree with you that we do expect admins to be accountable, but other than the one snide comment to voorts, I don't think the most recent case demonstrates much in the way a lack of accountability--to me it looks like a good faith disagreement over the degree of evidence required to identify sockpuppetry, which I think we all know is an inherently fuzzy and frustrating field to work in. And thus I'm disinclined to bandwagon on a complaint filed by an editor who (justifiably) feels personally slighted but who has already had their name cleared by appealing through the normal process. signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- ...25 times or 2% isn't significant? Well, I suppose we can agree to disagree on that. Let's look at some blocks, warnings, and various aspersions (not all of which will be sock related) from this same time period. Because yes, mistakes get made - but I'd image to those editors wrongfully blocked, or threatened with blocks, it matters a great deal.
- A new user added a birthday to an article (which, while unsourced, appears to be verifiable. [4]). Bbb23 immediately welcomed them with a uw-vand3 and a uw-vand4. While the revert was fine, the he didn't tell the user what they did wrong, so they (quite naturally) have not edited since.
- When new editor created and account to tag a page on a borderline (at best) notable company, obviously written by the company, Bbb23 refused to explain why he declined the speedy deletion, threatened to block them for vandalism, and said they appeared to have "no legitimate purpose here" and told them not to tag any page for speedy deletion because...? The decline was fair, the page wasn't completely unsalvageable, and yes, adding back a speedy deletion tag once another admin has already it is a bad move, but even experienced admins like Bbb23 forget that sometimes. The user hasn't edited since.
- A new user tried to update a football player's jersey number, but didn't add a source. Bbb23 threatened to block them for introducing deliberate factual errors.[5] Compare this with the personalized note left by another user [6], who used the correct templated warnings as well.
- a new user accidentally messed up formatting hen trying to add a citation, Bbb23 welcomed them with a uw-vand4 [7].
- When an editor accidentally re-created a talk page while attempting to contest a speedy deletion, Bbb23 threatened to block them for vandalism (uw-vand4im). When the editor tried to explain what had happened, Bbb23 doubled down, insisting that they "should" have realized. The user hasn't edited since.
- An editor attempted to add what appears to be local/alternative names for train stations, alternative names which are included in the lead sentences of those articles. Bbb23 threatened to block them for vandalism[8], and they've not edited since.
- A new sportsy editor added, to the lead, that a series of colleges part of an sports conference were...part of that sports conference? Undue, yeah, but Bbb23 didn't explain that, just threatened to block them for vandalism.[9]. They haven't edited since.
- When a new editor changed "is" to "was" on the article on somebody who had just died, Bbb23 threatened to block them for introducing deliberate factual errors [10].
- When an ESL editor added a phonetic spelling used locally for a town and tried to add some more facts, on a page they themselves had created many years ago, Bbb23 rvved them and blocked them immediately[11]. No warning, no explanation, just blocked.
- When a new user added a red-linked category, Bbb23 blocked them for vandalism. Thich block actually came up in a 2024 AN post started by @Beeblebrox about the behaviour of another admin, where they was solid consensus that this block was not good, and specifically not good to the point where another admin got looked at sternly for not unblocking the user.
- A new user tried to create a new article by copy-pasting a product description in. Classic noob move, but Bbb23 didn't explain what they'd done wrong, just threatened to block them for vandalism [12]. They haven't edited since.
- A (what appears to be the biography subject) tried to update "his" Wikipedia page, with facts that I've been able to confirm are true.[13]. Bbb23 didn't explain the issues with their edits at all, just left a bunch of messages threatened to block them for vandalism. [14]
- An editor tried to fix a piped misspelling(alternative spelling?), and Bbb23 welcomed them by threatening to block them for vandalism [15]. They haven't edited since.
- A new editor tried to fix a mispelled name, and Bbb23 warned them for introducing deliberate factual errors[16]. They haven't edited since.
- A new editor tried to expand an article with facts sourced to a newspaper, but did the classic newbie thing and put the citation in the edit summary (lmao). Bbb23 threatened to block them for vandalism [17], despite being able to see what they were trying to do. The user hasn't edited since.
- A teenager attempted to add an annotate bibliography to an article, probably as part of a class assignment. Bbb23 threatened to block them for vandalism, an it took another administrator to explain what the actual issues with their edits were.
- When an editor from the Bronx made the mistake of choosing a username referencing that, and Bbb23 discovered this two years on, he rolled back their edits and blocked them for impersonating @User:Newyorkbrad.
- When a new user attempted to add material sourced to various reputable Nigerian newspapers, Bb23 welcomed them by threatened to block them [18].
- Additionally, Tamzin's already brought up some blocks that were overturned due to lack of evidence/justification. Let's look at some more.
- In 2021, Bbb23 blocked two accounts for socking; another admin consulted with a CU, only to discover the accounts weren't related, they'd just both interacted with the same editor.[19].
- In October 2022, a new user was blocked as NOTHERE; after witing a month for Bbb23 to explain why he'd made that call, another admin went ahead and unblocked.
- In June 2023, a new user created a draft about an historic LGBT rights bill from the 1980s. Isn't wasn't perfect, however, so Bbb23 no-warning blocked them as NOTHERE; another admin undid the block and let him know, Bbb23, not grateful somebody had caught an obvious mistake, was annoyed he hadn't been consulted, and told the other admin not to talk about the block further. [20]
- In December 2023, another admin thought that Bbb23 had made a mistake in a block, because he'd blocked somebody for sharing the same name as a long-dead historical figure. He undid the blog and politely let Bbb23 know, Bbb23 responded by sarcastically thanking them for "checking with [him] first." [21].
- In February 2024, another admin asked Bbb23 to explain a block he'd made, because the admin couldn't see any justification for it [22]. Bbb23 refused to respond, despite being active on other parts of the site, so the other admin went ahead an unilaterally unblocked.
- Last June, another admin undid one of Bbb23's blocks because they other admin thought it was "clearly a mistake. There was no abusive use of the two accounts, and I don't see how anyone who has seen your edits could possibly think that they made it "seem like you are multiple people"".[23]. Bbb23 went to the other admin's page and, while explicitly refusing to discuss the blocks themselves, he made it clear he was upset that the other admin had said he made a mistake in the unblock summary.[24]
- Again last summer, another SPI block overturned due to lack of evidence.
- Last November, another SPI blocked overturned by a CU due to complete lack of evidence.
- I don't expect this list to be complete, and I do appreciate the point you bring up, Rosguill, about how people who do a lot of actions are likely to have produced a large number of errors or made a large number of errors, and you're also right that there's never going to be a perfect victim. That's not what anybody in this thread is worried about, however; the major issue is the pattern of refusing to adequately explain these mistakes or fix them, or take action to decrease the re-occurrence of mistakes. I mean, he's quite literally not allowed[25][26] to access private data anymore because he can't be trusted to listen to others, play by the rules, or communicate when concerns about his behavior are raised. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think people have made valid points and am not intending to argue against them, but you may want to review the actual math I described. “25 times” refers to my inflation of Tamzin’s datapoints to reflect the fact that I would expect Tamzin’s anecdotal count of problems to be an undercount, and that inflating the number 25x would estimate a plausible upper bound of problematic cases. At this point, since people are actually providing additional examples, I would encourage people to focus on that, rather than my now-moot napkin estimate of how big the problem might have been. signed, Rosguill talk 21:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- How is stating you refuse to comply with Arbcom decisions not reason for a block or some other serious action, if I said that, I'd expect to be either temporary blocked or even indefed as it would be clear I have no desire to listen. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I am refering to
Bbb23 has subsequently communicated to the committee that he is unwilling to comply with these restrictions
from the de-CU motion as linked by GreenLipstickLesbian above. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 10:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)- @LakesideMiners, I can’t find what you’re referring to. Who said that, where? Thank you! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-LakesideMiners comment) I assume he is referring to
Bbb23 has subsequently communicated to the committee that he is unwilling to comply with these restrictions
from the de-CU motion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)- That's what I'm referring to, il update the comment to quote that part. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 10:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-LakesideMiners comment) I assume he is referring to
- @LakesideMiners, I can’t find what you’re referring to. Who said that, where? Thank you! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- 2% would be quite high. My own rate, as of this moment, is 0.08% (2/2,654). Judging from the fact that I can't recall having ever seen you on the receiving end of a dramaboard thread, Rosguill, I'd be surprised if your rate is much higher. But that's a bit of a misdirection. As ArbCom frequently reminds us, "occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship". However, what we do expect of admins, in all cases, is
- @Rosguill: To better outline the pattern of both bad blocks and evasion of accountability—and mind you, this is just cases I'm aware of because I was involved or someone told me about them, including those at issue here:
- Comment - I think a recall election as a de facto Vote of Confidence might be in order here. Carrite (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Administrator recall is a remarkably underutilized venue. Tewdar 21:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would support a recall. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've been around ANI long enough that I tend to take a very jaundiced view of 'admin abuse' claims, but GLL's list above shows a very clear pattern of behavior, and it's not a good one at all. This one, especially - just to use one I clicked on to check - is absolutely beyond the pale. Neither of the edits involved were remotely even conceivable as 'vandalism'; while I'm not sure it's codified explicitly, it's consensus-through-editing at the very least that unfounded accusations of vandalism when applied to clearly good-faith edits, especially when repeated, are considered personal attacks. Given that's just one of the many events compiled there, I'd say that in this case, Bbb23 should consider voluntarily standing for recall, and if they choose not to this is a cromulent case for the community to call for one, because we who are admins need to be better than this. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- "If an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, it may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Are we just waiting for one brave soul to start the recall process page before the rest pile onto the petition? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think several are waiting for Bbb23 to make a more substantive [27] reply and reactions to that. Those who don't want to wait don't have to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- No matter what happens, the recall petition is going to happen; I don't think pretending it isn't is very fair to Bbb. Wider discussions about potential steps he can take, or the steps the community will take, to prevent disruption and BITEy behaviour can still happen here, but for now I've started off the petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Bbb23. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think several are waiting for Bbb23 to make a more substantive [27] reply and reactions to that. Those who don't want to wait don't have to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Are we just waiting for one brave soul to start the recall process page before the rest pile onto the petition? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- "If an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, it may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've been around ANI long enough that I tend to take a very jaundiced view of 'admin abuse' claims, but GLL's list above shows a very clear pattern of behavior, and it's not a good one at all. This one, especially - just to use one I clicked on to check - is absolutely beyond the pale. Neither of the edits involved were remotely even conceivable as 'vandalism'; while I'm not sure it's codified explicitly, it's consensus-through-editing at the very least that unfounded accusations of vandalism when applied to clearly good-faith edits, especially when repeated, are considered personal attacks. Given that's just one of the many events compiled there, I'd say that in this case, Bbb23 should consider voluntarily standing for recall, and if they choose not to this is a cromulent case for the community to call for one, because we who are admins need to be better than this. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think this long discussion is at the wrong venue as no discussion on AN can change any admin's standing.
If you are serious about pursuing this, I think this needs to move from a noiceboard to a Recall petition.I'd also like to hear from Bbb23 in response to all of these comments but I can see where they would feel overwhelmed with this current discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)- AN has been the primary venue for communal review of potential admin misconduct for 20ish years. I've been dragged here. I imagine you've been dragged here at some point. It's not a pleasant experience, but it's the system the community's settled on, and the existence of RECALL doesn't change that, for two main reasons: 1) There is relatively limited cross-talk at RECALL, and except in straightforward recall cases like the two most recent ones, some amount of discussion is required at another venue first. And 2) A RECALL petition asks a binary question. It doesn't give the community the option to warn an admin or TBAN them. (I'm personally opposed to TBANs of admins, but I imposed one per community consensus the other week, so clearly it's something the community's still open to.) Perhaps most importantly, it doesn't give the community a chance to acquit someone. At RECALL the petition either certifies or doesn't, but there's no option for a closer to say "Consensus is that the admin did nothing wrong".All of that is to say, while I'm not opposed to this going to a recall petition, I strongly disagree that AN is the wrong venue, at least at this juncture. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Recall should not be the first port of call for any action, it is somewhat of a last resort sort of thing. CMD (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah; we're usually on similar wavelengths but this time I have to disagree Liz - this is absolutely the correct venue. It's about admin conduct and the evidence presented of misconduct, and establishing if recall is necessary and ofering options to avoid going to recall. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I see your points and withdraw my suggestion. I think I was a little worried at how this discussion seemed to be taking over this noticeboard. But you are all right, this is an appropriate forum for this discussion. Here ends my participation! Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- AN has been the primary venue for communal review of potential admin misconduct for 20ish years. I've been dragged here. I imagine you've been dragged here at some point. It's not a pleasant experience, but it's the system the community's settled on, and the existence of RECALL doesn't change that, for two main reasons: 1) There is relatively limited cross-talk at RECALL, and except in straightforward recall cases like the two most recent ones, some amount of discussion is required at another venue first. And 2) A RECALL petition asks a binary question. It doesn't give the community the option to warn an admin or TBAN them. (I'm personally opposed to TBANs of admins, but I imposed one per community consensus the other week, so clearly it's something the community's still open to.) Perhaps most importantly, it doesn't give the community a chance to acquit someone. At RECALL the petition either certifies or doesn't, but there's no option for a closer to say "Consensus is that the admin did nothing wrong".All of that is to say, while I'm not opposed to this going to a recall petition, I strongly disagree that AN is the wrong venue, at least at this juncture. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to thank @NakajKak: for bringing this here. Is it not likely that, given we know there have been a significant number of unjustified blocks which were rescinded, there have also been unjustified blocks that were not reversed?Boynamedsue (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- This block from GLL's list above is genuinely stunning. Not only is the name clearly not an attempt at impersonation, but it's extremely clear from looking at their contribs that this is a normal editor. He doesn't even tell them who they're supposedly impersonating in the block reason! How the hell is someone supposed to respond to such a poor block like that? Parabolist (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- They were actively editing an article when they got indeffed too. They never requested an unblock either, unfortunately. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- This block on ISSAC CARES was just plain bad. The editor started editing through a contest before successfully transitioned to editing Nigerian individuals. Indef block was applied for promotional username. I googled and the only thing that comes up was Isaac Care (no S), some sort of health app based in Ireland. There is not an edit that the account edited on healthcare. Bbb23 admitted that the block was somewhat wrong, but shifting goalpost to justify the block based on promotional draft pages and questioning the editor's competence. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Which is ultimately the bigger problem here. I don't consider the blocks themselves an issue (we all make mistakes, and even frequent mistakes can be taken as still being in good faith) so much as the amount, but also more importantly, how Bbb23 dealt with criticism of his blocks, which was to deflect blame and find any other reason to make the block not look overzealous. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- This block on ISSAC CARES was just plain bad. The editor started editing through a contest before successfully transitioned to editing Nigerian individuals. Indef block was applied for promotional username. I googled and the only thing that comes up was Isaac Care (no S), some sort of health app based in Ireland. There is not an edit that the account edited on healthcare. Bbb23 admitted that the block was somewhat wrong, but shifting goalpost to justify the block based on promotional draft pages and questioning the editor's competence. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- They were actively editing an article when they got indeffed too. They never requested an unblock either, unfortunately. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
@Liz: as The Bushranger said, this is absolutely the correct venue. It's the first step the first, the first stop in the process. This is where we determine if further action is needed.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Recommendations. Before starting the recall petition, I'd like to recommend giving @Bbb23: another day or two to respond to the community's concerns. Perhaps he would do so adquately.
I'd would also recommend that Bbb23 consider stepping down voluntarily. He should then seek feedback concerning his tool use, reflect on the community's concerns, and then formulate a plan to address these concerns. After six months to a year, he could then seek to regain the tools via an election or RRFA.
As an alternative to resignig, he might agree to stop blocking users and work in other areas, at least until he can regain the community's trust. There is much work to do and not enough hands to do it all. Either way, could work on re-engaging postively with the community and look for other ways to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. The pattern of behavior here shows someone that, at best is routinely driving new editors off the project without a single valid reason. The revocation of CU access and the Ombuds removing his ability to access private data due to his repeated violations of policy and refusal to communicate should've been warning enough. He should be indefinitely blocked immediately until he communicates - parallel to any recall petition (which I would support). Adminship shouldn't be a super Mario effect. If any other user was treating new users the way Bbb23 does even 10% as often, especially after what should have been a warning, they would be blocked indefinitely pending a convincing unblock request. I am honestly shocked that a number of admins have seen this evidence and have not yet imposed an indefinite block on him. There is no need to wait for a recall petition to block for this behavior - and regardless whether he resigns the admin bit or not, the indefinite block should still be imposed for this repetitive abusive behavior towards new users. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- This discussion hasn't even been going on for 24 hours. I can tell you are upset here but why the rush to action? The evidence that has been presented has been from the past few years, why does action need to be taken TODAY? For one thing, no decision here on AN would remove admin permissions. And if you are thinking of a community ban, this discussion has to be going on for several days in order to take that action, those are the guidelines we work with. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Berchanhimez: (What Liz said.) Of course. Your emotions are engaged. I've had to step back and deliberate and disengage mine. Nothing is lost in giving Bbb23 time to respond. And a lack of adequate response would be yet another point on which to act. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- There is no harm in an indefinite block to ensure his attention is gotten. He can always be unblocked. Again, any non-admin would’ve been blocked with barely 10% of this evidence provided, much less all of it. Super Mario effect in full force apparently. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to think we would give a non-admin a chance to respond, if this type of report were to be filed at ANI. There is not any ongoing disruption, so 24 hours is a reasonable time frame to wait for a response Isaidnoway (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- He’s taken admin actions (namely closing edit warring reports) since being pinged multiple times during this discussion. He’s had time to respond. Again, any other non-admin editor would’ve been blocked for barely 10% of this BITEy behavior. So why isn’t he? The only answer is he has a Super Mario mushroom effect. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- So why not gather a
lynch mobUnscheduled Public Opinion Poll, if you're not happy with the responses from the other admins here? Tewdar 08:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)- Any recall petition is completely separate from a block for this behavior and for ignoring this discussion while continuing to edit and even take admin actions. To claim that a “lynch mob” is necessary before an editor can be blocked for behavior as egregious as this is a clear example of the Super Mario effect. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's not really a claim, more of an observation... 😁 Tewdar 08:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- To defend Bbb just a little on one specific point, the one admin action he's taken while this thread was open came 10 minutes before I broadened the scope from this trio of overturned blocks to a long-term pattern of behavior. Prior to that point, there was not anything that he would have been expected to reply to here under WP:ADMINACCT, as he'd previously responded in the unblock discussions.I will be more concerned if he continues to edit—anywhere, but especially in admin areas—without responding here. (At the moment, I imagine he is asleep, if I correctly recall his timezone.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is a blunt question, but I promise I’m not trying to be rude. If he edits anywhere other than BN to resign the tools, or starting a self recall, or here to engage - not just in the short term, but until the closure of this thread - will you block him for the behaviors identified to prevent him from continuing them while this discussion is ongoing? It doesn’t matter whether he blocks someone, undoes an edit, warns a new user - the only surefire way to prevent this behavior from recurring is to block him until this discussion resolves. Even still, not blocking immediately and making him form a convincing unblock request is still very much a Super Mario feeling. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think I'm INVOLVED here given the extent of my history with Bbb, and in my experience trying to speculate how I'd feel about something if I weren't INVOLVED doesn't work. So whether I personally would block, no, on that basis. Whether I'd support someone else blocking, I think that would depend on the nature of the edit made. There are at least some circumstances where I could picture myself blocking an admin for sufficiently bad reverts/warnings/blocks while ignoring a noticeboard thread. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate your openness and honesty. I understand why you would not necessarily personally do it. But not all admins are involved, and I would like to see any (other) admin who would not agree to this explain why they wouldn’t do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 09:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- If Bbb23 returns to editing or admin actions without commenting here, I'll probably p-block him from most namespaces. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I support this. jp×g🗯️ 14:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers and JPxG: Thank you both for calming my fear that there wasn't an admin willing to take on this action if it becomes necessary. I have been thinking of how to word this to not sound sarcastic or rude to you both since I saw these replies this morning, but this is the best I came up with. I'll add that if a p-block is necessary I think User Talk (oversevere warnings) and Article (reversions) are important, as that's where most of the BITEy behavior has happened. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I am fairly certain a pblock from User talk would mean he would be unable to appeal his block or speak to involved users/admins on his talk page? So TPA revoked... which, as things currently stand, would not be the best course of action. Patient Zerotalk 01:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers and JPxG: Thank you both for calming my fear that there wasn't an admin willing to take on this action if it becomes necessary. I have been thinking of how to word this to not sound sarcastic or rude to you both since I saw these replies this morning, but this is the best I came up with. I'll add that if a p-block is necessary I think User Talk (oversevere warnings) and Article (reversions) are important, as that's where most of the BITEy behavior has happened. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I support this. jp×g🗯️ 14:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- If Bbb23 returns to editing or admin actions without commenting here, I'll probably p-block him from most namespaces. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate your openness and honesty. I understand why you would not necessarily personally do it. But not all admins are involved, and I would like to see any (other) admin who would not agree to this explain why they wouldn’t do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 09:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think I'm INVOLVED here given the extent of my history with Bbb, and in my experience trying to speculate how I'd feel about something if I weren't INVOLVED doesn't work. So whether I personally would block, no, on that basis. Whether I'd support someone else blocking, I think that would depend on the nature of the edit made. There are at least some circumstances where I could picture myself blocking an admin for sufficiently bad reverts/warnings/blocks while ignoring a noticeboard thread. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well, sure, Tamzin, but at the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to say he should have responded to this thread itself regardless of whether the extra context was added. It is, after all, a concern about his behavior, even by the original description provided by the user starting the thread. EggRoll97 (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is a blunt question, but I promise I’m not trying to be rude. If he edits anywhere other than BN to resign the tools, or starting a self recall, or here to engage - not just in the short term, but until the closure of this thread - will you block him for the behaviors identified to prevent him from continuing them while this discussion is ongoing? It doesn’t matter whether he blocks someone, undoes an edit, warns a new user - the only surefire way to prevent this behavior from recurring is to block him until this discussion resolves. Even still, not blocking immediately and making him form a convincing unblock request is still very much a Super Mario feeling. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Any recall petition is completely separate from a block for this behavior and for ignoring this discussion while continuing to edit and even take admin actions. To claim that a “lynch mob” is necessary before an editor can be blocked for behavior as egregious as this is a clear example of the Super Mario effect. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to be advocating for a block here for block's sake. He has, to his credit, at least stopped blocking people since the discussion has begun, so I don't think it would really prevent anything to block him at the current time. I do think however, that recall is an option that should be considered, given there's not much AN can sufficiently impose, given the admin in question has been brought to noticeboards before, has repeatedly continued their misuse of the tools, and has had tools that are socially tied to adminship (checkuser, which can be held by a non-admin, but practically never will be) revoked for cause because they couldn't stop running unwarranted checks, which also resulted in their identified status being revoked by the Ombuds. It is not consistent with the conduct expected of administrators to allow Bbb23 to continue in this manner. EggRoll97 (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- You point out exactly the reason a block is necessary. Enough is enough. Repeated warnings and rudeness towards other admins questioning actions that are blatantly inappropriate. Indefinite is not infinite. He should not be allowed to make any edit not directly related to commenting on this case until it is resolved. Any other editor would’ve been blocked with 10% of the evidence presented until they convinced the community (or uninvolved admins) they should be unblocked. Super Mario effect in full force. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would err on the side of patience, if only to avoid jumping to a conclusion that could be construed as adequate sanction in future discussions. ClifV (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Tewdar: Your suggestion has merit, but the characterization is horrid and beneath you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Which characterization? Lynch mob? That's just me arsing around. I'll probably be one of the pitchfork-wielders. Tewdar 08:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- You point out exactly the reason a block is necessary. Enough is enough. Repeated warnings and rudeness towards other admins questioning actions that are blatantly inappropriate. Indefinite is not infinite. He should not be allowed to make any edit not directly related to commenting on this case until it is resolved. Any other editor would’ve been blocked with 10% of the evidence presented until they convinced the community (or uninvolved admins) they should be unblocked. Super Mario effect in full force. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- So why not gather a
- He’s taken admin actions (namely closing edit warring reports) since being pinged multiple times during this discussion. He’s had time to respond. Again, any other non-admin editor would’ve been blocked for barely 10% of this BITEy behavior. So why isn’t he? The only answer is he has a Super Mario mushroom effect. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to think we would give a non-admin a chance to respond, if this type of report were to be filed at ANI. There is not any ongoing disruption, so 24 hours is a reasonable time frame to wait for a response Isaidnoway (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- There is no harm in an indefinite block to ensure his attention is gotten. He can always be unblocked. Again, any non-admin would’ve been blocked with barely 10% of this evidence provided, much less all of it. Super Mario effect in full force apparently. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Liz, any other non-admin editor with barely 10% of this evidence against them would’ve been blocked indefinitely posthaste. There’s a clear Super Mario effect here. Bbb23 has driven dozens off this project. An indefinite block is not infinite. He is free to provide his response on his talkpage even while blocked, and if the community accepts it, then he can be unblocked to either resign or contribute to this discussion. At worst, it’ll get his attention and force him to engage - I’ll note he’s edited multiple times throughout the last 24 hours even with multiple pings here. And bluntly, the rush to action is exactly what he’s done to dozens of new editors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Berchanhimez: (What Liz said.) Of course. Your emotions are engaged. I've had to step back and deliberate and disengage mine. Nothing is lost in giving Bbb23 time to respond. And a lack of adequate response would be yet another point on which to act. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- This discussion hasn't even been going on for 24 hours. I can tell you are upset here but why the rush to action? The evidence that has been presented has been from the past few years, why does action need to be taken TODAY? For one thing, no decision here on AN would remove admin permissions. And if you are thinking of a community ban, this discussion has to be going on for several days in order to take that action, those are the guidelines we work with. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: I should of course point out that Bbb23 has certainly seen the notification and has continued to edit in spite of it. It's a short editing bit, sure, but after they were made aware of this discussion, they also made time to do some housekeeping on their talk page, and decline an edit warring report. They have not, however, made even the slightest comment that they intend to respond, nor have they made an actual response. EggRoll97 (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- {For the middle of the night, this thread is awful busy.) Struck the wait part. That ship's sailed and hit an iceberg. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see a lot of ways this ends without recall anymore. Maybe a topic ban from blocks or counter-vandalism as a whole? That would probably work, but might be leaving enough out that Bbb's behavior continues. A site ban would be a clear overreaction. An Iban isn't really possible, given how far their BITEy behavior seems to stretch. And no sanctions at all seems like a ship that has far sailed already. I very much doubt this thread ends without at minimum a sanction of some form for Bbb23, and possibly including his desysop. EggRoll97 (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- You know if I'd received all this I'd run away too. It's not going to be an easy simple answer, is it? Secretlondon (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- You remember Mike V too then, Secretlondon... —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, but we're supposed to be accountable for our actions. Remaining silent is going to draw criticism for not admitting fault and apologizing. At the same time, though, I can see why one might (rightfully) be hesitant to respond in order to not say anything further incriminating. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I hope I'm always accountable but the evidence isn't recent and the hanging judges scare me. I do wonder why someone who is not trusted with checkuser etc is still an admin though. Secretlondon (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Secretlondon More recent evidence? That's not an unfair request. How about we look at some stuff from the past week or so? For example, on [[28]], he blocked a new editor somehow both as NOTHERE, and for "creating crappy drafts and articles"; to the best of my knowledge, the the editor had created three six articles about various species of mollusks, and one six poor quality (but fully understandable, verifiable, and notable articles) on mollusks in mainspace. Again, the editor clearly doesn't write very well, but their writing is understandable and it doesn't merit a no-warning indef.
- Or how about on 2025-05-27, when he no warning blocked an editor for uploading high-quality photos they had taken, because a google search revealed that the editor was a professional photographer. The block had to be undone by another admin. For ease of reference, these are some of the images that Bbb23 rolled back from articles with an edit summary pointing to the fact that they were taken by the user.[29][30][31] GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- For anyone wanting to look at the first case, I think it's 2025-05-30. NebY (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, that block of the photographer is bananas ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- The problem with standing mute is it is part of a pattern of inadequate responses and non responses. I have implored Bbb23 to respond here. Waiting. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- "everyone makes mistakes, it's a one-off, they were having a bad day, nobody's perfect, I'm not seeing a pattern here, it wasn't acceptable but it wasn't actually misuse of the tools, you've got a chip on your shoulder, and so on and so forth". Until one day the pile of things that weren't dealt with at the time becomes an avalanche, and then it's "Oh, there's so much it's bludgeoning, they'll run away, you can't expect someone to deal with so much detail all at once...." DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- "It is imperative"[32] is not quite imploring. NebY (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @DuncanHill: I blame myself for not hauling him to AN myself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: I wasn't pointing the finger at any individual, but at the culture. But that is very decent of you to say so. "What could - indeed should - I have done better?" is a question we must all ask ourselves, and not once but often. DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned is a good essay about this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: I wasn't pointing the finger at any individual, but at the culture. But that is very decent of you to say so. "What could - indeed should - I have done better?" is a question we must all ask ourselves, and not once but often. DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @DuncanHill: I blame myself for not hauling him to AN myself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- And to be honest, this thread would have been perfectly adequate in pointing out the (clear) issues and asking for a reply from Bbb23, without several shouty tricoteuses demanding we burn the witch right now. You're not helping, you know. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I hope I'm always accountable but the evidence isn't recent and the hanging judges scare me. I do wonder why someone who is not trusted with checkuser etc is still an admin though. Secretlondon (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- {For the middle of the night, this thread is awful busy.) Struck the wait part. That ship's sailed and hit an iceberg. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Having seen a fair number of early suspicious activities blossom into full-scale blockable destruction, I sympathize with Bbb23's actions (though I would agree that they should have engaged and warned more often). Ironically, there is an absence of talk of engaging and warning going on here. The sanction here should be a clear warning, and a requirement for engagement before blocking. BD2412 T 14:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bbb was warned in many of these instances, through criticism by peers and through admins and ANI consensuses overruling his blocks. Bbb is clearly aware that having a block overruled reflects poorly on an admin; that's why he's complained about it in cases like [33] and [34]. He's been on notice for years—starting with ArbCom and OmbComm/Legal stripping him of CU/NDA access in 2020—that his attitude toward adminning was fundamentally unacceptable. His response has always been some combination of insisting he was right, saying no harm was done, or blowing off people who complained. I do commiserate with Bbb's unenviable position, presented with a litany of past violations of admin policies to answer to. But let's not pretend he's in that situation because no one ever told him he was making mistakes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest, then, a very specific warning that use of controversial blocks will lead to loss of the bit with which to make blocks. Nothing described here quite amounts to that yet. BD2412 T 20:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- "Nothing described here quite amounts to that yet." I think it has though. From Tamzin's and GreenLipstickLesbian's evidence, Bbb23 has a history of accusing people of being socks with flimsy evidence, accused people of vandalism with edits that aren't vandalism, been stubborn about his blocks, and it could be argued that he has driven away people from the project. There's a lot of smoke here, and where there's smoke, there's fire. Like I said below, I don't know if I fully support a recall, but Bbb23 has exhibited way too many lapses in judgement to be let off with essentially a very hard smack on the wrist with a recall/desysop without addressing the fundamental behavioral issue here. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- "Where there's smoke, there's fire" is rather ironic when accusing Bbb23 of accusing people with flimsy evidence. NebY (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bbb23 isn't being accused of making a higher-than-normal amount of oopsie-daisy mistakes which he always apologizes for afterwards -- he's being accused of repeatedly issuing abusive blocks and then refusing to acknowledge them when confronted, time after time, over and over. If he can't be trusted to make good decisions or take accountability while using one tool, why would he be trusted with any of the others? —tonyst (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- "Nothing described here quite amounts to that yet." I think it has though. From Tamzin's and GreenLipstickLesbian's evidence, Bbb23 has a history of accusing people of being socks with flimsy evidence, accused people of vandalism with edits that aren't vandalism, been stubborn about his blocks, and it could be argued that he has driven away people from the project. There's a lot of smoke here, and where there's smoke, there's fire. Like I said below, I don't know if I fully support a recall, but Bbb23 has exhibited way too many lapses in judgement to be let off with essentially a very hard smack on the wrist with a recall/desysop without addressing the fundamental behavioral issue here. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest, then, a very specific warning that use of controversial blocks will lead to loss of the bit with which to make blocks. Nothing described here quite amounts to that yet. BD2412 T 20:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bbb was warned in many of these instances, through criticism by peers and through admins and ANI consensuses overruling his blocks. Bbb is clearly aware that having a block overruled reflects poorly on an admin; that's why he's complained about it in cases like [33] and [34]. He's been on notice for years—starting with ArbCom and OmbComm/Legal stripping him of CU/NDA access in 2020—that his attitude toward adminning was fundamentally unacceptable. His response has always been some combination of insisting he was right, saying no harm was done, or blowing off people who complained. I do commiserate with Bbb's unenviable position, presented with a litany of past violations of admin policies to answer to. But let's not pretend he's in that situation because no one ever told him he was making mistakes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bbb23, I hope you'll take the opportunity to respond here. To the other: Bbb is one of my oldest on-wiki friends so I'm as involved as can be. I value his contributions to our beautiful project and I'd hate to see it without him. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Why would he want to respond anyway? Frankly speaking, simply going offline and having a break from wikipedia is nothing new, lots of editors have done it. Bbb is just trying to do admin things, and every so often people get pissed off at admins. If anything admins are more under the microscope than anyone else. All this whipping of tails is doing no one any good and I can't believe how much of this topic I've read. This aggression towards Bbb23 is tantamount and the way I see it, it's somewhat bullying and we shouldn't have any form of bullying on wikipedia, yet I am seeing it right now. People need to cool down and leave each other alone. Govvy (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Govvy: Wikipedia:Communication is required. Worgisbor (congregate) 17:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:ADMINACCT ClifV (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Govvy: "People need to cool down and leave each other alone", that's the recipe for disaster. Admins are supposed to be accountable for their actions. Luis7M (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
we shouldn't have any form of bullying on wikipedia
is probably something that the editors blocked without warning or cause would have liked to hear us saying years ago. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)- Came to say exactly this. Apparently because he’s an admin he can’t be bullied but should be free to bully new/non-admin editors who had potential to be constructive editors all he wants, many of whom (as far as we know) just ran away and never came back. If he had cooled down and left these users alone, they may still be here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- At 2012-09-21T22:05:19, Bbb23 blocked my account for edit warring. It was a good block. I have not been blocked for edit warring since. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I still feel like we need to try a last bit of intervention before going to a recall. Something along the lines of "Hey Bbb23, looking at the AN thread, there is pretty widespread agreement that you're blocking too harshly, and a strong undercurrent of 'enough is enough'. I think if you don't dial it down quite a bit, a recall petition is likely gonna be started, and I'm fairly sure it would pass the threshold. Don't want to lose you as an admin". And then see what happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, please this. His commitment to protecting Wikipedia against vandals, socks, and other bad actors is unmatched. Losing him as an admin would be devastating for the project. If his approach needs to change, let’s work with him. This would be an ideal time for him to stop by and let us know he’s willing to listen and work towards a resolution. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam, the time to say that is now, if you'd be kind enough to post on Bbb23's talk page directly. This is the first 24hr period he's gone without any edits since at least mid-May (which is when I stopped looking, so the continuous activity may go back much further). He almost certainly knows this discussion is happening. He may not know you're trying to give him an offramp. -- asilvering (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I meant it more as a proposed closing summary of this thread, not as a threat to force him to come here. But sure, I'll say something on his talk page in case it helps. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't mean you should word it as a threat. I mean to say that the editors who have been pointing out that this might feel like it's all too much to look at right now, they certainly have a point, and it might be encouraging for him to know that there are people trying to offer him an exit that doesn't involve handing in the mop or getting blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- He should absolutely be given a chance to respond and to self-correct if possible. But the thread should not be closed until he does so, here, and people have a chance to respond to it. Otherwise it's kicking the can down the road and could easily be seen as doing so in the hopes it will go away. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- And ultimately he should be treated like any other editor. If any other editor had such a massive, repetitive problem with abusing new editors, even after being warned (the CU removal), they would be blocked until they communicated. If he does not return and explain himself here within a reasonable time frame (maybe a week at most), or if he continues to edit elsewhere before doing so, he should be indeffed until he does so. Otherwise, even if a RECALL is started and passes, he will just be able to return 3 months from now and continue abusing new editors with false and over-severe warnings. Just because he may not have the power to block them any longer does not mean he should be allowed to just shy away, lose the bit, and then come back later to repeat the behaviors involved. That's the meaning of the Super Mario effect and why I pointed it out above. Any other editor would've been blocked to prevent further abuse of new editors after this history of doing it to dozens of new editors. I can understand wanting to see what he does next, but if I had done even 10% of the things mentioned, I'd expect to be blocked for BITEy behavior until I explained myself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Did the CU removal expressly warn against excessive or aggressive blocks? BD2412 T 03:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- And ultimately he should be treated like any other editor. If any other editor had such a massive, repetitive problem with abusing new editors, even after being warned (the CU removal), they would be blocked until they communicated. If he does not return and explain himself here within a reasonable time frame (maybe a week at most), or if he continues to edit elsewhere before doing so, he should be indeffed until he does so. Otherwise, even if a RECALL is started and passes, he will just be able to return 3 months from now and continue abusing new editors with false and over-severe warnings. Just because he may not have the power to block them any longer does not mean he should be allowed to just shy away, lose the bit, and then come back later to repeat the behaviors involved. That's the meaning of the Super Mario effect and why I pointed it out above. Any other editor would've been blocked to prevent further abuse of new editors after this history of doing it to dozens of new editors. I can understand wanting to see what he does next, but if I had done even 10% of the things mentioned, I'd expect to be blocked for BITEy behavior until I explained myself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I meant it more as a proposed closing summary of this thread, not as a threat to force him to come here. But sure, I'll say something on his talk page in case it helps. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Looking over this thread, I think this is a great reminder to administrators to come up for air frequently. I think it's easy for admins to get really jaded if they constantly deal with socks and vandals so often. I'm not an admin here but I have been a moderator on forums in the past and sometimes you do get jaded from dealing with people, and so taking breaks is really beneficial. I think Bbb23 has dealt with so many socks/vandals that it's coloring his admining. Of course that doesn't excuse accusing people of being socks with flimsy evidence or accusing people of being vandals willy nilly or his stubbornness in regards to his blocks, but from a psychological point of view I get it. On the other hand however there's enough lapses in judgement here by Bbb23 that I think an explanation is due and a commitment to altering how he addresses people and his blocking habits. I don't know if I fully support a recall right now but I think Bbb23 is on the precipice of one if there's no commitment to altering his behavior. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I had enough abuse when I was an admin on a game and forums for Sierra Entertainment all those years ago, puts you off having to be an admin on social systems. So I can understand the strain around this situation, everyone makes mistakes and can be overhanded. I don't know how long I've been on wikipedia for, but I feel it's funny when people point me to wiki-templates and such these days. Maybe Bbb23 has gone for a long walk, but seeing people constantly post to his talk page, he would have been pinged enough, so to those editors that have. Maybe give it a break. Govvy (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I am aware of this thread. I haven't commented here because it looked to me like a negative outcome was all but certain. I am commenting now because some users on my Talk page have asked me to do so, either explicitly or implicitly stating that the outcome was not necessarily certain. In particular, Newyorkbrad said "And if you are taking a little time offline to gather your thoughts before responding, that is reasonable, but you should say so." That is what I will now do before responding more substantively.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- The actions of Bbb23 seem more like bullying to me. Brash blocks along with new editors who stopped editing following threats by Bbb23. By contrast, this thread is not bullying. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- With regret, I would support an admin recall petition. Before I begin, I do appreciate Bbb23 helping out with blocks when it comes to the matters of difficult/pervasive socking and LTA cases. However, Tamzin and GreenLipstickLesbian have presented some rather compelling evidence of Bbb23 using blocks in a punitive (rather than preventative) manner, and being especially harsh towards newcomers. This is not behaviour we should tolerate in an admin, and I agree with Berchanhimez' points that any other editor here would be blocked for doing the same thing or similar over a significant length of time. I found myself at the receiving end of a bit of a strange interaction with Bbb23 recently, for what it's worth; I recognise they were being polite to me (ie. they did say what I said was "really helpful", and they thanked me), but after I took the time to explain to someone why they were blocked and how they could stand a chance of being welcomed back into the community, I received a message from Bbb23, who was not the blocking admin, telling me that they would not ordinarily approve of a non-admin such as myself commenting on the User talk page of a blocked editor. Whilst the communication was otherwise very pleasant in tone, and I see that as an indication that Bbb23 and I are amicable with one another, I did feel it created an "us vs. them" effect, when my intent was purely to help out. In fact, I think it's the "us vs. them" effect that runs deep within this very admin accountability case - the idea that non-admins - especially newcomers, in this case - can be treated as less-than in some way, and thus be subject to harsher standards. Like I say, this is regrettable, and it saddens me to come here and say this. But this has been going on for far too long and something needs to be done, because otherwise it really does look like we are quietly tolerating newcomers being bitten, and driven away from the project, and quiet tolerance makes us part of the problem, whether we want to admit that or not. Patient Zerotalk 02:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you support an admin recall petition, why don't you start one and be the first signer? Are people here afraid to start an admin recall petition or something? Some1 (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Anyone could pose the same question to you, Some1. Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Did I say I support an admin recall petition in this case? Some1 (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is of importance that we also hear from Bbb23 on this matter and, given that they have already made clear that they need some time away to gather their thoughts in order to formulate a response, I am going to respect that. I do think it is probably best that we hear from them sooner rather than later, though. However, what I will say is that a lot of the evidence provided is somewhat historic (albeit relevant, as it highlights a chronic, intractable behaviour problem) and, whilst Bbb23 is away, we can be reassured that further blocks of this nature will not occur in that time period. I do think that this case needs dealing with promptly and should not be dragged out, but it is only fair to allow Bbb23 to be able to express their thoughts on this, without being overly hasty in responding, as that runs the risk of inadvertently coming across as brusque. Patient Zerotalk 03:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Did I say I support an admin recall petition in this case? Some1 (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Anyone could pose the same question to you, Some1. Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you support an admin recall petition, why don't you start one and be the first signer? Are people here afraid to start an admin recall petition or something? Some1 (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
| I blocked an extremely obvious sock here, which I believe falls under the "any reasonable administrator" exception to WP:INVOLVED. Another admin may wish to have a look at the IP; not sure what's going on there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Proposal: Bbb23 TBAN from making blocks
| No chance of passing, let's continue the above discussion instead. Fram (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Because of bad blocks, Bbb23 is banned from making blocks. This may be appealed in six months to the admin notice board. Bbb23 is admonished for inadequate and inappropriate responses to concerns raised.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2025 (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.
Bbb23 Unblocks-1
Status as of 13:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Unblocked (bold = edits since unblock!)
- New York Bred; ISAAC CARES; TheSeachwik; Royal Emperor Penguin; Tesfalem Atnafu; Moumitcob; Truthmattersalot (partially); Laurynswork (+ MeimeiV); Elephant7812; BlackTeishin; Greasy Sabotage; Tlochsta; Clutryna; Marcheserisassari; Azerbaijani guy
- Under discussion
- Barbiesdolls
- Consensus against unblocking
- none yet
- Not yet discussed
- quite a few
While the above plays out, it seems clear that there are outstanding blocks of Bbb's that do not have community consensus. I've gone ahead and unblocked New York Bred (talk · contribs), since there's an obvious good-faith explanation for that username that doesn't involve impersonating Newyorkbrad (viz.: being born and bred in New York) and no behavioral evidence of that intention; the "disruptive editing" appears to be routine newbie sourcing issues, which I've left the user a note about. (If anyone does disagree on that username determination, we do have a venue for borderline username disputes.)
I'm on the fence about whether to also unblock ISAAC CARES (talk · contribs): There's no username violation, and they had several hundred constructive edits, but they did have a few spammy drafts and they stopped responding in their unblock request. I still lean toward an unblock there, on the basis that they were insufficiently warned about promotional editing (the two pages that were G11'd were only tagged shortly before the block), and that users shouldn't be required to "earn" an unblock when the initial block was improper. Unblocking doesn't mean we can't counsel them on promotional editing or take action if there's future issues. But I'd like to hear others' opinions on that one.
Are there other blocks discussed above that would seem to merit sua sponte unblocks? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: Not sure about sua sponte, but I think the block on Moumitcob could use a second look, as well as TheSeachwik, both of such blocks have been brought up as examples of Bbb23's misuse of the block tool. As for ISAAC CARES, I don't necessarily see the account only being used for promotion, so I doubt there would be any harm from trying an unblock. Worst that happens is they come back, make more spam, and just confirm the merits of the block. EggRoll97 (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- In both of those cases there were communication issues that could arguably justify a p-block from mainspace or a "please communicate" indef-but-not-infinite-block. With Moumitcob, given the time elapsed, I'm inclined to treat that as moot; if that person really wants to edit, they're probably doing so under another account. With TheSeachwik, given that Ozzie10aaaa was able to polish several of their malformatted articles into publishable content, we have prima facie evidence that their edits contribute toward building the encyclopedia, just imperfectly. At the time of their final pre-block edit, the only communication they'd received was "please add reliable sources" AfC messages and "draft was accepted" ones in cases where Ozzie had fixed things up. So I think I'd favor an unblock with a note to them that they should stick to AfC until they're more familiar with how to write an article, and should go read Help:Wikitext. If they don't heed that, they can be p-blocked or siteblocked as necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to help with your guidance. (I think undoing Bbb23's bad blocks needs its own section. There are probably more than are listed here. And sua sponte works for me.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: Somehow, I failed to ping. ^^ -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's already its own subsection.
:)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to help with your guidance. (I think undoing Bbb23's bad blocks needs its own section. There are probably more than are listed here. And sua sponte works for me.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Tamzin, I think we should unblock Isaac. Better you than me, I think, since you're previously uninvolved. -- asilvering (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've unblocked with a warning about promotional editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- In both of those cases there were communication issues that could arguably justify a p-block from mainspace or a "please communicate" indef-but-not-infinite-block. With Moumitcob, given the time elapsed, I'm inclined to treat that as moot; if that person really wants to edit, they're probably doing so under another account. With TheSeachwik, given that Ozzie10aaaa was able to polish several of their malformatted articles into publishable content, we have prima facie evidence that their edits contribute toward building the encyclopedia, just imperfectly. At the time of their final pre-block edit, the only communication they'd received was "please add reliable sources" AfC messages and "draft was accepted" ones in cases where Ozzie had fixed things up. So I think I'd favor an unblock with a note to them that they should stick to AfC until they're more familiar with how to write an article, and should go read Help:Wikitext. If they don't heed that, they can be p-blocked or siteblocked as necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Clutryna. Jump to sockpuppetry then meatpuppetry was overly aggressive. Editor is forthcoming with information and involvement (reviewing admin turning the "aha! so you are guilty of COI!" when editor had plainly stated COI before aside). Seems like they would be receptive to correction of actual violations, if any, and a valuable contributor.
- Additionally, an editor created Mattu University (later deleted) and was forthcoming about both their involvement in the university and their unfamiliarity with editing the wiki. Was blocked by Bbb some ~5 months after their last edit. I am unable to find the editors handle/unblock request, but I believe you as an admin will be able to see who created the now deleted page. Editor would likewise be a valuable contributor. ClifV (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think we block editors five months post hoc. Are they worth unblocking now? Sometimes people do lose passwords and start new accounts with crossing i's and dotting t's. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- The first is in unblocks already. The second is not blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I should add: the second has never been blocked - so is it possible there's another article you're thinking of? -- asilvering (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'll spend more time tracking the second down and update if I find anything.
- As a longtime patron/connoisseur of Category:Requests for unblock, the majority of valid appeals there are only resolved when somebody outside the cage puts some attention on it. This is not a slight against you or any other admin. ClifV (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- The valid ones, unfortunately for the editors in question, take more time and effort to investigate, and are buried in a cascade of LLM garbage about being "committed to Wikipedia's key principles". Sorry to see yours was one of them. -- asilvering (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Page was Mettu* University, my apologies: Tesfalem Atnafu
- Last edit Oct 17, 2024, block on June 1, 2025, unblock request made and denied the same day ClifV (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, you've missed some details in this one - Bbb23's block comes after they created a new draft in their sandbox, which Bbb23 deleted by U5. -- asilvering (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, that one's cleaned up, and the sandbox restored to draftspace. -- asilvering (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, you've missed some details in this one - Bbb23's block comes after they created a new draft in their sandbox, which Bbb23 deleted by U5. -- asilvering (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I should add: the second has never been blocked - so is it possible there's another article you're thinking of? -- asilvering (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Some 8% of current requests in CAT:RFU are Bbb23 blocks, by the way. -- asilvering (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would be very careful about drawing quick conclusions about that figure. The most effective way to not generate any unblock request is to not block anyone ever. MarioGom (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Royal Emperor Penguin (talk · contribs) is a disappointing block, this was an editor trying to say that Hudson's Bay Company had closed (this has been updated and expanded since by other editors). Bbb23's response was to block first and not ask questions later. If I had looked at this, I would probably have found a source for the closure, expanded to the article myself, and told Royal Emporer Penguin to calm down a bit. I don't think this is egregious admin abuse, but it's not really optimum behaviour towards improving an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- That was declined twice. Do we want to unblock unconditionally or explain about reliable sources and verifiability first. TBH, I made some dicey edits without sources when I first started out. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm unblocking. That's nuts. -- asilvering (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I would like to see TheSeachwik (talk · contribs) block overturned. Calling someone not here to contribute with no prior warnings seems overly reactive (and many of the AfC drafts ended up being accepted, a clear evidence that the account is here to contribute). OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's ridiculous. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @WikiOriginal-9, just checking to see whether you think the block is ridiculous or my suggestion is ridiculous (I won't get offended if you think my unblock idea is ridiculous). OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- The block :) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @WikiOriginal-9, just checking to see whether you think the block is ridiculous or my suggestion is ridiculous (I won't get offended if you think my unblock idea is ridiculous). OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- All yours, @OhanaUnited. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: hello again, latin-speaking lady. Bbb23 blocked my old acount User:Clenixon just six days prior to the 2022 FIFA World Cup final, so I was wondering if I can have it back now? Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-Asilvering comment) @Luis7M: I agree that that wasn't a great block; Bbb's tendency toward first-offense indefs for even marginal sockpuppetry cases is an angle we didn't get into above, but was also a problem. However, for better or for worse, you were unblocked with a 1-account restriction, so if you would like to resume using Clenixon as a disclosed alternate account, you will need to either get permission from the unblocking admin (Seraphimblade), or appeal here at AN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, what do you think of this, @Seraphimblade:? Can I resume using Clenixon as a disclosed alternate account, as per @Tamzin: above. As you know, my original case of sockpuppetry was purely aesthetic and never ill-intended, and it would continue to be so, but this time as a disclosed alternate account. Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "purely aesthetic"? -- asilvering (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: I mean this and this. Please tell me if those aren't the contribs page with the most unique timestamp columns that you have ever seen? And both of them lasted for a full month!! Not as impressive as speaking Latin, but still pretty cool, right? Luis7M (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Luis7M: So, let me get this straight... you sockpuppeteered for the timestamp columns? Worgisbor (congregate) 19:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Worgisbor: Precisely!! And if you take a closer look, you will notice that these "creative streaks" are always made in pairs, often with alphabetic connections or simple name similarities. It's not my fault that I'm obsessed with symmetry and shit... Luis7M (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Luis7M I'm speechless. But also, I think you'd really like Latin. -- asilvering (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: Of course you are speechless! My timestamp columns are simply breathtaking! (especially the one from March). No one will ever be able to match these timestamp columns. No one!! Vitam mihi acquirere necesse est. Luis7M (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Luis7M: You know what? Fair. Worgisbor (congregate) 19:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Luis7M I'm speechless. But also, I think you'd really like Latin. -- asilvering (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Worgisbor: Precisely!! And if you take a closer look, you will notice that these "creative streaks" are always made in pairs, often with alphabetic connections or simple name similarities. It's not my fault that I'm obsessed with symmetry and shit... Luis7M (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Luis7M: So, let me get this straight... you sockpuppeteered for the timestamp columns? Worgisbor (congregate) 19:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: I mean this and this. Please tell me if those aren't the contribs page with the most unique timestamp columns that you have ever seen? And both of them lasted for a full month!! Not as impressive as speaking Latin, but still pretty cool, right? Luis7M (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Luis7M: Given the situation and circumstances, I think you should either be editing under Clenixon or under Luis7M, with the other blocked. Given that you have participated the most as Luis7M, my recommendation would be to continue to only use Luis7M. If you prefer the name Clenixon, then maybe there can be an account rename done in a way that works. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
- @Asilvering: and @Tamzin:, I would like to persevere this conversation in my own talk page. Given that you are admins, I assume you can help me in how to do it. Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Luis7M, what you need to try first is contact the admin who set your one-account restriction. -- asilvering (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: yes, but is there any way that I can copy and paste this conversation into my own talk page, so that I can preserve it. Otherwise, it will get lost in the many archives of admin discussions. Not so much for the unblock request, but more because of this funny benter about my time columns. Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Edit source --> highlight text --> ctrl/cmd+c; start new user talk subpage --> ctrl/cmd+v --> publish with edit summary that links back to the original page. Same way the grey-haired among us used to archive their talk pages. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: yes, but is there any way that I can copy and paste this conversation into my own talk page, so that I can preserve it. Otherwise, it will get lost in the many archives of admin discussions. Not so much for the unblock request, but more because of this funny benter about my time columns. Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Luis7M, what you need to try first is contact the admin who set your one-account restriction. -- asilvering (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: and @Tamzin:, I would like to persevere this conversation in my own talk page. Given that you are admins, I assume you can help me in how to do it. Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "purely aesthetic"? -- asilvering (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, what do you think of this, @Seraphimblade:? Can I resume using Clenixon as a disclosed alternate account, as per @Tamzin: above. As you know, my original case of sockpuppetry was purely aesthetic and never ill-intended, and it would continue to be so, but this time as a disclosed alternate account. Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-Asilvering comment) @Luis7M: I agree that that wasn't a great block; Bbb's tendency toward first-offense indefs for even marginal sockpuppetry cases is an angle we didn't get into above, but was also a problem. However, for better or for worse, you were unblocked with a 1-account restriction, so if you would like to resume using Clenixon as a disclosed alternate account, you will need to either get permission from the unblocking admin (Seraphimblade), or appeal here at AN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: hello again, latin-speaking lady. Bbb23 blocked my old acount User:Clenixon just six days prior to the 2022 FIFA World Cup final, so I was wondering if I can have it back now? Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
It's not just the bad blocks, the unblock declines are also probably worth reviewing. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I guess I can unblock TheSeachwik -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Went for lunch and came back to see your unblock already. I do hope the editor comes back. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I've been out to lunch for a long time. You're welcome. My pleasure. I got to take part in the Great Work. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Levivich:! Good to see you. Not, I think, if they did not address the reasons for the block in the unblock. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I've been out to lunch for a long time. You're welcome. My pleasure. I got to take part in the Great Work. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Went for lunch and came back to see your unblock already. I do hope the editor comes back. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Truthmattersalot (talk · contribs) Since when did we block indefinitely for a single edit-warring transgression? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Have they any idea what to do instead? Would a partial block serve as well? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- They got a real problem with Marthe Cohn and the user name suggests they are on a mission. I can see down grading to a partial block with maybe a CTOP notice for Blp's or a TBAN for them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- A 48/72 hour partial block from Marthe Cohn and an explanation of WP:BLPSOURCES (which AFAIK was never mentioned by Bbb23, just "disruptive edits") would have sufficed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- They got a real problem with Marthe Cohn and the user name suggests they are on a mission. I can see down grading to a partial block with maybe a CTOP notice for Blp's or a TBAN for them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't like that as an edit-warring block, but as a BLP (BDP) block I'm okay with it. The user's only purpose on Wikipedia was to add negative, unsourced, editorialized content about a recently deceased person, and they edit-warred to keep it in. I'd be fine downgrading to a p-block if they request an unblock, but on this one I actually do think the block was within discretion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Concur. Wikipedia is a crazy place. We NOTHERE block someone struggling with article creation and block for EDITWARring someone who is clearly NOTHERE. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Aslivering: I looked at some of Bbb23's blocks at CAT:UNBLOCK and could not bring myself to unblock. I'll leave those for you and Tamzin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: humbug. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Likewise, I spot checked the last 100 blocks by Bbb23, and the overwhelming majority were good blocks, leaving us with marginal cases like this one, which is more criticising the semantics of the block type and reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I could convert Truthmattersalot to a partial block and leave her some sort of welcome or warning about unsourced edits. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good course of action. I've reduced the block to just Marthe Cohn (but still indefinite) and written to them about BLP concerns. Edit : I notice you also wrote something as well Deepfriedokra, missed that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yours is better. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good course of action. I've reduced the block to just Marthe Cohn (but still indefinite) and written to them about BLP concerns. Edit : I notice you also wrote something as well Deepfriedokra, missed that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I could convert Truthmattersalot to a partial block and leave her some sort of welcome or warning about unsourced edits. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Aslivering: I looked at some of Bbb23's blocks at CAT:UNBLOCK and could not bring myself to unblock. I'll leave those for you and Tamzin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Concur. Wikipedia is a crazy place. We NOTHERE block someone struggling with article creation and block for EDITWARring someone who is clearly NOTHERE. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Moumitcob (talk · contribs) got a no-warning NOTHERE indef block despite creating a valid page and removing wrong info. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- imo with ones that are that old, and not a long contribution history, no point in unblocking, but maybe we should leave a comment on the talk page saying they're welcome to create a new account and start over if they want (and that if they already have created a new account, to just stay quiet about it and we'll leave well enough alone). -- asilvering (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to unblock and mention the option of WP:CLEANSTART. If they opt to continue with their old account, that's an option. If they choose to clean start and use their new account, that's their choice. We shouldn't steer them towards a single pathway. They should have the autonomy to make an informed decision. Old blocks shouldn't be a determination factor because there's no demonstrated harm to unblock and AGF guides us towards unblock over remain blocked. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- By all means. -- asilvering (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've unblocked, with a note they can resume editing on this account or another. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- You rock -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Is anyone emailing the newly unblocked accounts? In case they don't check back here, or haven't got talk page email alerts set up? Joyous! Noise! 23:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I might have forgotten to check one, but I did check at least some and they didn't have email enabled. Anyone who has an attached email ought to be emailed, I'd say. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've unblocked, with a note they can resume editing on this account or another. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- By all means. -- asilvering (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to unblock and mention the option of WP:CLEANSTART. If they opt to continue with their old account, that's an option. If they choose to clean start and use their new account, that's their choice. We shouldn't steer them towards a single pathway. They should have the autonomy to make an informed decision. Old blocks shouldn't be a determination factor because there's no demonstrated harm to unblock and AGF guides us towards unblock over remain blocked. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support unblock. A poor block made years ago is still a poor block. If they've left Wikipedia because of the block, perhaps an unblock and an admission that there was a terrible mistake would encourage them to return. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I see no reason not to. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Off topic continued elsewhere
|
|---|
|
I don't know who's maintaining the counter at the top, but: listing Royal Emperor Penguin as "edits since unblock" is true in only the most technical of senses, as they've edited precisely enough to vanish and the renamed account is globally locked, and Truthmattersalot is listed as having made edits but that doesn't seem to be true. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Bbb23 Unblocks-2
- If there are many more, perhaps we could invite @JBW: to participate.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, of the blocks that were in my and GLL's evidence, I think there's only one set that haven't been reviewed yet, the three people I was tempted to unblock in User talk:Bbb23/Archive 56 § Draft:Rick Roll Land blocks but didn't feel confident enough to as a brand-new admin:
- In my view all of this amounts to repeating a hoax/joke video's claims, ones that were repeated in the Daily Star (not an RS, but often mistaken for one). The kind of edits that could be a good-faith error, or could be deliberate hoaxing, but we'll never know because no one was warned. We assume good faith, though, and it's not meatpuppetry to collaboratively write about something you were misled into believing is real. Greasy Sabotage has a malformed unblock request from 8 months after my conversation with Bbb, in which they say they never socked. Given the direction we're going of unblocking even inactive accounts to avoid a situation where it's socking for them to CLEANSTART, I am inclined to unblock all 3, but especially Greasy Sabotage, who plausibly might still be waiting on that request to be answered. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Other admins may also want to peruse Special:Undelete/Draft:Rick Roll Land. There's some accounts in there I haven't listed, but it's kind of diminishing returns along the gradient from "plausibly good-faith" to "trolling/CIR". I'm not necessarily opposed to unblocking others but won't lose sleep over those blocks standing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- For those three, meat puppetry is certainly a reasonable interpretation. It would probably do no harm to unblock them, but would probably be to no purpose. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is similar to the Ironland situation below, where it wasn't so much meatpuppetry, as a bunch of people being spurred to the same draft by social media, probably a post on Reddit or Discord. The sort of situation that illustrates why we draw a distinction between good-faith contributions and good contributions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Unblocked all three. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- For those three, meat puppetry is certainly a reasonable interpretation. It would probably do no harm to unblock them, but would probably be to no purpose. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I didn't end up including these in my evidence, but I'd appreciate it if somebody with viewdelete could take a look at these two:
- Laurynswork was an account created in 2019, they look like they tried a draft but it fell prey to G13. Last fall, they created a school account, MeimeiV and tried to write an article for a class project. (When will instructors learn that poorly thought through assignments never work well?) They logged in at home and inadvertently logged onto the old Lauryns account. After being told by Bbb23 that having two accounts wasn't allowed, they explained themselves, apologized and offered to delete one of the accounts - but he blocked them for sockpuppetry anyway. AFAICT there was no deception or evasion of scrutiny.
- Elephant7812 - Last summer a very popular Youtuber created a micronation called Ironland, a bunch of people in god faith tried to create an article on it, AfC gets overwhelmed, yada yada everybody who so much as touches the draft/articles gets blocked as a sock. Most didn't bother appealing or making edits in other topic areas, so meh. Elephant7812, however, only made one edit to an Ironland draft/article, but their other edit was fully constructive: they added a sourced update to an article about a bridge. [40]. I can't see their deleted edit, of course, and I get a bunch of new accounts can be hard to deal with, but a no-warning sock block on a constructive editor for being interested in a very popular pop culture thing like overkill. One of the other Ironland blocks has already been overtured, btw. (see User talk:Zheeeh).
Obviously I can't see the deleted edits in either case. So if they're sufficiently terrible so as to merit a no warning indef, then ah well. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Unblocked and apologised to Lauren. Any more to look at? Secretlondon (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- May I request unblocking of Laurynswork's account made for the educational assignment, MeimeiV, or at least a note on their talk page and removal of the badge of shame on their user page? I wonder what happened with the assignment they were trying to do. (I assume there's a deleted draft.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Deleted sandbox. It's of a starlet, I can undelete it but haven't looked at notability etc. A lot of the references are primary, but it looks better than many, and was in the queue for AFC before it got deleted. Secretlondon (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the prior talk page discussion, Brooke Butler appears to have been the article in question? Was the draft an attempted expansion of the existing article? SilverserenC 22:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's a longer, but completely different article as far as I can see Secretlondon (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've unblocked the account and told Lauren she can use either, and pointed her toward WP:LEGITSOCK in the event she'd like to use both (if she does return). I've also deleted the sock tags and category as an SPI clerk action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Tamzin. Silver seren, a different Brooke Butler; see this version of User talk:MeimeiV: "The article I wrote was about singer and actress Brooke Butler who also goes by the name "Brooke Elizabeth Butler" (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8972720/)." I obviously can't see the sandbox draft, and am a poor judge of notability of performers, but if the person is notable enough for an article, I hope the block didn't cause the editor to fail their course. :-( It doesn't appear to have been a WikiEd course, or I'd expect there to have been a template in their user space and a protest from their instructor. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, (Ironland related), I'd love it if somebody could see whether or not Azerbaijani guy's deleted edits were awful or not. They've made a few seemingly constructive edits to Azerbaijani village articles, both here (at Kövlüc) and on azWiki. Their edits aren't sourced, mind you, but a quick look at the village on Google maps [41] seems to support their claim that it has four people. And I'd really hate to chase off a potentially constructive editor who can speak Azerbaijani, Russian, and Turkish. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I've been able to source their claim. I don't speak Azerbaijani so I'm not adding it without confirmation from a competent speaker of the language, but according to a google translate this village does appear to have four people[42] and is one of the smallest villages in Azerbaijan. So Muhammad's edit that I can see was fully constructive, even if they (like most newbies) need to be told to cite sources. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Azerbaijani guy appears to have been one of the "everyone who edits Draft:Ironland is a sock" blocks. I've unblocked them. We might want to consider unblocking the other members of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Purple---salamander12 since they appear to (a) all have been "Ironland blocks" and (b) blocked for no other reason. (Except perhaps for "Bot910-official" who would need converting to a username soft block?) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I've been able to source their claim. I don't speak Azerbaijani so I'm not adding it without confirmation from a competent speaker of the language, but according to a google translate this village does appear to have four people[42] and is one of the smallest villages in Azerbaijan. So Muhammad's edit that I can see was fully constructive, even if they (like most newbies) need to be told to cite sources. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the prior talk page discussion, Brooke Butler appears to have been the article in question? Was the draft an attempted expansion of the existing article? SilverserenC 22:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
| Distraction. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Elephant is fine and I'm happy to unblock, although they were blocked in 2024 and probably won't come back. Secretlondon (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've unblocked elephant and invited them to return to the project. Secretlondon (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Just a recreation of the page, block not warranted. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I am mostly offline today (Saturday), but I expect to have some time available tomorrow. If any of these blocks for review are pending then, I should be able to pitch in then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Far be it from me to be pessimistic, but a lot of these unblocks just feel like too little too late. I do not see these editors returning to the project, both because of the fact that so many years have passed, and because of the negative way that they were treated when they were merely contributing in good faith. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I can't help but think something should've been done about this far sooner. I'll echo what I said in the previous thread about this - it feels like we've created a culture of quiet tolerance towards this - and I'll admit, I feel guilty for not raising my concerns in the past when I've seen them be a bit too quick to block, or rushing to indef, especially having seen the way previous concerns about them have been dismissed (therefore being reluctant to be seen as trying to cause a huge stir). We already have an issue with underrepresentation of editors belonging to protected or minority groups, and this cannot have helped. It just makes me feel rather sad, to be frank. Patient Zerotalk 00:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've had one positive outcome, Truthmattersalot has replied to my and Deepfriedokra's explanation of BLP, and thanks us for explaining things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- That’s good at least, but one of many… I still don’t like those odds. The fact of the matter stil remains that people have been driven away by this conduct. Patient Zerotalk 14:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, hence the desysop. I hear you about too little too late, but better late than never. If you notice some more bad or questionable blocks in Bbb23's block log, please bring them up here. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Will do, Asilvering. I was meaning to bring the discussion here that was hatted, but I think that the 30-day wait period should not have applied here considering the severity of the issue - I appreciate that Bbb23 is very unlikely to return at all now, let alone return to make any questionable blocks, within that time period, but it just seems as though there is an element of risk involved. I appreciate Arbcom can make "immediate" desysop decisions, but even then that tends to be only after it is decided there is a case to answer. Once again (and I hate to repeat myself, as it feels like I'm labouring the point a little...!), I feel like something like this could easily happen again unless we address the deeper issue, which is one of a created atmosphere and culture. Is there anywhere where the recall procedure can be discussed? Apologies, I have never participated in an admin recall petition before, and was intending to participate this time around, but it closed before I was online. Patient Zerotalk 21:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Patient Zero, recall can be discussed at WT:RECALL. fwiw, I don't think Bbb23 retaining the tools for the allowable period is a risk. -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's fair Asilvering (and I do agree with you with regard to Bbb23 in particular, for what it is worth), and I thank you for directing me to the right ___location to discuss this matter. Patient Zerotalk 22:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Patient Zero, recall can be discussed at WT:RECALL. fwiw, I don't think Bbb23 retaining the tools for the allowable period is a risk. -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Will do, Asilvering. I was meaning to bring the discussion here that was hatted, but I think that the 30-day wait period should not have applied here considering the severity of the issue - I appreciate that Bbb23 is very unlikely to return at all now, let alone return to make any questionable blocks, within that time period, but it just seems as though there is an element of risk involved. I appreciate Arbcom can make "immediate" desysop decisions, but even then that tends to be only after it is decided there is a case to answer. Once again (and I hate to repeat myself, as it feels like I'm labouring the point a little...!), I feel like something like this could easily happen again unless we address the deeper issue, which is one of a created atmosphere and culture. Is there anywhere where the recall procedure can be discussed? Apologies, I have never participated in an admin recall petition before, and was intending to participate this time around, but it closed before I was online. Patient Zerotalk 21:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Just have to hope that others will return in the future. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Patient Zero, never fear Elephant7812's back and making more constructive edits and talkpage comments on the bridge article! Thank you so much @Secretlondon for going to the effort to unblock them, and thank you as well to all the other admins who have been going through and doing similar things. Reckon you lot could do with a moral booster, and hopefully this will do. (And @ScottishFinnishRadish, re: our ongoing conversation: this is why it's worth it) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- +1 to this. I know I haven't contributed much here (many hands already on it, so not wanting to step on them, plus my spoons have been occupied elsewhere on-Wiki and off), but I do want to let everyone here know that your efforts are absolutely appreciated. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is great to hear GreenLipstickLesbian. I apologise if I came across as too negative - I certainly don’t want to undermine anyone’s efforts here. Patient Zerotalk 23:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- +1 to this. I know I haven't contributed much here (many hands already on it, so not wanting to step on them, plus my spoons have been occupied elsewhere on-Wiki and off), but I do want to let everyone here know that your efforts are absolutely appreciated. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, hence the desysop. I hear you about too little too late, but better late than never. If you notice some more bad or questionable blocks in Bbb23's block log, please bring them up here. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- That’s good at least, but one of many… I still don’t like those odds. The fact of the matter stil remains that people have been driven away by this conduct. Patient Zerotalk 14:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've had one positive outcome, Truthmattersalot has replied to my and Deepfriedokra's explanation of BLP, and thanks us for explaining things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Far be it from me to be pessimistic, but a lot of these unblocks just feel like too little too late. I do not see these editors returning to the project, both because of the fact that so many years have passed, and because of the negative way that they were treated when they were merely contributing in good faith. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I can't help but think something should've been done about this far sooner. I'll echo what I said in the previous thread about this - it feels like we've created a culture of quiet tolerance towards this - and I'll admit, I feel guilty for not raising my concerns in the past when I've seen them be a bit too quick to block, or rushing to indef, especially having seen the way previous concerns about them have been dismissed (therefore being reluctant to be seen as trying to cause a huge stir). We already have an issue with underrepresentation of editors belonging to protected or minority groups, and this cannot have helped. It just makes me feel rather sad, to be frank. Patient Zerotalk 00:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Barbiesdolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) No live edits, only edits are test edits to a sandbox. Was tagged WP:U5 in November 2024, but declined by Vanamonde93. Blocked indef by Bbb23 last month as WP:NOTHERE, sandbox deleted per WP:U5. No warnings, no taggings, no communication, just block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Any objections to me unblocking? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's an entire edit history of edits only to a sandbox. I wouldn't have blocked, but now that it's been done I'm too ambivalent about it to unblock myself. I don't object, though. -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Should this go into the Consensus against unblocking section? Barbiesdolls seems to be the last user whose block is under review. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Er, pinging Ritchie333 and Asilvering. Since I should have done that to being with. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I'll leave it up to Ritchie. -- asilvering (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm ambivalent about unblocking myself, but don't mind if anyone wants to unblock. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I'll leave it up to Ritchie. -- asilvering (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Er, pinging Ritchie333 and Asilvering. Since I should have done that to being with. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at the edits to the sandbox, all of it seems to just be fan-fiction, hence eligible for U5. Blocking without any manual communication to explain to the user why their edits are problematic seems to me a bit harsh, especially considering the user at least stayed in their own sandbox rather than trying to add it to mainspace. However, I wouldn't really call this a "bad block" as we do NOTHERE block people who spend all of their time using their own userspace for stuff that should go on Fandom; I probably blocked a few such users myself. WP:NOTHERE lists "Editing only in user or draft space" as a trait of NOTHERE editing (context matters; in this case the user evidently wasn't creating any actual article content suitable for Wikipedia). I wouldn't object to unblocking, but compared to the other blocks raised here this probably leans more towards—if not "valid"—at least "acceptable" territory. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with having it status quo. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Any objections to me unblocking? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Marcheserisassari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Tried to add a non-notable restaurant, confused about how Wikipedia works. Their plea for help was reverted by Bbb23 who then indef blocked them per WP:CIR. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that this editor might be headed for a WP:CIR block, but they hardly got a chance either way. I'll unblock. -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- On a somewhat related note, here Bbb23 unilaterally deleted a user talk subpage with >1200 revisions against WP:DELTALK, citing that the user was inactive since 2022, even though the talk page's history dated back to 2010. This deletion was subsequently overturned by another admin. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:EAE7:F9A3:95C1:FDBF (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- And that editor continued to edit in Commons in 2023 (and once more in 2024). Not sure why a page protection request turned into a page deletion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
331dot and Unblock requests
Since you brought up User talk:Zheeeh, GreenLipstickLesbian, I've noticed something that I feel like I remember coming up in these discussions prior with other recalled admins who did many terrible blocks. Ie the editors who requested unblocks from those events frequently had them denied by 331dot, who upheld the original (terrible as in this case) block decisions. They seem to have a pretty bad record when it comes to responding to unblock requests. SilverserenC 19:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to be a bit kinder on 331dot than I suspect he thinks I will be - when he was a much newer admin, he made the mistake of unblocking an account without Bbb23's express permission - and Bbb23 responded by very strongly implying that 331dot was not allowed to do that. Part of me wants to chalk that up to a misunderstanding, but when another admin asked why Bbb23 was telling 331 that he couldn't unblock accounts he controlled, Bbb responded by saying
"controls" is a funny word
. Hence, last fall, 331dot embarrassing himself by misapplying policy[43] when he was getting brought up for poor unblock request declines. I haven't kept an eye on the situation since, but he did go ahead an unblock the photographer the other week. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC) (note: added a missing word after Silver Seren responded GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC))- Ah, that was the AN case I thought I was remembering. I hope at this point that if they're going to be dealing with unblock requests in the future, that they consider more directly any that they would be denying. Because there is absolutely no reason to automatically believe that the blocking admin did the block for the right reasons. SilverserenC 19:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- (ec) I overturned Bbb's block of DavidPMaynard which was clearly inappropriate. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I just realized that's what you were referring to, apologies. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Please clarify your statement that I have a "pretty bad record when it comes to responding to unblock requests". 331dot (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think you have a tendency to just accept the rationale given by the blocking admin without actual scrutiny of the reason given. This seems especially obvious in cases of admins who made blatantly inappropriate blocks, which has come up multiple times on this very board before. GreenLipstickLesbian already linked one past discussion from 6 months ago related to that very conduct. SilverserenC 19:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I am sorry that you are dissatisfied with my record; I work to improve every single day. As I noted above, I overturned one of Bbb's blocks that was clearly inappropriate. I give every reason scrutiny and do not accept those sort of things blindly on faith but I do assume good faith and start from the premise that the blocking admin had a good reason absent evidence they didn't. You can disagree with my methods or my results in good faith as well. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you are concerned about a particular action I make, please discuss it with me. My talk page is open. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've had absolutely no problems with you in the spam blocking/unblocking space we both work in.Secretlondon (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think you have a tendency to just accept the rationale given by the blocking admin without actual scrutiny of the reason given. This seems especially obvious in cases of admins who made blatantly inappropriate blocks, which has come up multiple times on this very board before. GreenLipstickLesbian already linked one past discussion from 6 months ago related to that very conduct. SilverserenC 19:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I was deeply dischuffed with 331dot's extremely fast response to my unblock request. Tewdar 20:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm also going to show 331dot some kindness here; I think this speaks more to the culture that has been created by all of this, than any reflection on him and his accountability as an administrator. We are talking here about an administrator who, if they were the blocking admin, would show contempt if they were not consulted before an unblock, as though they owned the rights to it - and that creates serious issues with communication due to creating a reluctance to speak up - thus the cycle continues. Patient Zerotalk 00:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think they are owed kindness, sure, but we shouldn't gloss over Tewdar's unblock request being declined by 331dot after 3 minutes, over the term "legacy admin", where the unblock request states and I quote,
There was no 'personal attack', and certainly not on user Pepperbeast. (2) A block for merely using the term 'legacy admin' seems disproportionate and unreasonable. But, I will be sure to avoid this term in the future if it is considered offensive.
To which 331dot's response was,As you admit you intended the term to be disparaging, it is a personal attack.
The block itself was later taken to XRV and the consensus there was that the block was inappropriate. I don't think this instance is really too bad in and of itself, but I would generally expect admins to push back when they see a comment that clearly isn't a personal attack and has been used over every noticeboard and, as was pointed out on Tewdar's talk page, in ArbCom cases. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)- You’re absolutely right, EggRoll97 - I certainly don’t intend to gloss over the severity of what has emerged. I do find it particularly interesting that the term “legacy admin” was deemed to be an NPA violation where it clearly was not, and once again I would consider this an indicator of a mentality where some admins are seen to have more authority than others on the matter of blocks (excluding things like ArbCom/CU/OS/WMF blocks here) thus creating an us vs. them effect which results in the slightest challenges to said decisions being met with contempt (so people keep quiet, which then fuels the culture of quiet tolerance). Perhaps 331dot was led to this thought process (and subsequent hasty reactions to unblock requests) due to Bbb23’s strong reaction to him unblocking one of “their own blocked users” - and if that’s the case, then I can somewhat understand, hence my showing kindness and empathy towards him here. I note Bbb23 was not the blocking admin in Tewdar’s case, but to give you an example of what I mean by “seen to have more authority”, where Bbb23 has blocked certain editors in the past, they have demonstrated frustration when the blocks are overturned without them receiving prior notice. I think all of this is an indicator of a cultural problem within the project that we could all do well to tackle (and thankfully, I think this is the first step). Patient Zerotalk 04:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think they are owed kindness, sure, but we shouldn't gloss over Tewdar's unblock request being declined by 331dot after 3 minutes, over the term "legacy admin", where the unblock request states and I quote,
- I'm also going to show 331dot some kindness here; I think this speaks more to the culture that has been created by all of this, than any reflection on him and his accountability as an administrator. We are talking here about an administrator who, if they were the blocking admin, would show contempt if they were not consulted before an unblock, as though they owned the rights to it - and that creates serious issues with communication due to creating a reluctance to speak up - thus the cycle continues. Patient Zerotalk 00:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- The concern here is legitimate, and there are certainly unblock responses that I'm not a fan of. However the sample is not representative, and there's a broader picture to consider.
- Long story short, the unblock process has issues of a systemic nature I believe that has been discussed at length in the recent past. It's never really worked all that well, they are not easy for inexperienced editors to write and navigating follow up tends to be even more difficult for them. For responding sysops they aren't any fun to address and often involve considerable time and tedium which in turn leads to the area being perennially understaffed further compounding the issue. Community expectations can be unclear, meaning you risk having someone yell at you regardless of what you do, and let's face it, some cases will depend more on external social dynamics than the merits of the unblock request itself.
- Anyway it seems rather unfair to put a spotlight on anyone over this, especially without discussing on a user talk page first even though I can understand why this was brought up and sympathize with the concerns that prompted it. There is certainly plenty of room for discussion, whether with individuals, or as a group to try and improve things going forward. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- On the "not easy for inexperienced editors to write" bit, there's been some work on two different kinds of technical solutions by @Chaotic Enby and @L235. -- asilvering (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- My solution is User:Chaotic Enby/Unblock wizard, a step-by-step unblock wizard to help new editors who might not know what is expected of them. I should really go back to polishing it, I got some feedback a little while ago and it should be quite feasible to implement it. (Also, it is currently only functional if you install the .js script that goes with it, it would need an IA to work all the time) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer, I'll be sure to take a look at some point when I have time. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Chaotic Enby: This wizard would be an MVP move!! Most of the admins who work in the "unblocking area" are simply too jaded and burned-out to explain a noobie how to properly fill an unblock request. These admins typically send a two-paragraph robotic explanation that the noobies are too noob to understand and follow, so this wizard would certainly be a game-changer. Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- My solution is User:Chaotic Enby/Unblock wizard, a step-by-step unblock wizard to help new editors who might not know what is expected of them. I should really go back to polishing it, I got some feedback a little while ago and it should be quite feasible to implement it. (Also, it is currently only functional if you install the .js script that goes with it, it would need an IA to work all the time) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- On the "not easy for inexperienced editors to write" bit, there's been some work on two different kinds of technical solutions by @Chaotic Enby and @L235. -- asilvering (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- When I worked on unblock requests I was left with a generally positive impression of 331dot's responses to unblock requests. There has to be something that would suggest a pattern of bad reviews and 331dot not improving with people giving them feedback that would lead me to think otherwise. dbeef [talk] 16:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I do think 331dot is excessively harsh on some editors blocked for promo, such as at User talk:EnergyLightArt, which I just overturned. In 331dot's defence, they handle a lot of spam cases, at unblocks and AFC, and I don't have the patience for that myself. In general, although I know we're all volunteers and we can't make rules about how admins need to work at unblocks sometimes, I think anyone who blocks editors ought to be helping with this backlog regularly. The alternative, which is the present status quo, is that the admins who do work there are subject to burnout and having to work through too many cases too quickly. I think we should be kinder, more patient, and even more lenient with blocked editors basically across the board. For that to happen, we need more admins to step up. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- +1 - you have worded this in a far better way than I ever could. I think it is a mixture of burnout and a fear of overturning decisions made by people who are seen to have a higher authority where that may not be strictly true from a userright point of view. Patient Zerotalk 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- From a userright pov, no indeed. From a "how much blowback am I willing to tank" pov, certainly. -- asilvering (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- RFU is the one area where sysops are continually requested to reverse another sysops use of the tools; any analysis that fails to take that into account is going to be flawed. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- From a userright pov, no indeed. From a "how much blowback am I willing to tank" pov, certainly. -- asilvering (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- +1 to this as well. Unblock requests are a place where a range of different perspectives is implicitly necessary, otherwise there'll be a lot of the same people working the backlog. I think it doesn't necessarily help that it's all admins in the unblock backlog, and there's not much to really encourage non-admins to say anything about requests (which would expand the perspectives being offered on an unblock request, and I think would give a reviewing admin more of a support in being willing to say that a block doesn't seem necessary anymore if there's someone else speaking up to that effect as well), despite that at my own RfA I was told (in part)
given that non-admins are welcome to help--they just can't make any final decisions
. This doesn't, however, seem to be an established and accepted practice for non-admins to chime in, considering nothing is said at CAT:RFU and chiming in comes with the worry of one's input being ignored and having wasted ones time. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)- @EggRoll97: "I think it doesn't necessarily help that it's all admins in the unblock backlog", 100% agree, and the worst part is that all of these unblock requests are usually always reviewed by the same 3-5 admins, who thus grow jaded and burn-out.
- The participation of non-admins should definitely be encouraged. For instance, I am not an admin, and yet, in the last three days alone, I played a crucial role in unblocking THREE users: Sinead RAU, Criticalthinkinghorse, and Nikolasmichos. I mean, that's insane. And all of these three requests were from over a month ago (5-6 May), and in each case, all I had to do was to simply alert an admin that they were already good to go. That simple. It's unbelievable that they had to wait so long, and even more unbelievable that their wait only came to an end because of me, a non-admin. Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think a lot of it comes down to there being a lot more editors than there are admins. It's a lack of people with the tools to unblock, and while that can be fixed in the short term by non-admins finding an admin willing to be pestered to make an unblock, I think a lot of the value of having non-admins in the unblock areas can come from someone being able to do all the legwork to get the unblock ready to go. For example, User_talk:DogeGamer2015MZT#March_2025 has gone through three admins now, and only one declining admin has provided a link to relevant policy for the editor to review. Sometimes, I think, a blocked editor does very much need that little push towards reading the proper PAGs, because a lot of them don't necessarily understand that unblock requests aren't a "I've been blocked 3 months, and now I should be unblocked", but rather a "I've been blocked for 7 days, and that has given me time to review the relevant policies and understand how to prevent my behavior in the future". I don't think admins necessarily always have time to explain that to a blocked editor, and that's why I say that different perspectives are needed in the unblock backlog. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- @EggRoll97: That's exactly my point. The admins are too jaded and burned-out to take the time to explain noobies how to properly fill an unblock request. And when they do, it is typically a two-paragraph robotic explanation that the noobies are too noob to understand and follow. Luis7M (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think a lot of it comes down to there being a lot more editors than there are admins. It's a lack of people with the tools to unblock, and while that can be fixed in the short term by non-admins finding an admin willing to be pestered to make an unblock, I think a lot of the value of having non-admins in the unblock areas can come from someone being able to do all the legwork to get the unblock ready to go. For example, User_talk:DogeGamer2015MZT#March_2025 has gone through three admins now, and only one declining admin has provided a link to relevant policy for the editor to review. Sometimes, I think, a blocked editor does very much need that little push towards reading the proper PAGs, because a lot of them don't necessarily understand that unblock requests aren't a "I've been blocked 3 months, and now I should be unblocked", but rather a "I've been blocked for 7 days, and that has given me time to review the relevant policies and understand how to prevent my behavior in the future". I don't think admins necessarily always have time to explain that to a blocked editor, and that's why I say that different perspectives are needed in the unblock backlog. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- +1 - you have worded this in a far better way than I ever could. I think it is a mixture of burnout and a fear of overturning decisions made by people who are seen to have a higher authority where that may not be strictly true from a userright point of view. Patient Zerotalk 23:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I do think 331dot is excessively harsh on some editors blocked for promo, such as at User talk:EnergyLightArt, which I just overturned. In 331dot's defence, they handle a lot of spam cases, at unblocks and AFC, and I don't have the patience for that myself. In general, although I know we're all volunteers and we can't make rules about how admins need to work at unblocks sometimes, I think anyone who blocks editors ought to be helping with this backlog regularly. The alternative, which is the present status quo, is that the admins who do work there are subject to burnout and having to work through too many cases too quickly. I think we should be kinder, more patient, and even more lenient with blocked editors basically across the board. For that to happen, we need more admins to step up. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- No one notified @331dot: of this discussion?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- They've commented above in this section. Secretlondon (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think that ordinary editors don't realize that the stakes are high in reviewing unblock requests. If you easily accept them, and the editor returns to the same disorderly behavior, you get blamed for being too easy or gullible. Then, if you unblock the more serious blocks where the blocking admin has not given their explicit permission to review their blocks (and some admins generously do this), then you risk invalidating the blocking decision of the original blocking admin which raises questions about them. So, the safest decision is generally to turn down the unblock request but then, as we see here, one can be accused of deferring to the blocking admin and being unwilling to contradiction. Reviewing unblock requests is not an area where you see admins being BOLD.
- I have done little work in this area myself unless there has been an obvious mistake because it has seemed like a no-win situation. Lift the block, keep the block, you are bound to leave someone disappointed. I applaud the admins who do it regularly because it is a rather thankless task compared to other admin responsibilities as we see with the situation with 331dot right here. No one is looking at unblock requests that others agree with, just the one or two that editors take issue with. No admin has a 100% record. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think WP:ROPE is the needed grease for the wheels here. It has no bearing on the original admin's judgment and puts the onus on the sanctioned editor. ClifV (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well that's only if you think that not "not leaving anyone disappointed" or "receiving thanks" is the goal. If the goal were, instead, "get it right," then we wouldn't care about whether we disappointed someone, or raised questions about a bad block, etc. Popularity is not the goal, the goal is to remove disruption. Bad edits are disruptive; bad blocks are also disruptive; anyone reviewing a block is going to have to determine where the disruption was, and if they disappoint or question the disruptive user (whether it's the blockee or the admin), well, that's not really important at all. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- And we're talking here, I think, about two different "kinds" of unblocks. There's the "I'm unblocking you because you've convinced me that you'll abandon your evil ways and begin to edit constructively. Here's some rope: try not to hang yourself." Then there's the more awkward "I'm unblocking you because I don't think you should have been blocked to begin with. Those are harder because you're literally saying to the blocking admin "I think you were wrong." Joyous! Noise! 15:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- In Bbb23's case specifically, it was my experience that he acted as though the former category did not exist, and they were all in the latter category. Possibly this is because so many of his blocks were jumping the gun.
- Also, @Levivich, sensible non-admins can do a lot of good in the unblocks queue, so if you, as a highly sensible non-admin yourself, ever wanted to lend a hand... -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- How exactly can non-admins assist with the unblock queue? I mainly engage in AV here and would be interested in helping if I can/if the community deems me to be sensible and capable enough? Patient Zerotalk 23:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that it would be very helpful to look for good faith, but not quite there, unblock requests and help editors understand the problems with their editing and how to demonstrate that they understand in their unblock request. You can also advocate on their behalf, like GLL has done on my talk page. It doesn't always work, but some times it does. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Adding to this, I think experienced and empathetic non-admins are actually able to do more good in the circumstances SFR describes than an admin can, a lot of the time, precisely because you can't accept or reject a request. Someone coming by to offer advice freely is a different dynamic. -- asilvering (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you both for explaining this for me! Perhaps interestingly, I had Bbb23 themselves tell me they would not normally approve of non-admins commenting on such matters, but they were happy with what I had said in that instance. It is of reassurance, therefore, to know that there are other admins who would agree that such input could be of benefit were it to come from experienced non-admins, as I felt for a while as though perhaps I might have crossed some sort of line. Additionally, with regard to the advocacy-style suggestion, I do feel confident I could assist there. Patient Zerotalk 00:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Adding to this, I think experienced and empathetic non-admins are actually able to do more good in the circumstances SFR describes than an admin can, a lot of the time, precisely because you can't accept or reject a request. Someone coming by to offer advice freely is a different dynamic. -- asilvering (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- The vast majority of unblock requests suck. It doesn't take an admin to notice that an unblock request sucks, and if a non-admin can step in with a helpful pointer or ask a helpful question to get things more on track, that saves admins the time and also means fewer declines. The people who are blocked for spam/promo are a huge portion of the queue and also tend to need a lot of badgering. Lurk CAT:RFU for a while to get a sense for it before you step in - you'll see a handful of extremely good non-admin helpers at work there, as well as the occasional talk page stalker who blunders into an unblock request and makes everything more confusing. If you do reply to anyone, I recommend using Template:NAcmt, because blocked editors will pretty universally assume you're an admin if you don't, which can get awkward. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've commented on a few unblocks before. Unfortunately, it is not easy to figure out if you're an extremely good non-admin helper or a talk page stalker blunderer. Goes to what Levivich says about examples perhaps. CMD (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- You don't strike me as the blundering type. -- asilvering (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I have my moments. CMD (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- You don't strike me as the blundering type. -- asilvering (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've commented on a few unblocks before. Unfortunately, it is not easy to figure out if you're an extremely good non-admin helper or a talk page stalker blunderer. Goes to what Levivich says about examples perhaps. CMD (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that it would be very helpful to look for good faith, but not quite there, unblock requests and help editors understand the problems with their editing and how to demonstrate that they understand in their unblock request. You can also advocate on their behalf, like GLL has done on my talk page. It doesn't always work, but some times it does. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @Asilvering. I'm super surprised to learn from this thread that non-admin help at cat:rfu is desired. That being the case, I should put some money where my mouth is, so per your advice above I will start lurking. Idk if there's an essay or some set of good/bad examples of non-admin rfu comments, but it would be helpful to have some examples of do's/don'ts (and a help doc might help encourage editors to volunteer). Levivich (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- If there are any essays hanging around, I'd love to hear about them. I can say that I'm always glad to see that @Chaotic Enby, @CoffeeCrumbs, or @Drm310 have gotten to an unblock request before I have. -- asilvering (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Levivich: I'm not an admin, and yet, between 6 and 8 June, I helped THREE users get unblocked Sinead RAU, Criticalthinkinghorse, and Nikolasmichos, all of which by simply alerting @Asilvering: that they were already good to go. Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- How exactly can non-admins assist with the unblock queue? I mainly engage in AV here and would be interested in helping if I can/if the community deems me to be sensible and capable enough? Patient Zerotalk 23:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- "Take some rope, just as a precaution" ClifV (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- And we're talking here, I think, about two different "kinds" of unblocks. There's the "I'm unblocking you because you've convinced me that you'll abandon your evil ways and begin to edit constructively. Here's some rope: try not to hang yourself." Then there's the more awkward "I'm unblocking you because I don't think you should have been blocked to begin with. Those are harder because you're literally saying to the blocking admin "I think you were wrong." Joyous! Noise! 15:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Related discussion at WT:ADMIN regarding WP:RAAA
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators § Bringing RAAA in line with actual practice. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Sidebar : procedure for handling Edit warring reports
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.
Above, I complained that Bbb23 often site-wide blocked an editor when I would have partially blocked, such as Onemillionthtree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Usually, both me and Bbb23 write "blocked for 'x' hours", even though our blocks are different.
The policy states "Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to the affected page. - the bit in bold implies a p-block to me, but the important part could be viewed as "blocked from editing" which doesn't specify a site block or p-block.
I see the merit in site blocking when it's clear an editor will disrupt many articles and has a track record of disruption anywhere, but many edit-warring reports are just over a single article, in which case a p-block suffices.
I'm sure I tried to have a dialogue with Bbb23 about this, and got ignored (one of numerous reasons why my problem with him is not the blocks per se, but poor communication when disagreement breaks out).
What's the recommended procedure here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'll preface by saying I don't do much edit-war enforcement. But just in terms of the theory of blocking, blocks should be preventative, but deterrence is part of prevention. If the goal of the block is to send the message "This is what happens if you keep edit-warring, and sooner or later it'll be indef", a siteblock is more likely to have a deterrent effect, and is acceptable even if the disruption is confined to a single page. On the other hand, if the goal is to say "Chill the fuck out and actually discuss things instead of reverting", a partial block has a sufficient preventative effect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- For a 24-hour block, I don't see the need to be selective. It's just 24 hours, and it's usually meant to send the message. I suppose that if the editor had already shown some willingness to discuss, I'd make it selective (e.g., either block the specific article or block article namespace if more than one) to allow discussion to continue, but I think that'd be the exceptional case.
- I guess the most likely scenario for partial blocks is when the combatants on both sides are warring. Then pblocking both to send them to the talk page makes sense. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Agree, a short-term block is better as a side-wide time-out, but for something longer, it makes more sense to pblock if possible. Especially now that we have multiblocks. -- asilvering (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to amend the guidance so that it recommends pblocks as a first sanction. Some prior discussion here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Did the guidance evolve with the introduction of pblock, or it has always been there and pblock came later? If it is the latter, maybe a clearer wording on the guidance. If it is the former, no amount of wrangling over the text can help with a communication issue. – robertsky (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) but no. Admins shouldn't have their hands tied, and should retain the discretion to block according to particular crcumstances. There are often situations in which p-blocks would be unhelpful, for instance when there are aggravating circumstances. Was it Tony Ballioni who predicted that the introduction of partial blocking would at some point lead to an attempt to mandate it. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes it was. Although "worst idea in the history of wikipedia" might be over-egging it a bit :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Something wishy-washy like, "partial blocks might be the best way to go if edit warring is cinfined to a single article." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. Or even "Consider a partial block if only one page is affected." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would oppose amending the policy based on this discussion. If anyone wants to amend the policy, there should be a dedicated discussion for that. Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. Or even "Consider a partial block if only one page is affected." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Something wishy-washy like, "partial blocks might be the best way to go if edit warring is cinfined to a single article." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes it was. Although "worst idea in the history of wikipedia" might be over-egging it a bit :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm away on holiday so I don't have the ability to look up all of the previous discussions (this one at WP:ANEW which led to this discussion at WP:AN) are pertinent, but Ritchie333 has been advocating for partial blocks for edit warring for about as long as we've had partial blocks. Currently, the ability to apply a partial block is a tool in the admin tool box which can be used (or not) according to an admin's best judgment based on the circumstances; any change to the blocking policy essentially mandating partial blocks over site-wide ones would require a well-advertised RFC and some notice to the admin corp of the change if implemented. I also remember Tony Baillioni's concerns regarding the potential wikilawyering over the use of partial blocks, Fortuna imperatrix mundi, and here we are. Again. --AlsoPonyo (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- I am also against changing policy. I use partial blocks if the user has a track record of constructive contributions and the disruption is one page only. That said, I don't think we should be mandating this. PhilKnight (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2025 (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.
RfC on new temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right
There is an RfC on the new temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Request for unblocks, and GPL93 page mover abuse
Greetings! I was originally blocked from Buffalo ReUse weeks ago (a page I created) for alleged COI reasons, but since then User:Kevin Hayes, the organization's co-founder, has confirmed I am not tied to the organization and did not create the page on their behalf. Admin User:Star Mississippi then suggested I ask an uninvolved admin for an unblock, as the original blocker User:Daniel Case seems unwilling. In the time since, User:GPL93 has repeatedly engaged in Wikipedia:hounding, and has made concerted efforts to delete my edits. This includes GPL93 trying and failing to delete the Buffalo ReUse logo, GPL93 trying and failing to delete a redirect from the owner's name to the Buffalo ReUse article, GPL93 continuing to allege I have a Conflict of Interest after I explained to him the rules of image uploading, and then this morning GPL93 moving my new article on the Erie County Democratic Committee to draftspace without a cited reason, GPL93 attempting to delete the Erie County Democratic Committee logo, and then GPL93 snitch-tagging the move to User:Daniel Case who blocked me from the article, presumably acting on the false COI allegation from weeks ago. I am of the opinion that someone with page-mover privileges should not be using them to hold my articles hostage in draftspace based on an existing grudge. I appreciate you looking into this matter, and thank you for your time. TheNewMinistry (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- GPL93 did provide a reason for moving it to draft at Special:Diff/1296312825. Concerning attempting to delete the Bufallo ReUse logo, the CSD only failed because it is a non-free image. I don't find the non-free usage rational convincing because there is an alternative open to usage of the copyright image, such as going and taking a photo of the orgs office. TarnishedPathtalk 14:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Involved Comment I believe I became a part of this issue at the result of an AN/ANI but may be wrong. Further on the topic on my Talk is at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Just_so_you_know. While I believe TNM was being disruptive at the original AfD for Buffalo ReUse, their conduct has improved in the aforementioned TP discussion and I believe overall, although I haven't had the on wiki time to follow all the conversations. The original disruption may have been out of relative unfamiliarity as it did not come across to me as one of malice. Once I saw I had closed an AfD that was at the start of the COIN discussion I thought it best to stay out of it administratively which is part of why I suggested TNM file an unblock for the Buffalo ReUse article. I did file the RfD on Gainier since @GPL93 and I disagreed on whether it was a speedy and that seemed the next best step. I have not followed the new issues/article that @TheNewMinistry is referencing and have no opinion on GPL's moves. Star Mississippi 14:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, should note I ultimately did semi Buffalo ReUse with the blessing of @Daniel Case despite their original decline as there were two IPs who were continually edit warring and disrupting the article independent of any allegations against @TheNewMinistry Star Mississippi 15:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Seems like to me that "alternative" would apply to thousands of articles that are using a non-free logo, just go and take a photo of the orgs office, of course in cases where a physical ___location is involved. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- A photo of an office ___location and an organization's logo are not equivalent. A logo is a branding identity that is used to identify the organisation. Some building that is their office is not. A non-free current logo is generally accepted as non-free content when used to identify the subject of an article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, I guess I should have made that distinction clear in my original post. Instead, I was merely pointing out that the "alternative" was an untenable rationale. Thanks for the clarification. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- A photo of an office ___location and an organization's logo are not equivalent. A logo is a branding identity that is used to identify the organisation. Some building that is their office is not. A non-free current logo is generally accepted as non-free content when used to identify the subject of an article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I provided the correct fair-use rationale when uploading the copyrighted logo that a bot then resized appropriately to a lower resolution. GPL93 didn't understand that and insinuated that copyrighted logos were not allowed on Wikipedia, and then accused me of deliberately skirting the rules. It's all a petty grudge that I wish he would drop. TheNewMinistry (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Involved Comment I believe I became a part of this issue at the result of an AN/ANI but may be wrong. Further on the topic on my Talk is at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Just_so_you_know. While I believe TNM was being disruptive at the original AfD for Buffalo ReUse, their conduct has improved in the aforementioned TP discussion and I believe overall, although I haven't had the on wiki time to follow all the conversations. The original disruption may have been out of relative unfamiliarity as it did not come across to me as one of malice. Once I saw I had closed an AfD that was at the start of the COIN discussion I thought it best to stay out of it administratively which is part of why I suggested TNM file an unblock for the Buffalo ReUse article. I did file the RfD on Gainier since @GPL93 and I disagreed on whether it was a speedy and that seemed the next best step. I have not followed the new issues/article that @TheNewMinistry is referencing and have no opinion on GPL's moves. Star Mississippi 14:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at Draft:Erie County Democratic Committee, the word 'coatrack' springs to mind. If the section on Zellner isn't an outright WP:BLP violation, it is a close approximation to it, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think the simplest solution to that article being in draft, if TNM thinks it should be in mainspace, would be for them to submit it through AFC. TarnishedPathtalk 15:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm currently blocked from accessing/editing/resubmitting Draft:Erie County Democratic Committee, at the request of GPL93 and later approved by admin Daniel Case.TheNewMinistry (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- It has been moved to mainspace. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Evidently repeatedly citing a source for negative content on a named living person is seen as entirely valid even when the source [44] doesn't mention the individual at all. Has WP:BLP been rewritten from scratch in the last few hours or something? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that some sections should be reworded to reflect the committee acting as a whole and not specifically Zellner. Would fix it if I wasn't blocked. Which reminds me - can someone please be a pal and restore the logo into the infobox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_of_the_Erie_County_Democratic_Committee.jpg). That way it doesn't get autodeleted and I don't have to reupload it later. Thank you! TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you're blocked from the article, then what you're asking here is for people to proxy-edit for you. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't believe my request was unreasonable or would be interpreted as "unproductive" according to the policy you linked, but I apologize if you saw it that way. I can ask @Silver seren: who (kindly) restored the logo to remove it from the article again if this is a problem. Or if that request would once again be considered unreasonable, you can do the honors. TheNewMinistry (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you're blocked from the article, then what you're asking here is for people to proxy-edit for you. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that some sections should be reworded to reflect the committee acting as a whole and not specifically Zellner. Would fix it if I wasn't blocked. Which reminds me - can someone please be a pal and restore the logo into the infobox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_of_the_Erie_County_Democratic_Committee.jpg). That way it doesn't get autodeleted and I don't have to reupload it later. Thank you! TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Evidently repeatedly citing a source for negative content on a named living person is seen as entirely valid even when the source [44] doesn't mention the individual at all. Has WP:BLP been rewritten from scratch in the last few hours or something? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- It has been moved to mainspace. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm currently blocked from accessing/editing/resubmitting Draft:Erie County Democratic Committee, at the request of GPL93 and later approved by admin Daniel Case.TheNewMinistry (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think the simplest solution to that article being in draft, if TNM thinks it should be in mainspace, would be for them to submit it through AFC. TarnishedPathtalk 15:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- GPL93 hasn't been active on the project since yesterday but I posted an invitation to them on their User talk page to come and respond to the accusations made here. It does sound like some targeting might have occured so an explanation would be appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize for the delay because my power was knocked out yesterday morning and did not come back on until recently. I will say I made a mistake in the CSD nomination and I do apologize for that. I also think that TheNewMinistry should have been able to have edited the article after I draftified as long as it was in the draft space (I thought the block would only be on the mainspace). Otherwise, I have been trying to prevent the blatant POV-pushing by TheNewMinistry. Even without a COI, it has been very clear that they cannot edit objectively regarding Erie County, New York politics. When the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gainer began, TheNewMinistry took BottleOfChocolateMilk to WP:COIN pretty much immediately accusing them of being a "political operative", then also accused me of wrongdoing and then also accused me of lying and then decided to double down on those accusations, after giving my explanation. Also literally the day that Michael Gainer was deleted via consensus,TheNewMinistry created Buffalo ReUse that had incredibly close prose to the deleted article and a redirect to Gainer. Daniel Case noticed this on his own and made the initial block. They have no issue accusing other editors of being part of some "anti-progressive" cabal. I draftified Erie County Democratic Committee because, as AndyTheGrump pointed out, it is essentially a thinly veiled negative BLP of Zellner. I think TheNewMinistry should probably be topic banned from politics in Erie County-Buffalo. Enough is enough. Best, GPL93 (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- +1 If TNM wants to impress us, he should go over to Independent Together and offer to moderate in that mess ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Administrator User:Daniel Case: given that you are a self-described Democratic politician residing in Upstate New York according to your userpage, and this discussion is specifically about you blocking me from articles related to both an Upstate New York based political candidate and a Upstate New York based political party, you should probably recuse yourself. I requested an uninvolved admin, which you most definitely are not. TheNewMinistry (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I really haven't wanted to be too involved in this anyway, but I should note that I am both literally and figuratively more than 200 miles from Erie County, and have despite living in the Buffalo area for five years (albeit 30 years ago) never had anything to do with that county's Democratic Party.
- Although my suggestion that you go over to that IT article, about a party in an upcoming local election in New Zealand where there have been similar allegations of COI editing and blocks, still stands. Daniel Case (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Administrator User:Daniel Case: given that you are a self-described Democratic politician residing in Upstate New York according to your userpage, and this discussion is specifically about you blocking me from articles related to both an Upstate New York based political candidate and a Upstate New York based political party, you should probably recuse yourself. I requested an uninvolved admin, which you most definitely are not. TheNewMinistry (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Glad your power is back and you're safe @GPL93
- Re:
also think that TheNewMinistry should have been able to have edited the article after I draftified as long as it was in the draft space (I thought the block would only be on the mainspace)
it's moot now since it's back in mainspace, but the block follows the article between spaces. Daniel Case blocked TNM from the ReUse since that was a new creation, not a move from Gainer. Star Mississippi 13:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC) - I believe that I'll have to invoke Wikipedia:STICK here. I did my due diligence in bringing to COIN's attention the mentioning of a Wikipedia user in a third-party source so that it could be investigated and noted on record. I personally made no allegations, simply repeating what was alleged in the article. The related discussion was closed and I have no further comment on it. I believe the source of User:GPL93's animosity stems from the original AfD discussion for Michael Gainer (viewable here). Gainer is currently a progressive political candidate for mayor in Buffalo, and my second comment in that AfD was expressing concern that Gainer's article might be targeted for his political views There were attempts to delete the Wikipedia page of progressive mayoral candidate India Walton in 2021, including requests to delete her page on notability grounds. Walton's page was retained, but I tried and failed to prove Gainer's notability in the AfD and can live with that. Some of the content from the deleted Gainer article I carried over to Buffalo ReUse, and when it started to get hit by IP vandalism I acted in good faith and requested page protection. Instead, admin User:Daniel Case denied my request and blocked me from editing the article. Sure enough, the page was heavily vandalized soon after and User talk:Star Mississippi had the page protected, but not before much of the content was removed. ScottishFinnishRadish was nice enough to restore most of the deleted content to the Buffalo ReUse article this morning. User:GPL93 insinuating I am pushing conspiracies is unfounded, and I question his integrity when saying he did not know I would be banned from draftspace, given that he didn't move Erie County Democratic Committee to draftspace until User:Daniel Case confirmed to him that i had been blocked from the article. Again, this is all a petty grudge I wish you would drop. Please accept my apologies for any perceived slights, and let's move on from this. TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- It should be noted that BottleOfChocolateMilk, the subject of the COIN investigation referenced above, has tagged the Erie County Democratic Committee article for deletion. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- +1 If TNM wants to impress us, he should go over to Independent Together and offer to moderate in that mess ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- For whoever needs to know, I just submitted a formal request for unblocking on my talk page along with a link to this discussion. TheNewMinistry (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- There are no circumstances whatsoever under which an unblock would be appropriate until you give a clear and unambiguous explanation for why you cited a source for negative content regarding a living person (Jeremy Zellner) in the Erie County Democratic Committee article, despite the source [45] making no mention whatsoever of the individual. In my opinion, a mere page block is a wholly inadequate response to such blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. There are clearly other issues with the section on Zellner (starting with the section title), but due to inaccessibility of sources, I've not been able to check it fully. I am sorely tempted to blank the entire section on WP:BLP grounds until it can be properly checked, and rewritten in a manner compliant with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump, saved you the trouble. TarnishedPathtalk 11:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- There are no circumstances whatsoever under which an unblock would be appropriate until you give a clear and unambiguous explanation for why you cited a source for negative content regarding a living person (Jeremy Zellner) in the Erie County Democratic Committee article, despite the source [45] making no mention whatsoever of the individual. In my opinion, a mere page block is a wholly inadequate response to such blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. There are clearly other issues with the section on Zellner (starting with the section title), but due to inaccessibility of sources, I've not been able to check it fully. I am sorely tempted to blank the entire section on WP:BLP grounds until it can be properly checked, and rewritten in a manner compliant with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Your claim here seems very overblown and misleading, AndyTheGrump. The article stated "
Zellner regularly has the committee's lawyers challenge nominating petitions of non-endorsed candidates, with over a dozen candidates denied ballot access.
" The source used states that the county commissioner (who is Zellner)'s attorney (who is Kulpit) "in the last five years has taken part in about a dozen efforts to disqualify candidates, always in the service of the party’s endorsed candidate.
" It seems to me the information is directly from the source. You don't need Zellner's name in the article, whenever it is referring to the county commissioner or the actions of people at the direction of the committee, that is referring to Zellner. It is directly and obviously implicit. SilverserenC 15:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)- 'Implicit'? WTF? Are you seriously suggesting that it's ok to cite a source for something it doesn't say? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes? All the time? If we have a source that says "The President's administration did a thing", would you then argue that has nothing to do with the President being behind the action just because it doesn't have his name included? The source here explicitly says that the county committee and the commissioner had the lawyer do this thing. The person that is referring to having the lawyer do a thing is Zellner. SilverserenC 16:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- How about, rather than making up hypothetical quotes, you quote directly from the source cited, the text you think supports "Zellner regularly has the committee's lawyers challenge nominating petitions of non-endorsed candidates, with over a dozen candidates denied ballot access." AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I already did. But if you want the entire section, here:
She has done this work on behalf of the party before. Court records show Kulpit helped get Joel Moore, a candidate for Buffalo City Court, kicked off the ballot in 2021. That same year she and another attorney filed, then withdrew, a challenge to the nominating petitions of Kim Beatty, who went on to win the Democratic primary for Erie County sheriff, then lose the general election to Republican John Garcia.
- I already did. But if you want the entire section, here:
- How about, rather than making up hypothetical quotes, you quote directly from the source cited, the text you think supports "Zellner regularly has the committee's lawyers challenge nominating petitions of non-endorsed candidates, with over a dozen candidates denied ballot access." AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes? All the time? If we have a source that says "The President's administration did a thing", would you then argue that has nothing to do with the President being behind the action just because it doesn't have his name included? The source here explicitly says that the county committee and the commissioner had the lawyer do this thing. The person that is referring to having the lawyer do a thing is Zellner. SilverserenC 16:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- 'Implicit'? WTF? Are you seriously suggesting that it's ok to cite a source for something it doesn't say? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Your claim here seems very overblown and misleading, AndyTheGrump. The article stated "
All told, Kulpit in the last five years has taken part in about a dozen efforts to disqualify candidates, always in the service of the party’s endorsed candidate. County Democrats have endorsed state Sen. Sean Ryan in the mayor’s race and Erie County Legislator Taisha St. Jean Tard for the District 2 seat.
- I should note that that last sentence refers to this controversy from two months prior where Zellner had the committee endorse his preferred mayoral candidate at the opposition of many committee members and others. Which is a ongoing major topic about the committee in current times. SilverserenC 16:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- That is a statement about what Kulpit has done. "On behalf of the party". Not on Zellner's behalf. If you are going to cite a source for someone doing something 'regularly', it needs first to state that they did it at all. Which the source doesn't. Sure, if you assume that the premise of the section title, "Zellner's consolidation of power" is an accurate representation of the situation, one can spin it that way, and assume that 'on behalf of the party' means 'because Zeller said to do it'. But we don't. Or we shouldn't (And nor should we have section titles like that in the first place). When including negative content in BLPs, we need to be extra careful about sources, and having to read between the lines about who was responsible for something simply isn't acceptable. If you don't have a clear and unambiguous source for such content, it doesn't belong in an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- All you'd have to do regarding the sentence in the article is change it to saying, "During Zellner's time as commissioner of the party, the party attorney Kulpit..." Easy fix, little issue. And the title of the section can obviously be changed. It's not difficult to do. Though clearly Zellner is central to the time frame noted previously in the article. Practically all the news sources about the county committee in the past decade has been about Zellner's actions as head, with many of those news sources noting the decline of party support by voters in the area and other negative effects during that time period. It is not "negative content in BLPs" when it's about political activities that all of the news sources across years are discussing. Furthermore, this seems to be a content discussion and one where there is plenty of room for discussion and disagreement. It is not at all one where someone should be blocked from the article for adding it. SilverserenC 17:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to be saying that there's nothing wrong with citing a source for something it didn't say, just as long as it's possible to rewrite the article afterwards so it actually follows what the source says. Not an argument I'd like to have to defend... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- All you'd have to do regarding the sentence in the article is change it to saying, "During Zellner's time as commissioner of the party, the party attorney Kulpit..." Easy fix, little issue. And the title of the section can obviously be changed. It's not difficult to do. Though clearly Zellner is central to the time frame noted previously in the article. Practically all the news sources about the county committee in the past decade has been about Zellner's actions as head, with many of those news sources noting the decline of party support by voters in the area and other negative effects during that time period. It is not "negative content in BLPs" when it's about political activities that all of the news sources across years are discussing. Furthermore, this seems to be a content discussion and one where there is plenty of room for discussion and disagreement. It is not at all one where someone should be blocked from the article for adding it. SilverserenC 17:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- That is a statement about what Kulpit has done. "On behalf of the party". Not on Zellner's behalf. If you are going to cite a source for someone doing something 'regularly', it needs first to state that they did it at all. Which the source doesn't. Sure, if you assume that the premise of the section title, "Zellner's consolidation of power" is an accurate representation of the situation, one can spin it that way, and assume that 'on behalf of the party' means 'because Zeller said to do it'. But we don't. Or we shouldn't (And nor should we have section titles like that in the first place). When including negative content in BLPs, we need to be extra careful about sources, and having to read between the lines about who was responsible for something simply isn't acceptable. If you don't have a clear and unambiguous source for such content, it doesn't belong in an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I should note that that last sentence refers to this controversy from two months prior where Zellner had the committee endorse his preferred mayoral candidate at the opposition of many committee members and others. Which is a ongoing major topic about the committee in current times. SilverserenC 16:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Looking into this further, there may be other issues with the sourcing for the section on Zellner. The article cites the WGRZ-TV website for something (a broadcast?) entitled "Focus on dual roles for Erie Co. Democratic Party Chief/Elections Commissioner". The link [46] doesn't work, and the website's search function seems unable to locate it. The article also cites a second piece from WGRZ-TV, entitled ""Buffalo's heated primary sparks controversy", which I have likewise been unable to locate.Ignore this it seems to be an issue with links redirecting to YouTube. I'll see if I can find a work-around.
- I haven't looked at all the sourcing - some is paywalled. Beyond that, the neutrality of the content regarding Zellner is clearly open to question: I can't for the life of me understand how entitling a section "2012–present: Zellner's consolidation of power" could be considered remotely appropriate. It is blatant editorialising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- As I just wrote on my talk page as part of the unblock request, The Buffalo News is the city's newspaper of record and has been for over a century. It is unfortunately paywalled, but using 12ft would allow you to access the content. TheNewMinistry (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- How about answering the question I asked? Why did you cite this source (not from the Buffalo News, though it makes no odds either way) [47] for content on Zellner, when it makes no mention of him at all? I suggest you think carefully before answering, given that deliberate misrepresenting of sources is the sort of thing that tends to lead to cbans rather than page blocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I just answered this up above, Andy, by the way. And this badgering is making you look bad, because it's obviously you in the wrong. SilverserenC 15:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing 'wrong' in objecting to the misrepresentation of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I just answered this up above, Andy, by the way. And this badgering is making you look bad, because it's obviously you in the wrong. SilverserenC 15:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- How about answering the question I asked? Why did you cite this source (not from the Buffalo News, though it makes no odds either way) [47] for content on Zellner, when it makes no mention of him at all? I suggest you think carefully before answering, given that deliberate misrepresenting of sources is the sort of thing that tends to lead to cbans rather than page blocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Does anyone else think that relocating this discussion, or this aspect of it, to WP:BLPN might be the best way to resolve this? Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- The section was already removed from the article anyways, so that point is moot. The issue remaining here is Andy trying to claim impropriety on the part of TNM. SilverserenC 19:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it was originally a COI discussion that I guess morphed into a BLP dispute? I'm not sure if all of the parties at the beginning of this complaint are still actively involved. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- The section was already removed from the article anyways, so that point is moot. The issue remaining here is Andy trying to claim impropriety on the part of TNM. SilverserenC 19:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- As I just wrote on my talk page as part of the unblock request, The Buffalo News is the city's newspaper of record and has been for over a century. It is unfortunately paywalled, but using 12ft would allow you to access the content. TheNewMinistry (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at all the sourcing - some is paywalled. Beyond that, the neutrality of the content regarding Zellner is clearly open to question: I can't for the life of me understand how entitling a section "2012–present: Zellner's consolidation of power" could be considered remotely appropriate. It is blatant editorialising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Faith Domergue
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.
Does this comment violate any Wikipedia policy on banning racist comments, and if so should it be removed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Faith_Domergue#African_American 176.108.139.1 (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- I just removed that 10 year old comment. Editors shouldn't be analyzing a person's bodily features to speculate on their racial identity. I'm surprised that it stayed up for that many years without anyone objecting. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for Review of COI and Notability Tags on "Shashwat Singh" Article
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.
Dear administrators,
I am seeking assistance regarding two persistent maintenance tags — Conflict of Interest (COI) and Notability — on the article Shashwat Singh. Despite improvements made to address the concerns, the tags remain in place without recent discussion or follow-up.
Here is a summary of the situation and actions taken:
1. Freely licensed image uploaded and clarified: A freely licensed image has been properly uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and copyright clarification has been noted on the article's Talk Page.
2. Reliable secondary sources added:
The article now includes citations from multiple reliable, independent secondary sources, with significant and non-trivial coverage. These include:
Rolling Stone India
The Hindu
Hindustan Times
Deccan Chronicle
Mid-Day
News18
Indulge Express
The Times of India
Ei Samay (The Times Group)
These sources collectively meet the standards set by WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC for establishing notability.
3. Neutral point of view maintained: The article has been rewritten to follow a neutral, encyclopedic tone, removing any promotional language. All statements are now properly cited.
4. Incorrect COI accusation:
It has been flagged that a major contributor has a close connection to the subject. This is factually incorrect. I am not professionally or personally connected to the subject and have edited solely to improve the article’s quality and compliance with Wikipedia policies.
5. Request for administrative review:
I am kindly requesting that an uninvolved administrator or experienced editor review the article and the two tags in question. If the concerns are addressed, I respectfully request that the tags be removed or that guidance be offered on any remaining specific issues that need to be resolved.
Talk Page Discussion: Talk:Shashwat Singh#Request for COI and Notability Tag Review
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Best regards, Msmimiin Msmimiin (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2025 (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.
Requesting a careful check on all new users editing Michael Palance
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I’m on vacation till Sunday and can’t monitor the page to the extent I should, and also am on mobile, which limits my ability to file reports. At any rate User:Fizzywaterboy is a brand new account whose first edit was adding Michael Palance to a cast list. The other edits seem to be minor edits simply to become autoconfirmed. They now have performed a minor edit to the Michael Palance article in behavior that appears to be sockpuppetish (I’ve reverted it for other stylistic reasons). At any rate it seems the article’s subject is willing to go to great lengths to be able to edit his own article, and I’d be wary of any new users editing it. I’d like to request a higher protection level, but I don’t think I can with the current state with respect to the article. GalStar (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- There is an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MPalance if you wanted to add further socks/meat pupsters to for an admin/cu to assess. Knitsey (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Reported to the above SPI although I don't hold out much hope as it was declined last time despite the new accounts and all the ip hopping to restore their preferred version. I've also requested a check user as they seem to be making accounts in advance this time. Knitsey (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for Unprotection: Arishfa Khan
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 recently attempted to create a new article on Arishfa Khan, but found that the title was deleted in 2018 due to sockpuppet case and deletion discussion. It is currently protected from recreation, restricted to administrators.
Since then, Arishfa Khan has become a notable public figure as an actress and social media influencer. She has been featured in reliable independent sources. She has appeared in several music videos and has a massive following across platforms like Instagram and tiktok frequently cited in influencer rankings.
I believe she now clearly meets the general notability guideline, and sufficient reliable coverage is available to support a properly sourced article.
Kindly consider unprotecting the page so an article can be created.
Thanks. Behappyyar (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Behappyyar: I'm not an admin, but if you write a properly sourced draft in your userspace, an admin would be more likely to unsalt the page. Also, the proper venue to ask for page unprotection in WP:RFUP. cyberdog958Talk 04:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Cyberdog958 is correct, Behappyyar, write a draft article, in Draft space or your User space, submit it to WP:AFC for review and if it is accepted, the protection will be changed and the draft will be moved over. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely! I actually tried doing exactly what you’re suggesting earlier, but the issue is that the draft itself is also protected (Here), and only administrators can create it. Behappyyar (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Behappyyar I have dropped the Draft to EC so that you can create it. Recommend @Liz and @Cyberdog958's suggestions for mainspace.
Ping me if you need the draft reviewed and I'm online. Happy to help.Star Mississippi 14:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC) Per my note below, this draft would need more eyes than I have bandwidth for right now, so it should go through an experienced reviewer. Star Mississippi 16:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)- They still can't create the draft because it's on the title blacklist. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oops! Draft:Arishfa Khan now exists. Thanks @Pppery for flagging. Star Mississippi 16:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Noting the declined request for unprotection made by the OP here.-- Ponyobons mots 16:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- thanks @Ponyo. As I read @Izno's close of the SPI (courtesy @CNMall41), I don't see any confirmation that Beh is a sock although I also have no reason to doubt CNM's research. I will edit my note above about reviewing this draft should it be recreated as it will need more thorough review than I anticipate time for. Star Mississippi 16:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. There is an open SPI at the moment. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- (I have not closed the SPI involving Behappyyar.) Izno (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies, I misread the status. If this ends up being a sock I will re-delete (or if I'm offline anyone else is welcome to). I believed it was a good faith request of an editor with a year's tenure but may well have been wrong. Star Mississippi 16:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- thanks @Ponyo. As I read @Izno's close of the SPI (courtesy @CNMall41), I don't see any confirmation that Beh is a sock although I also have no reason to doubt CNM's research. I will edit my note above about reviewing this draft should it be recreated as it will need more thorough review than I anticipate time for. Star Mississippi 16:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Who created that with no content?? Behappyyar (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I did, since it was on the blacklist and you would not have been able to @Behappyyar. I leave your question below to someone else to weigh in. Star Mississippi 17:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Noting the declined request for unprotection made by the OP here.-- Ponyobons mots 16:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oops! Draft:Arishfa Khan now exists. Thanks @Pppery for flagging. Star Mississippi 16:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- They still can't create the draft because it's on the title blacklist. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Behappyyar I have dropped the Draft to EC so that you can create it. Recommend @Liz and @Cyberdog958's suggestions for mainspace.
- Yes, absolutely! I actually tried doing exactly what you’re suggesting earlier, but the issue is that the draft itself is also protected (Here), and only administrators can create it. Behappyyar (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Cyberdog958 is correct, Behappyyar, write a draft article, in Draft space or your User space, submit it to WP:AFC for review and if it is accepted, the protection will be changed and the draft will be moved over. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment @Star, @Izno, @CNMall41; As I’ve already mentioned during the SPI and on my talk page, I have no connection to any other account. I’m confident the outcome will reflect that, and I appreciate the fair handling of the case.
- In the meantime, I just wanted to ask: should I wait until the SPI is concluded before continuing work on the Draft:Arishfa Khan, or is it okay to start it now?
- Behappyyar (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the sources you proffered at WP:RFPP/D any draft would fail. You'd need to find different, better sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank for your response. I will make sure to find out reliable references and create a draft according to Wikipedia guidelines. Behappyyar (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Behappyyar, I'd encourage you to start writing a draft even though you don't have the perfect set of sources right now. Practice writing the article can't hurt. Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank for your response. I will make sure to find out reliable references and create a draft according to Wikipedia guidelines. Behappyyar (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the sources you proffered at WP:RFPP/D any draft would fail. You'd need to find different, better sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your support!
- Behappyyar (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2025 (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.
New manage blocks interface
Just an FYI. I went to change a block to add a revoke talk page access to a user and I ended up adding a second block to the user rather than just changing the existing block. What you have to do (I now know) is click on the little pencil to modify the existing block. A little different but tricky if you're not expecting it. Cheers ;) fr33kman 00:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC
- Hello, Fr33kman, I find this story a bit confusing because you are not an administrator on this project. Are you talking about your experience elsewhere? Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Liz Fr33kman is an admin (and CU) at Simple English and possibly elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update, Black Kite. We should have a Master Directory of admins somewhere. And if it already exists, someone please let me know where! Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: You can see all of someone's user rights across (almost) all Wikimedia wikis at Special:CentralAuth, e.g. Special:CentralAuth/Liz. Double-click "Groups" to sort by that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a page on each project that lists admins. I know you can see that here by looking at the admin category. So you wouldn't have to go checking, user by user. That might already exists on many projects, I don't know but that's what I was thinking when I mentioned a "Directory". Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Special:ListUsers/sysop will give you a dynamic list on any wiki. It and all other user rights lists are linked from Special:Statistics. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions, Tamzin! Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Special:ListUsers/sysop will give you a dynamic list on any wiki. It and all other user rights lists are linked from Special:Statistics. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a page on each project that lists admins. I know you can see that here by looking at the admin category. So you wouldn't have to go checking, user by user. That might already exists on many projects, I don't know but that's what I was thinking when I mentioned a "Directory". Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: You can see all of someone's user rights across (almost) all Wikimedia wikis at Special:CentralAuth, e.g. Special:CentralAuth/Liz. Double-click "Groups" to sort by that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update, Black Kite. We should have a Master Directory of admins somewhere. And if it already exists, someone please let me know where! Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Liz Fr33kman is an admin (and CU) at Simple English and possibly elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm now frantically looking for the little pencil... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, just now I needed to revoke TPA. My instinct told me there should an "edit" button somewhere but of course that would be too simple. The clever designers have a pencil icon that is invisible when using dark mode but remembering the above post allowed me to eventually find it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- That dark mode glitch needs fixing. Cabayi (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Teachers as social change agents
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.
FYI: I saw a user page on this topic tagged for speedy deletion with {{db-notwebhost}}. It looked like a draft article so I removed the speedy tag and moved it to draft space. I’ve since encountered multiple articles on this topic in various users’ spaces.
I think this may be some sort of class project. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at your link, A. B., I only see Draft:Teacher-Social Change Agent. There are other drafts with this title but they aren't recent. Can you list other examples from 2025? I also notified User:Aharrison06 of this discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Liz, here are two others from which I removed speedy deletion tags:
- User:Sashae Lewis - created this month
- User:AzariK5124 - created in December, tagged today.
- I did not look carefully at the other articles listed in the search link above; I didn’t realize they weren’t current.
- I’m curious— I wonder what’s going on? Most articles created as school assignments tend to come in clumps. I doubt this is a sockmaster obsessed with “teachers as social change agents” spawning user pages. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to be a part of a course' syllabus at Walden University [48] [49]. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Here are pages sorted in reverse order by month:
- June 2025
- March 2025
- December 2024
- September 2024
- July 2023
- July 2022
- January 2022
- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- None of these editors ever added anything to Wikipedia; I see the value of this exercise for Walden University but not so much for Wikipedia. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I started nominating these as I saw a lot of people hosting the same topic on their user pages. All looked almost alike, used the same set of references, and were essays. In addition to the ones above, the following were created yesterday and today:
- I'll also note that Draft:Teacher-Social Change Agent had a version deleted in January 2022 that also looked like the current ones, and included a reference to Walden University, so this confirms it has been going on for a while.
- I have not notified any of these people, though I can if anyone thinks I should. Personally, I believe this discussion is not about the actions of any one of these, but rather what in the heck is going on with Walden using Wikipedia as a web host (somewhat unwittingly, as the syllabus seems to lack understanding that the presence of more than one version of an article is disruptive, and that asking people to write a Wikipedia page without telling them what that means is careless). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, that deleted draft has several different authors and a version was created in August 2021. And note that in all these years with all these authors nothing survived to become an article: though there may be something contained in another article as I didn't do a comprehensive search. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- A few more. Of course, this doesn't include all those that have been deleted.
- User:KatelynRalph sandbox 18 June 2025
- User:Reid-Finegan abandoned draft written mid-2023
- User:Joldamar abandoned draft written early 2022
- User:Thorbellin January 2022
- User:Brendakowalski abandoned draft written August 2021
- — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- None of these editors ever added anything to Wikipedia; I see the value of this exercise for Walden University but not so much for Wikipedia. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Here are pages sorted in reverse order by month:
- It seems to be a part of a course' syllabus at Walden University [48] [49]. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 01:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Liz, here are two others from which I removed speedy deletion tags:
- Well, Walden is primarily an online university that currently has 42,312 students and it's clear that over the past few years, some students plagiarized their work. I'm sure if we ran some Quarry queries on certain phases we find in assignment descriptions, we could find other examples of commonly used themes and phrases that are reused in student work.
- For anyone who spent time in a university, this student behavior shouldn't be a shock. None of these articles is going to be approved for main space so I'm not sure what the expectations are for our administrative corps. It's an interesting discovery but I'm sure if we looked around, we could find additional examples of students copying work and putting it in their User space pages. But I'd argue that there are many, many activities involved in maintaining this project that are more worth your time. Between AFDs, CFDs, RMs, ANI discussions (all of which had backlogs that were mentioned above), your time is more valuable spent elsewhere, using your acquired and valuable skills as editors. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I reckon that sums it up pretty well, Liz. Thanks for putting this in perspective. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- A. B., it's just that college projects that have gone awry show up fairly often on WP:AN, especially ones who aren't working with our WikiEd program and who do not have a liaison from WMF. I know there are active class projects right now where students pose assignments/answers on their User talk pages and it is completely confusing for editors who visit their talk pages to figure out what is going on with them. The bigger question, which folks avoid posing, is why can't old User pages that have class assignments from 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, etc. years ago be easily deleted? Unless they qualify for CSD U5, we generally let them be.
- User space is "safe space" that holds tens (hundreds?) of thousands of pages of junk, experiments and abandoned efforts from editors who once edited but are now long gone. We have a couple of editors who go through the laborious process of tagging pages in User space that qualify for one of the criteria for speedy deletion but most editors would rather spend their time working on constructive projects rather than going through stale pages in the old, musty, dusty basement of User space. And that focus seems best for the health and motivation of our editors and also for the health of the project. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I reckon that sums it up pretty well, Liz. Thanks for putting this in perspective. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:43, 19 June 2025 (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.
Speedy close for Israel–Iran war RfD?
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.
Four variants of "Israel–Iran war" were nominated at RfD on the 13th, but an article has now been created on the topic at the stylistically incorrect Israel – Iran war (that's a spaced en-dash). The RfD can now probably be speedily closed by moving the article to Israel–Iran war (without prejudice against further title refinement) and retargeting the other redirects there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran–Israel War seems like it should be resolved before the RfD is closed. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:51, 16 June 2025 (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.
Speaking of backlogs...
...WP:RfPP has requests going back over 24 hours. In the meantime, @Ser! pointed out on Discord that the IP edit war at Daryl Gurney has continued unabated. Toadspike [Talk] 17:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've processed most of them. And yes, I am doing this to pay forward my request for help with CfD above. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your work on getting these done. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Needed. Over some years I was able to help bring North America + South America's category structure to be matching to that of Europe. But Verizon refuses to upgrade my city unless the city gives Verizon millions of $$$$ the city won't pay $$$ for Verizon to have a monopoly. And so the old xDSL/POTS/ISDN phone system/service of Verizon slowly breaks down and gets slower and hardly functional. I have to use a VPN dns service just to get more dependable internet than what Verizon offers. BUT VPNs are banned on WikiCommons so I cannot do anymore clean-up. And ss Verizon isn't a stable connection and VPN isn't allowed I'm not abl to help. Hopefully the elections allows them to get back on track. CaribDigita (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- CaribDigita, is this somehow related to the thread, or did you accidentally post this in the wrong place? Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- We are btw at about 48h again. I have done a bit, and can do a couple of more, but it is the bed time for me. Ymblanter (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Needed. Over some years I was able to help bring North America + South America's category structure to be matching to that of Europe. But Verizon refuses to upgrade my city unless the city gives Verizon millions of $$$$ the city won't pay $$$ for Verizon to have a monopoly. And so the old xDSL/POTS/ISDN phone system/service of Verizon slowly breaks down and gets slower and hardly functional. I have to use a VPN dns service just to get more dependable internet than what Verizon offers. BUT VPNs are banned on WikiCommons so I cannot do anymore clean-up. And ss Verizon isn't a stable connection and VPN isn't allowed I'm not abl to help. Hopefully the elections allows them to get back on track. CaribDigita (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your work on getting these done. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Second attempt to get a close
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The RFC on Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor has been sitting on WP:CR since April, and it's unlikely that anything less than an admin close would be satisfactory, so I'm posting again asking if anyone will close the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- The RFC has been closed thanks to Beland. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Block request
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.
Because of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ToadetteEdit,_Project_Space_Again, I would like to have my access to project and project talk removed indefinitely. This is considered "under a cloud" so removing it would require discussion. Thank you. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is already being discussed by the community at the very link you provided. I would strongly suggest not acting on this, and instead waiting for the community consensus there. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- ToadetteEdit, I think you meant to say "so restoring it would require discussion." Liz Read! Talk! 20:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and close. Community discussion is ongoing. We do not need a concurrent discussion. Star Mississippi 23:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor is rewriting history and uses AI
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 came across the edits of Crabinovich, who is adding info about persons who can not be found in any reliable source. One of them is described as the father of football and cricket in Brazil, while also being the saviour of Manchester United. That's quite some CV, but somehow his article is redlinked/non-existent... The edit summaries are also misleading, and the images the user adds are clearly AI-generated (1) another one (2). I think a troll is at work here.
Another user, EgertonHistory, has a similar editing history. Both accounts have been editing e.g., here. Crabinovich and EgertonHistory are both active on Commons as well, and all of those images uploaded look AI-generated. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- I have blocked them from mainspace until they come here and explain themselves, and also flagged at the admin noticeboard at Commons. Black Kite (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, Black Kite. A newly-registered user is rapidly adding the same content again, very likely to be a sock. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, blocked. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, Black Kite. A newly-registered user is rapidly adding the same content again, very likely to be a sock. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments on my talk page
Possible Hoaxing?
Dear Black Kite,
I hope this message finds you well.
I am writing respectfully to request clarification regarding the block recently applied to my account on the grounds of “possible hoaxing.” I understand and respect the importance of preserving the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable and verifiable platform, and I share this commitment fully.
However, I would be grateful if you could kindly specify which edits or content additions triggered the concern, and what aspects were deemed potentially deceptive. From my perspective, my contributions — particularly those related to historical or genealogical figures — were made in good faith and based on sources I believed to be valid at the time and talking with members of the family.
If there were errors, misinterpretations, or insufficient referencing, I am more than willing to correct them, discuss the context openly, and work with the community to improve the reliability of the content. I would never intentionally insert false information, and I strongly reject any association with deliberate hoaxing.
I kindly ask for the opportunity to better understand your reasoning and to be allowed to clarify my intent and the evidence I was using. If needed, I am prepared to provide further documentation or sources to support the historical information in question.
Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely, Crabinovich (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Crabinovich, the wordiness of your comment is exceeeded only by its vagueness. Adding content to Wikipedia articles based on
talking with members of the family
is original research which is forbidden by policy. Are you using ChatGPT or any other artifical intelligence to draft your comments? If so, don't. We want discussion with genuine human beings, not with loquacious robots prone to hallucinations. Cullen328 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Concern regarding disruptive and unexplained edits by “Eem dik doun in tone”
Dear Black Kite,I hope this message finds you well.I am writing to raise a concern regarding a pattern of edits made by the user Eem dik doun in tone, particularly on pages related to the Egerton family and its historical branches. This editor has been repeatedly removing sourced content or modifying entries with no substantial justification, often labeling legitimate references as simply “unreliable source” in the edit summary — without explaining why, citing policy, or engaging in discussion.These removals have been made without participation on the article’s talk page, and no credible rationale or evidence has been presented to support such sweeping edits to historically rooted genealogical content.As someone with both academic and familial ties to the topic, I take the integrity of the material seriously and am fully open to collaboration, improvements, and source reviews. However, the current pattern of reversions appears arbitrary, disruptive, and dismissive of good-faith contributions.I kindly request that this behavior be reviewed and, if possible, that the editor be encouraged to provide proper reasoning and engage in open discussion — in keeping with Wikipedia’s standards of verifiability, consensus, and transparency.Thank you for your attention and support. 2804:187C:8377:C00:B31F:D6D2:3DC5:4279 (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- What do others think? I mean, these are obviously AI, but apart from that? (Note that both accounts are now blocked and their uploads deleted on Commons, incidentally). Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- ChatGPT has ruined the em dash for me. — DVRTed (Talk) 15:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- They can pry them out of my cold, dead, human hands. I won't let people that outsource their thinking ruin one of my favorite pieces of semi-obscure punctuation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is why I can't quit Wikipedia. These are my people. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- They can pry them out of my cold, dead, human hands. I won't let people that outsource their thinking ruin one of my favorite pieces of semi-obscure punctuation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
SPI update
I ran a CU on Commons and 
Confirmed that EgertonHistory is Crabinovich. Patrickkouark has no activity on Commons, so would not show up on that CU. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Considering the socking and that they are also active on pt.wiki, a global lock request may be in order for the three accounts. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Very possibly. In the meantime, however, I've indeffed them all here. Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2025 (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.
Ban Appeal: Aradicus77
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.
Aradicus77 has requested an unblock on his talk page. He was originally indeffed by Bbb23 as a spam-only account, and reblocked by me after sockpuppetry was discovered at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aradicus77. After discussing the process with him, he’s made an appeal for me to copy here and open a discussion. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm appealing my site ban and past blocks for ban evasion and sockpuppetry. I originally started editing because I was passionate about the band Red Krayola and wanted to improve their coverage. I didn’t fully understand Wikipedia’s policies, especially around neutrality and sourcing, and my edits led to a block. Instead of appealing properly, I kept returning under new accounts to continue editing, which only made things worse. Eventually, under DaveELeonard, I tried to follow the rules — editing unrelated topics, sourcing properly, and using talk pages — but I now understand that even well-intentioned edits still counted as ban evasion. After speaking with a moderator, I’ve taken time to review the relevant policies. I accept the past issues and would like a chance to contribute again, the right way — one account, no evasion, and full adherence to community standards. Thank you. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support as (one of the) blocking admins. The user seems sincere about wanting to do things the right way, and I’m inclined to extend a second chance. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support general unblock but with the indef topic ban on Red Krayola per the user's talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support In line with WP:STANDARDOFFER. Always beats the alternative Whac-a-Mole. No opinion on any topic bans they agree to. —Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- This seems a bit early, as the last sock was blocked at end of December. See Special:Diff/1266092071. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- If my maths is correct, it's only a little under two weeks early, to be fair. WP:NOTBURO? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Agree this is close enough. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- If my maths is correct, it's only a little under two weeks early, to be fair. WP:NOTBURO? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support with a topic ban they can appeal in six months. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support shows a positive track record of editing which makes me think they'll be a productive editor. Spirit of SO is fine with me as it would be too bureaucratic to bring this back in two weeks. No opinion on t-ban from Red Krayola. Star Mississippi 14:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support unblock. It doesn't seem to me that a topic ban is necessary, but if it will make other people more comfortable, I have no real problem with it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support with a topic ban that would be appealed in 6 months. killer bee 15:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support with a topic ban that would be appealed within a year. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support in two minds with regard to a topic ban, but if included should be able to be appealed after a shorter period, ie six months not 12. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Looks promising. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:Categories for discussion desparately needs more closers
I've singlehandedly closed basically all discussions from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 17 to the present day, which means that when I'm involved then nothing gets done even if the consensus is unanimous like at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Wikipedians who like Jacknjellify's animated web series. Anyone fancy helping out there? Steps at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'll try reviewing the instructions but, to be honest, I find CFD closures to be very confusing compared to AFD or RFD. But I'll try to see if there are some low-hanging fruit.
- Given recent announcements here regarding old AFDs and RMs, it looks like we need to be pulling some retired admins back to active duty or at least part-time service on admin rotation. Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Good thing we've got admin elections coming up. -- asilvering (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- We could use more admins patrolling ANI, too, I feel like I'm closing too many of the discussions there. What happened to all of those admins from the previous election? Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Most of them are still active, at least as editors. And some of them as admins too. For example Sohom Datta has been processing MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, another area that was at one time done singlehandledly by me. But it seems that work expands to fill the space available to do it or something like that. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I just went and checked the election list from October and some of the names, like User:Rsjaffe, User:DoubleGrazing and User:Dr vulpes, are ones I see around on the noticeboards. Since they were mentioned, I'll ping the remainder of that 10/24 election class to see if they are available to help out with the requests posted above this one.
- Calling: User:Queen of Hearts,User:SilverLocust, User:ThadeusOfNazereth, User:Ahecht, User:SD0001, User:Sohom Datta, User:Peaceray and User:FOARP! If you have some time available from your editor and admin duties, your assistance would be welcome! Be well! Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've worked on AfDs and especially CfDs in the past, but my spoons for admin work have dipped a bit recently. I may try and see if I can poke at stuff a bit more in the future though. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ironically, CfD was a significant part of the reason I ran in AELECT, but I'm unfortunately in about the same boat as Bushranger right now (although I did close the web series one). Also paging @HouseBlaster and @Qwerfjkl, both of whom I've historically seen active closing CfD (although the latter isn't an admin). charlotte 👸♥ 11:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'll decline patrolling ANI (it was one of the things I specifically said I wouldn't do in my AELECT statement, partially for my own mental sanity), but I'm open to patrolling CfDs and will add it to my list of things to start doing. Sohom (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm in the opposite position as Sohom -- I specifically said in my AELECT statement that I wasn't planning on doing deletion, but I can take a look at ANI. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)- Never say never! -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it's nice to see some of you new(er) admins check in. Glad to see you are well and helping out where you can. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Never say never! -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm in the opposite position as Sohom -- I specifically said in my AELECT statement that I wasn't planning on doing deletion, but I can take a look at ANI. --Ahecht (TALK
- I'll decline patrolling ANI (it was one of the things I specifically said I wouldn't do in my AELECT statement, partially for my own mental sanity), but I'm open to patrolling CfDs and will add it to my list of things to start doing. Sohom (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I plan to get back to it soon(ish). (Burnout is a really shitty thing.) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I know, I've been there. It's really impressive that you were singlehandedly keeping the backlog under control for as long as you did, honestly, but in truth one person can't handle this forever. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ironically, CfD was a significant part of the reason I ran in AELECT, but I'm unfortunately in about the same boat as Bushranger right now (although I did close the web series one). Also paging @HouseBlaster and @Qwerfjkl, both of whom I've historically seen active closing CfD (although the latter isn't an admin). charlotte 👸♥ 11:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm busy IRL but ducking in and out for brief periods, closed a few at ANI but don't have time for the complex stuff til later this week. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Happy to take a look at CfD this week. Have been somewhat involved in CSD and RfD so I'm not unfamiliar with the basae process. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 21:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I closed one & relisted a few. I will revisit, probably Wednesday. Peaceray (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've worked on AfDs and especially CfDs in the past, but my spoons for admin work have dipped a bit recently. I may try and see if I can poke at stuff a bit more in the future though. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Most of them are still active, at least as editors. And some of them as admins too. For example Sohom Datta has been processing MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, another area that was at one time done singlehandledly by me. But it seems that work expands to fill the space available to do it or something like that. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- We could use more admins patrolling ANI, too, I feel like I'm closing too many of the discussions there. What happened to all of those admins from the previous election? Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Good thing we've got admin elections coming up. -- asilvering (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Pppery, I've taken a break from CfD for a while, but I think I'll return to it sometime soon if life permits. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also, maybe I should brush off the dust on this essay I never really finished: User:Qwerfjkl/How to close CfD discussions. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- The best news I've heard in a while. You are really missed, Qwerfjkl. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Qwerfjkl, for your essay. I've been here 12 years and I still find closing CFDs confusing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:Liz, are you confused by the procedures, i.e. what should be seen as the consensus, or by the technical aspects? (I say this as someone who virtually never closes discussions of any sort.) If it's just the technical side of things, you could always assess consensus and ask someone else to do the technical stuff. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Nyttend, sorry to just be seeing this. No, after working with AFDs since 2020, it's not the discussion closure that I find challenging, it's the implementation of the consensus and working with the CFD bot on the Working page that I find confusing. I think it's also strange that XFDcloser doesn't take any action, you might close a discussion as Delete but XFDcloser doesn't actually delete the category, that has to be done manually. But it's the emptying the category and the merging that is the heavy lifting. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- No worries on the delay. If a CFD-active admin has voted in the discussion, maybe you could just close it and ask the other admin to implement your decision? It would be preposterous for someone to object to the other admin's actions on WP:INVOLVED grounds. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- The closer does not delete the category because a check needs to be made that the category is empty, and we have bots doing this. If the result of the closure gets to this page, we will take care of the rest. Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- And admins can go directly here, but this one is indeed confusing. Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Nyttend, sorry to just be seeing this. No, after working with AFDs since 2020, it's not the discussion closure that I find challenging, it's the implementation of the consensus and working with the CFD bot on the Working page that I find confusing. I think it's also strange that XFDcloser doesn't take any action, you might close a discussion as Delete but XFDcloser doesn't actually delete the category, that has to be done manually. But it's the emptying the category and the merging that is the heavy lifting. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- User:Liz, are you confused by the procedures, i.e. what should be seen as the consensus, or by the technical aspects? (I say this as someone who virtually never closes discussions of any sort.) If it's just the technical side of things, you could always assess consensus and ask someone else to do the technical stuff. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Qwerfjkl, for your essay. I've been here 12 years and I still find closing CFDs confusing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Pppery, for your CFD service. And thank you to everyone above who has said they would keep an eye on it! Many hands make light work. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), astonishing history
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 came across the page Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) during routine Wikipedia:New pages patrol this morning. It appears to be a duplication of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that has been copied over to overwrite Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes (not the real page Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes) and a redirect Héctor Leyva Chávez. It is probable that this is just an overenthusiastic editor creating duplicates & inaccurately named pages/redirects, including a chain of redirects from his user page. However, given that the "real" ADHD page gets > 4K views a day, I think someone with admin rights should sort this out. Pinging here RayRayM1604 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who it seems made most of the edits. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- N.B., probably posted at the wrong place... Ldm1954 (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Unattributed copy of Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and redirect deleted. I'll post an explanation to RayRayM1604. Nthep (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2025 (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.
Possible slow-moving revert war at CTOP article Hazaras
It looks like there's a slow-moving revert war at Hazaras, which spilled over into accusations of sockpuppetry in a thread on my user talk page. I don't have the bandwidth to sort it out, and I only discovered the article because an image recently added to it tripped an abuse filter I patrol over on Commons, so I leave this in your capable hands to figure out. Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, The Squirrel Conspiracy, I think we all are busy so could you take the time to share some diffs and notifying editors involved with this edit war about this discussion at WP:AN. Otherwise, your action is what we casually refer to as "throwing a hand grenade" and then walking away. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: (I wish our admin backlogs at Commons were as well under control as yours are here.) Fair enough.
- Just looking in the last few months, I see Shishaz, Vofa, SdHb, HistoryofIran, and KoizumiBS as the people reverting each other, with Badakhshan ziba as the only other person making major edits to that page during that time frame, and their work possibly getting caught in the crossfire. I should state, for the record, that I know absolutely nothing about the subject matter itself, and only learned that the article existed earlier today.
- Back and forth over the Hazaras' population: This edit is HistoryofIran reverting Shishaz. This edit is Vofa reverting HistoryofIran. This edit is SdHb reverting Vofa.
- Back and forth over Genghis Khan: This edit by KoizumiBS is a major change to the section on Genghis Khan with an edit summary indicating that there's an ongoing dispute. The very next edit is Shishaz reverting it. At this point, I become aware of the article because Shishaz uploaded a file on Commons that tripped an abuse filter for AI images. When I went to remove the image, I saw that last revert, and rather than just remove the image, I reverted Shishaz (having not realized there was an ongoing dispute, I just saw it as a poorly explained removal of a large amount of seemingly well written and properly cited content, hence the revert). A bit later, in this edit, Vofa reverted me.
- Sockpuppetry investigation: After I reverted Shishaz, they left a message on my page. HistoryofIran replied to that, pointing me to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad.
- Hopefully that helps. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this additional information is very helpful, thank you, The Squirrel Conspiracy! Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz Hello. Unfortunately, it seems that some new users are vandalizing the Hazara population article. Unfortunately, in Afghanistan, the Pashtuns and Taliban are trying very hard to portray the Hazaras as a minority and a small population, and also to portray the Pashtuns as having a population of over 50%.
- We are also witnessing vandalism in the Ethnic groups in Afghanistan article, and by comparing the history of this article, we find that they have made many changes to the information in this article in the last one or two years.
- Another issue that the Hazaras are struggling with in Afghanistan is that some people are trying to say that the Hazaras are not indigenous to Afghanistan and that they migrated to Afghanistan from Mongolia, and thus they intend to portray the Hazaras as immigrants and non-natives in order to continue to harass the Hazaras.
- Unfortunately, what I am saying is the current reality of Afghanistan, where these issues have greatly intensified under the shadow of the Taliban government.
- Please do not allow a number of newly created accounts to vandalize the article. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- While I understand the concerns raised, I believe it's important to separate political narratives from encyclopedic standards. Wikipedia articles should reflect reliable academic sources and scholarly consensus, not national or ethnic sentiments - however understandable they may be. The discussion about the Hazara origin - whether it includes Mongolic ancestry or not - is a matter of historical and genetic research. Multiple peer-reviewed sources support the presence of Mongolic elements in Hazara origins. Including this information is not "vandalism".
- Accusing editors of "trying to portray Hazaras as immigrants" simply for including these historical perspectives risks crossing into WP:POLEMIC territory. Moreover, blanket labeling of edits as "Taliban-backed" or part of a political agenda is counterproductive and can easily violate WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith). Let's focus on sources, citations, and consensus - not motivations we cannot verify. KoizumiBS (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, there is definitely a Mongolian gene in the genetics of Hazaras, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, and even Kazakhs, there is no doubt about this.
- The Hazara population is mentioned as 9% in old sources https://web.archive.org/web/20131014200908/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html?countryName=Afghanistan&countryCode=af®ionCode=sas&#af
- and 18%Library of Congress Country Studies". https://web.archive.org/web/20090110132651/https://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd%2Fcstdy%3A%40field%28DOCID+af0037%29
- in the most reliable sources, and the most recent academic and research sources mention as 24%https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Afghanistan_Ethnic_summary_lg.png and https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml
- At the Bonn Conference in 2001, the United Nations announced the Hazara population as 20%.Therefore, the Hazara population should be corrected.
- Assuming the total population of Afghanistan is 42 milion in 2024, the Hazara population should be at least 3.780,000 to over 10 million.
- The average between these numbers is about 7 million people in Afghanistan.Therefore, this incorrect statistic about the Hazaras population should be corrected. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, I am a bit lost on what to make of this ANI, and if it was appropriate to make in the first place.
- Usually ANI happens when something already happened that breaks rules (3 edit rule, vandalism).
- That said, it is bizarre to make an ANI for a "slow-moving revert war" i dont see that happening, considering that the last edit held up and is there for 13 hours. Vofa (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I'll give a short summary; Since 2022 Iampharzad and their socks (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad/Archive) have been mainly fixiated on Hazaras, disrupting by removing/altering sourced info, usually something to reduce the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras, and being incredibly dishonest about their edits and the info in the article. I had not watched over the article since the previous sock User:Bravehm was blocked last summer, and meanwhile, another sock, User:Shishaz, had emerged and continued the same pattern. It's insanity, 3 years of this, where me and KoizumiBS have had to deal with this person. Though I'm not sure why Vofa reverted KoizumiBS, giving no edit summary. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad, there are clear signs that Shishaz is Iampharzad - as seen there, they can't even answer why they restored the exact same random edit made by Iampharzad, having been asked 4 times, including by an admin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- i want to make one thing clear: assume good faith.
- i was not asked to give a brief summary for the restore, except wp itself.
- so, here is a brief explanation: their sources and reasoning made a lot of sense, and as i started looking for other sources, i found more or less the same findings.
- i am not a sockpuppet, and there is no good reason to assume others of being a sockpuppet. agreeing on an edit is consensus, not a sign of sockpuppetry. Vofa (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- to openly assume bad faith because someone disagrees, calling them a sockpuppet in an ANI is unacceptable, and could result in a block Vofa (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't indicating that you were a sock of Iampharzad, I'm sorry if it came across that way. Though your explanation is pretty vague, it would appreciated if you could elaborate at Talk:Hazaras. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- your accusation concerned the other editor, to which i replied. The other editor had already given a brief summary of their edit, and i made a short explanation here. Vofa (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Then in that case I must disagree with your remark. I did not assume that Shishaz was a sock just because of a disagreement, that is quite the accusation (feel free to prove that, and if you can't, please be aware of WP:ASPERSIONS). There are obvious signs of them being a sock per the SPI, including the exact same page moves, edits, etc etc. And Shishaz's explanation is vague (and likely dishonest, just like in the past [50]), just like yours. They claimed that sourced information was removed in a edit which they removed 5k information [51] when reverting KoizumiBS. You both have not come with a proper explanation on what was actually wrong with KoizumiBS's edit. So by all means, please elaborate at Talk:Hazaras. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- [52] Vofa (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- were you referring to my explanation as dishonest? if yes, on what basis? Vofa (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- I was not, which is why I mentioned the dishonest bit in parentheses. Though I should have made it more clear. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Then in that case I must disagree with your remark. I did not assume that Shishaz was a sock just because of a disagreement, that is quite the accusation (feel free to prove that, and if you can't, please be aware of WP:ASPERSIONS). There are obvious signs of them being a sock per the SPI, including the exact same page moves, edits, etc etc. And Shishaz's explanation is vague (and likely dishonest, just like in the past [50]), just like yours. They claimed that sourced information was removed in a edit which they removed 5k information [51] when reverting KoizumiBS. You both have not come with a proper explanation on what was actually wrong with KoizumiBS's edit. So by all means, please elaborate at Talk:Hazaras. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- your accusation concerned the other editor, to which i replied. The other editor had already given a brief summary of their edit, and i made a short explanation here. Vofa (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't indicating that you were a sock of Iampharzad, I'm sorry if it came across that way. Though your explanation is pretty vague, it would appreciated if you could elaborate at Talk:Hazaras. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
HistoryofIran, The Squirrel Conspiracy, Liz at Talk:Hazaras I provided a detailed explanation of my edit, breaking it down into sections: origin, genetics, and language. I also pointed out that several new, academically supported sources I added - such as references to Vambery, Rashid al-Din, and Encyclopaedia Iranica - were removed from the article. Regarding the user Shishaz, his editing and discussion style strongly resembles that of Iampharzad, who has already been investigated in the past. The similarities are clear in both the substance of the edits and the way they are argued. As for the user Vofa, his block history suggests ongoing difficulties in achieving consensus with others. In this case, for instance, he labeled one of the main theories of Hazara origin as fringe, while also removing a reliable source supporting it. Additionally, he removed the reference to Mongolic influence from the title of the section on the Hazara language.KoizumiBS (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
To unblock editing adding music genres
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.
CrimeFind31 (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC) Good morning sir and maam, i'm living in the Philippines. I'm sincerely appealing and petition to unblock my account and also editing when it comes of music genres. And also i'm surely proved to myself that i did not violating any rules and regulations when it comes of being also beginner editor since 2023.
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.
Review of SPLC closure
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.
RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center
Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User requesting review: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 02:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Notified: [53]
Reasoning: @Chetsford closed the SPLC RfC as "always requires attribution", but generally reliable. This is contradictory and I request a review of it. While I don't agree that there is a consensus for always requiring attribution, the bigger problem is that it is inherently oxymoronic to declare a source "generally reliable" for factual matters, but then say it must always be attributed. Per our own description of generally reliable:
Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments that entirely exclude such a source must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (e.g. a well-established news organization would be normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or a different standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question.
It is incomprehensible to declare a source generally reliable when it can only be used in an attributed matter; that is definitionally an "additional considerations" close. Should at least be "other considerations apply" so people know not to use it without attribution and so we can facilitate its removal from pages where it is not attributed. In practice, a result of requiring attribution for all statements is an additional considerations or marginally reliable close, and if that provision is kept this should reflect that. As is this gives a nonsensical result, and people will add it to pages as GREL without knowing they cannot use it for most facts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Closer (Chetsford)
- First, the appellant files this challenge on the basis of erroneous information. They say
- "Chetsford closed the SPLC RfC as "always requires attribution"
- This is false. The relevant portions of the close are:
- "information sourced to it should usually [emphasis added] be attributed"
- "application of a potentially contentious label [emphasis added] to someone or something should be employed only if attributed, or otherwise supported by other RS"
- "the foregoing should not be read as meaningfully different from the status quo" [to wit ""The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION."]
- Second, general reliability is not analogous to universal reliability which seems to be what the appellant is actually seeking. It is neither unusual nor exotic for a generally reliable source to have use-case caveats attached (e.g. WP:RSPADL, WP:BELLINGCAT, WP:CSM, WP:DESERET, WP:PEOPLEMAG, etc.).
- Third, as per my discussion with the appellant here, whether the consensus of the community is or is not paradoxical, is not something a closer can control. The beginning and end of the closer's authority is to read the consensus of the community, not enforce coherence upon it.
- Details of the foregoing: The essence of the appellant's argument seems to be that, if the words "generally reliable" appear anywhere in the close, then no caveats can be attached without it being incoherent. Whether that's true or not is a separate matter from whether it was the consensus of the community. The discussion was filled with !votes that expressed just that e.g. "generally reliable, should always be attributed", "Option 1 ... it should always be attributed", "Option 1 with attribution", "Option 1 with attribution", etc., etc. In combination with the (numerically superior, after qualitative adjustments) Option 2 !voters who said things like "functionaly [sic] the same as the many people who !voted "Option 1 but with attribution"", "Option 2 - they should be attributed at all times" and so forth, there's clearly no consensus for the determination of universal reliability the appellant desires. In closing RfCs, I always assume that every !vote is a perfect expression of the intent of the editor and never try to infer what I think an editor meant to say but was incompetent of expressing. For me to simply say "generally reliable -- no attribution ever required" would have been an overriding WP:SUPERVOTE.
- Fourth, the appellant said "they cannot use it for most facts" but that's simply not the case and does not form any element of the close: (a) as noted in the close itself, nothing has meaningfully changed from the status quo; (b) incontrovertible facts are absolutely citable to the SPLC without inline attribution precisely as they were before based on any reasonable reading of the close and understanding of the role of Talk pages; (c) if one believes the foregoing is insufficient, one is ultimately relitigating the RfC and not the close as the kind of perfected language desired by the appellant to form part of the close is simply absent across most editors comments and, in fact, many of the "2" editors overtly expressed an intent that they wanted statements of any kind attributed (see comments by Berchanhimez, Blueboar, Springee, Masem, Sean Waltz O'Connell, etc.) Chetsford (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- A point of clarification, as this may impact whether or not editors would like to support overturning the close or not.
It is with intention that the close vaguely says "usually attributed" and doesn't specify "attributed for statements of opinion only"; it is not due to accident or oversight.
Discussants, by and large (with a few exceptions), did not specify this limitation. The closer must assume each !vote is a perfect expression of the belief of the !voter and not presume sweeping instances of !voter incompetence.
More importantly, though, this is not a vote where there is one side that wins but a "process of compromise" where the the community expresses its desire through the holistic character of the discussion. In addition to the fact that most !voters generally indicated attribution with no explicit limitation, a not-insignificant number of !voters explicitly demanded attribution in any and all circumstances (as I note above). And, there was yet a third class of !voters who indicated that SPLC should not have primacy in disputes in the nature of facts when contradicted by other RS (either requiring contextualization or preferencing different sources, such as academic publications).
"Usually attributed" will be read by reasonable editors as a necessity for attribution in instances where there is good faith objection (i.e. the well-articulated objections of multiple editors versus the generalized opposition of one or two obstinate editors) to the veracity of a specific piece of information. In other words, the close is not a Passe-Libre to force any piece of content into an article over the objections of other editors as long as one first declares it's not "XYZ" class of information; nor, however, is it a requirement that any content sourced to SPLC must be inline attributed without exception.
While I appreciate some editors occasionally desire RSN RfCs that result in Passe-Libres that allow them to obliviate the necessity of article-specific Talk pages (and in many cases they do) this was not the end result of this RfC. Chetsford (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC) - Here's a Q&A: There seems to be a level of incomprehensible confusion as to what the close does and does not accomplish, and it seems all sides are reading into it their desired outcome. I have therefore written a Q&A here that explains "usually attributed" to a level of detail impossible to include in a closing statement, but apparently necessary. Chetsford (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- A point of clarification, as this may impact whether or not editors would like to support overturning the close or not.
Non-participants (SPLC)
- Background: This is a two-part RfC. Part 1 addresses the SPLC, and the closing summary for Part 1 states, "information sourced to it should usually be attributed" (emphasis added). Part 2 addresses the SPLC Hatewatch, and the closing summary for Part 2 states, "information sourced to it should always be attributed" (emphasis added). Based on this, PARAKANYAA's initial rationale for the closure review request appears to primarily apply to Part 2 (about Hatewatch).The closure had been substantially amended after Chetsford received a request on his talk page and before PARAKANYAA filed this review request. In Special:Diff/1294802704, Chetsford changed the closing summary of Part 1 (about the SPLC) from "SPLC's application of a potentially contentious label to someone or something should only be employed if supported by other RS" (emphasis added) to "SPLC's application of a potentially contentious label to someone or something should be employed only if attributed, or otherwise supported by other RS" (emphasis added). A clarification that "the foregoing should not be read as meaningfully different from the status quo" was added to Part 1 in Special:Diff/1294824349. In contrast, Part 2's closing summary (about Hatewatch) has not been changed, and still reads, "its application of a potentially contentious label to someone or something should only be employed if supported by other RS" (emphasis added).Analysis: The Part 1 closing summary is highly detailed and includes a numerical breakdown of editor responses that incorporated a qualitative assessment of the arguments made, but the Part 2 closing summary is much shorter and omits the analysis. Chetsford said in the Part 2 summary, "For purposes of brevity, I'm going to jump straight to the conclusion and skip the preamble, which would largely or identically mirror the explanations given in Part 1 (above), albeit with a slightly (though not radically) different distribution of opinions." Because the Part 2 summary describes a consensus that is different from that of the Part 1 summary, I would like to see Chetsford explain in greater detail how the Part 2 editor responses show consensus for restricting the use of potentially contentious labels from Hatewatch that are attributed inline with the "should only be employed if supported by other RS" qualification, in contrast to the Part 1 responses that do not show consensus for the same restriction for the SPLC in general.I disagree with PARAKANYAA's argument that a source designated as "always requires attribution" cannot be considered generally reliable, because while "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution" (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" (WP:BIASED). I do, however, ask Chetsford to explain the differences between the Part 1 and Part 2 editor responses that would lead to consensus for "always" requiring attribution for Hatewatch, but only "usually" requiring attribution for the SPLC as a whole.On the other hand, the finding in the Part 2 summary "its application of a potentially contentious label to someone or something should only be employed if supported by other RS" would imply that Hatewatch's potentially controversial labels are less than generally reliable, as it is stating that these labels are never reliable enough to pass the due weight policy (which requires articles to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources") on the sole basis of the Hatewatch article that the label is published in, without being accompanied by other sources that are reliable enough to avoid such a requirement. It is not a
contradicationcontradiction to consider Hatewatch generally reliable even with this restriction, as Hatewatch also consists of content other than potentially contentious labels. But as I mentioned before, I would like to see Chetsford explain in greater detail how he found consensus for this restriction.Another part of the closure that caught my attention was the second-to-last paragraph of the Part 1 summary, "Finally, no one objected to the construction of the RfC which, in effect, validated Barnards.tar.gz's unobjected-to comment that 'they should not be used to support contentious labels for groups and individuals outside of their core competency area of American racist groups'." Neither the Part 1 nor the Part 2 RfC statement asked about the reliability of the SPLC and Hatewatch for topics outside of "hate groups and extremism in the United States", and a single comment by one editor (that is the 39th of the 41 responses in the Part 1 polling section) among the approximately 361 comments in the RfC is unlikely to have been read by many of the other RfC participants. I would strike this finding, as I do not consider it adequately supported by the RfC responses in total. — Newslinger talk 10:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC) Fixed spelling 19:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC) - I see no issues with the generalities of this close (essentially, that the status quo remains in force), I'm sure Chetsford would be willing to add the same clarification to part 2 as well, as indicated. I agree with Newslinger that a single comment from a single editor in a rather large RFC should not be taken as sufficient support to find much of anything. Whether it could be made clearer that what "usually" refers to (i.e. opinion) I see outside of the main scope of the close review, though if people want to workshop refining the exact wording I'm sure that could be done, maybe in the discussion section. This is therefore an endorse from me. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. As this discussion goes on it's become increasingly clear to me that this is one editor's deciding they don't like the closure, and taking such an idiosyncratic view of said closure that they have responded to it by making edits that can only be described as pointy. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse Chetsford always does thoughtful closes, and this one was no different. There really cannot have been some other close, despite the challenger's reasoning, and the contention that attribution inherently means unreliable is confusing the concepts of WP:RELIABLE and bias. all sources have bias, regardless of reliability, and the decision to attribute specific positions of some sources does not speak at all to the reliability of the source. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse per Buffs below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse close. Closer accurately read the consensus from the discussion and weighed arguments in a reasonable matter. Let'srun (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Participants (SPLC)
- Endorse closure. I don't see any reason that this needs to be relitigated - the close was well thought out on both aspects (SPLC as a whole and Hatewatch) and I don't see how it could've been closed any other way. They are a biased source, as basically everyone (even option 1 !voters) admits - WP:BIASED addresses this directly:
Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
This discussion showed the consensus of the community that the SPLC, while reliable, is so heavily biased that information that can only be sourced to them should generally be attributed in-text. As the closer points out, this is not a suicide pact - there may be circumstances in which in-text attribution is unnecessary, such as if there are other sources for most/all of the information being included in an article. I thank the closer for their careful review of the comments and opinions. And please guys, we don't need to relitigate anything here - I don't intend to reply further here unless someone has a specific question for me (and if so, please ping me to let me know). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC) - The closure reflects the discussion's odd focus on attributing opinions and contentious labels, which is already a requirement regardless of how reliable the source is. Even top-tier sources like the NYT and Washington Post have an "attribute opinions" caveat which frankly shouldn't need to be said. I think there was an unspoken assumption that "SPLC only publishes opinions and therefore must always be attributed" which ignored the non-opinion research work that they do.
- There's not much that a closer could have done about this while remaining impartial, however a clarification of
"information sourced to it should usually be attributed"
(when exactly should it be authorized?) would avoid any confusion or wikilawyering down the road. –dlthewave ☎ 05:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse closure - While I would have preferred that Chetsford explicitly stated that attribution was necessary only in relation to opinions and not in relation to statements of fact, that they stated "... information sourced to it should usually be attributed" (my emphasis) covers it. Generally I find Chetsford's closes to be of a high quality and I have no non-trivial issue with this one. TarnishedPathtalk 11:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse close It would probably be worth adding the same clarifications added to Part 1 to Part 2. Otherwise this seems to have followed the discussion and results in status quo for the source. Springee (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse close I think the difficulty here is that the 4-way split at RSN didn't serve us well. Although Option 2 says "Additional Considerations" and so it may seem like !voting Option 1 excludes that, many participants in fact specified additional considerations - especially around attribution. Similarly, Option 2 voters (including myself) were not necessarily voting against GREL (and I was specifically voting for it).
- Confusion around this occurred during the RfC itself - an editor said that my !vote was self-contradictory in the same way as the filer of this CR interprets the close as being. I think closer has done a good job. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Partial endorse mostly per Springee and Newslinger. I agree that the changes to part 1 should be reflected in part 2, and I also think that line about a single editor's comment should be struck. However, after Chetsford's clarifications and what !voters said below I don't think what PARAKANYAA is concerned about actually part of the close. I think the intent here is that SPLC should always be attributed for opinions but it can be cited without attribution for pure facts. Loki (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse close I don't like the outcome. I think the conclusions made by participants were incorrect. But I also recognize my opinion/arguments didn't carry the day. The closure was an appropriate outcome. Buffs (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse close. Far from raising issues, I think Chetsford's close was an extremely nuanced and skillfull rendering of consensus in very difficult circumstances, and I believe they captured the essence of the overall community findings in the discussion about as accurately as anybody could have been expected to. SnowRise let's rap 10:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (SPLC)
- I'll hold off on replying pending the application of the Template:RfC closure review. I would apply it myself but I can't self-notify so if someone else wouldn't mind, it would be appreciated. Chetsford (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I did it myself. Chetsford (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- My bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I did it myself. Chetsford (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- The conclusion is confusing because all statements require attribution. However generally statements of fact are attributed with footnotes, while statements of opinion are attributed in text, no matter how reliable the sources.
- Should we phrase the first sentence of the Westboro Baptist Church: it "is an American unaffiliated Primitive Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas, that was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps, according to the SPLC?" Does anyone think the source is so unreliable that they got the denomination, ___location, date of founding and name of the founder wrong? TFD (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that is how we would have to write factual citations to the SPLC now going forward. Which in practice amounts to removing most information cited to them, that cannot be clearly or reasonably attributed (Anything besides x is hate group according to SPLC, which we already had to attribute), because it makes the writing abysmal. But the big issue is this is actually a far more restrictive standard than most no consensus/marginally reliable sources even have, so in no way is this a GREL close - it will create untold confusion from people trying to add it to support facts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- According to the policy if not in practice, statements require specific attribution via footnote when challenged, but not necessarily. Statements must be verifiable. I think also the point was basically around attribution for controversial or extraordinary claims or contentious labels. I think this is not a charitable read of the close at all which states
There is a consensus that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States is generally reliable but information sourced to it should usually be attributed, academic sources are preferred when available, and, SPLC's application of a potentially contentious label to someone or something should be employed only if attributed, or otherwise supported by other RS.
Endorse the close but was involved and the close is similar to what I said in the discussion. Andre🚐 02:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)- 1) Scroll to the second part, which has the same oxymoron (declaring something GREL but giving what is a MREL result). It was also modified somewhat right before I posted this but I do not think that makes it any clearer given this is considerably stronger language than before, so clearly something has changed.
- 2) This is not better if we are referring to facts. They already had to be cited for extraordinary or contentious claims... If it's supposed to be almost always, in what circumstances should they NOT be attributed/when can we use then without it? That is also not a GREL close. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is a rare case where I think the opinions of (certain) participants are more valuable than those of non-participants, and also where some extra consensus-building might be useful. So: Simonm223, Aquillion, Thryduulf, SnowRise, Binksternet, Jmabel, Santasa99, PackMecEng, Silver_seren, JeffSpaceman, you all !voted Option 1 but said the SPLC should "always" be attributed.
- Are you aware the SPLC is sometimes cited for pure facts?
- For instance: in our article on the white nationalist Kevin Alfred Strom we cite
Strom indicates a high school teacher who shared his hatred of communism introduced him to the John Birch Society (JBS) where he first met members of the National Alliance which was more vocal about race theory and conflict
to the SPLC exclusively.
- For instance: in our article on the white nationalist Kevin Alfred Strom we cite
- Would you still support requiring attribution to the SPLC for pure facts?
- So the above would become
According to the SPLC, Strom indicates a high school teacher who shared his hatred of communism introduced him to the John Birch Society (JBS) where he first met members of the National Alliance which was more vocal about race theory and conflict
- So the above would become
- Are you aware the SPLC is sometimes cited for pure facts?
- Loki (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ping for Snow_Rise was broken, fixing here. Loki (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would argue additionally that if we can only write such basic information in an attributed manner we should just remove it, which will be quite a lot of content on the modern far-right. Probably most of it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- As someone who !voted for "with considerations", that consideration being in text attribution, I believe yes, that should be attributed. If it is an actual fact that is due weight to include, then it will have been picked up by other reliable sources and we can evaluate whether to attribute in text based on those other sources. If it has not been picked up by other sources, it is very likely undue. But if it is determined to be due, we must attribute in text. A biased source will, by definition, include "facts" when they support their viewpoint - even if those facts may not be as fully vetted as another source would've done, or if they're not important in the grand scheme of things.In a situation where the SPLC reports a fact and other reliable sources attribute it to the SPLC, there can still be a local consensus that in-text attribution isn't necessary in our article. For an extreme example, if the NYT, AP, and the Guardian all report on the fact (even if they attribute it to the SPLC), then it may not be necessary to say "per (source/SPLC) [fact]". But if the SPLC is the only one reporting it, or it's only being picked up by questionable sources, then we should be attributing even "facts" in text because of the risk they are not accurate and/or are only being reported for biased reasons. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- What reliable sources are not biased against the far-right? If bias is a reason for unreliability, and not actual evidence of factual inaccuracy, why would the NYT, the Guardian, and AP not have the same problem? AP infamously lowercases "white" but uppercases "Black" literally solely to spite white supremacists, the Guardian regularly doxes far-righters, etc. These are not reasons for unreliability. If sources being biased against the far-right is a reason for unreliability we do not have any sources on them because all pro-far right sources we have declared unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- And, if the consensus is that information from a source is almost always undue weight that is definitionally not a GREL closure, which is what I said in my main post. This should then be marked as generally unreliable or marginally reliable for clarity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm aware of what you voted; the reason I didn't ping you is that you were not in any way ambiguous about that. I only pinged people who voted Option 1 but always attribute because that position seems somewhat contradictory and is thus ambiguous.
- As you can see, there were quite a lot of people like that. About a quarter of the RFC participants in fact, easily enough to swing a consensus. Loki (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- What reliable sources are not biased against the far-right? If bias is a reason for unreliability, and not actual evidence of factual inaccuracy, why would the NYT, the Guardian, and AP not have the same problem? AP infamously lowercases "white" but uppercases "Black" literally solely to spite white supremacists, the Guardian regularly doxes far-righters, etc. These are not reasons for unreliability. If sources being biased against the far-right is a reason for unreliability we do not have any sources on them because all pro-far right sources we have declared unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- For absolutely pure fact? No. In that case attribution is not necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I thought I had made it clear in my comments that I believed the pre-existing status as generally reliable and the wording of their entry was exactly correct: i.e
The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION.
. Nothing in the discussion convinced me otherwise and nor do I see a consensus to change that, so I do think the close is poor (not just in this regard, but the very legalistic tone as a whole should be dropped in future) but it is not grossly incorrect. I am very disappointed in the combative vibe I'm getting from this review though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)- My response is substantially the same as Thryduulf's: This is of course a situation requiring a case by case analysis, but, while I consider the SPLC to show ever indicia and meet every criteria for general reliability that we use for determining such matters, it is also in the business of identifying and detailing extremist organizations. As such, a strong majority of statements cited to it are going to involve WP:exceptional statements and implicate other policy considerations directing restraint in what we state in wikivoice and an extra bit of application of NPOV considerations. So, where statements are attributed to multiple sources making the same clear description of a given subject, it may be appropriate to cite sans attribution. In the majority of cases where the SPLC is the sole descriptor, it will probably be important to attribute. Of course, context is queen and there may be exceptions, but this is the general pattern I would expect to manifest if policy is being applied correctly. SnowRise let's rap 11:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I thought I had made myself clear on this when you tried this argument previously.
No, you're just inherently wrong. I (and others) voted Option 1 and meant Option 1. The subject matter that SPLC primarily focuses on, however, means that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV generally applies for those topics. Per the subjects at hand, we shouldn't outright say that some group is a hate group without attributing where that conclusion is coming from. It doesn't matter where that statement is coming from, every single source being used, no matter how reliable, would need to be attributed for such statements. Option 1 still completely applies even when attribution is needed for the subject.
- But, fine, if this needs to be overly explicit, I meant "attribution for opinions". There you go, it's GREL. Are we done now? The community is not in agreement with you, PARAKANYAA. SilverserenC 02:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what you think I'm arguing, because that's what I argued in the RfC myself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- For context, when you said that originally it was to Berchanhimez, not PARAKANYAA. I feel like there is some sort of misunderstanding here, because it doesn't seem like you're clearly referring to either of them: PARAKANYAA never made that argument and Berchan hasn't commented in this discussion at all yet. Loki (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, I saw PARAKANYAA in the reply to that comment and thought it had originally been in response to the same. My apologies, PARAKANYAA. I'm just really done as of late with redone discussions that were already going on for weeks. Too much relitigation going on. It's extremely tiring. SilverserenC 03:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I stand by what I said. If I were citing SPLC, even for fact, I'd be very clear that is my source. They are not a news or academic source, they are an advocacy organization. An advocacy organization is never an ideal source for an encyclopedia, even if it can be a sufficiently good one. So far as I know, they have an excellent track record of getting their facts right, but it doesn't change the nature of what they are. I'd want the same for any advocacy organization, and I don't think that should change just because this is one I generally agree with. - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)+
- I also want to add: I'm not at all happy with the way some people here are using the word "bias" (and, apologies, it's late at night here and I'm not going to look again to see exactly who said what). Of course organizations have points of view, but the word "bias" suggests a willingness to suppress or distort facts. Also (related): centrism is just as much of a political position as any other. - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with this general view. If the SPLC is the source for a non-contentious fact, (Jonny Wixs lives in Springfield) the I wouldn't be too concerned. However, sometimes the factual statements can still be subjective or require context. An an example, the claim "Jonny Wixs's travel is supported by a [named person]". Is that [named person] directly gives the money or does it mean [named person] gave money to an organization who then gave money through a announced program to applicants including Jonny? It is a fact that Jonny was supported but the indirect nature is context that a source that is trying to support a bigger claim might leave out. So in this case the factual claim should be attributed. This seems to be in line with how the source is typically been used. So I don't see it as a change from status quo. Springee (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be the same or any rs? TFD (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with this general view. If the SPLC is the source for a non-contentious fact, (Jonny Wixs lives in Springfield) the I wouldn't be too concerned. However, sometimes the factual statements can still be subjective or require context. An an example, the claim "Jonny Wixs's travel is supported by a [named person]". Is that [named person] directly gives the money or does it mean [named person] gave money to an organization who then gave money through a announced program to applicants including Jonny? It is a fact that Jonny was supported but the indirect nature is context that a source that is trying to support a bigger claim might leave out. So in this case the factual claim should be attributed. This seems to be in line with how the source is typically been used. So I don't see it as a change from status quo. Springee (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I also want to add: I'm not at all happy with the way some people here are using the word "bias" (and, apologies, it's late at night here and I'm not going to look again to see exactly who said what). Of course organizations have points of view, but the word "bias" suggests a willingness to suppress or distort facts. Also (related): centrism is just as much of a political position as any other. - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- In answer to TFD's question above: I would presume all of that can be easily cited from a top-quality source. It doesn't seem to me like something you should need to cite from an advocacy group.
- (By the way, I don't maintain a watchlist on en-wiki; if someone wants specifically to further engage me on anything I've said here, please ping.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel You would presume, but it is not the case, even with extremely significant people like William Luther Pierce, very basic facts about his background are only citable to the SPLC (or it was before I removed large chunks of it as a result of the RfC). Incredible amounts of what seems like basic information are only citable to "advocacy sources". The information ecosystem in this topic area is extremely bizarre. And all sources on this topic, including academic ones, are advocacy sources; there are no sources "neutral" on neo-Nazism. If we disregard sources for being advocacy sources than there are simply no reliable ones, many academics are explicitly anti-fascist activists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: are you saying that an academic being opposed to fascism makes them not citeable about a fascist? And, if not, what are you saying? A peer-reviewed academic article should normally be citeable regardless of the politics of the author. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel I am saying that if the SPLC is unreliable solely due to being an advocacy group, without regard for the fact their work is widely cited and their factual accuracy is widely agreed upon, then all sources on the subject matter are unreliable because they're all advocacy sources. All academia about the far-right is of course written with the goal of stopping the far-right. There is not really any substantial difference between the work drawn by academics and the work by the SPLC in this manner; they are both written by experts with the goal of stopping the far-right. They are less academic sure, but that also goes for news coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Are you saying that is the policy of Wikipedia, or your personal view? Because by that logic, it seems to me we could not cite anyone about murder who was not somehow neutral on the subject of killing people, or about polio from anyone who thinks it should be eradicated. - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Then why are you arguing that SPLC is less reliable merely for being an advocacy group? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
before I removed large chunks of it as a result of the RfC
That...strikes me as sounding almost WP:POINTY, not gonna lie. I'll also point out thatif the SPLC is unreliable solely due to being an advocacy group...then all sources on the subject matter are unreliable because they're all advocacy sources.
That's definitely whataboutism. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)- I agree it is POINTy and you should revert those removals, because they are not improvements and in the cases where you removed the SPLC they were joined by other sources and were not problematic usage Andre🚐 07:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- There was no way to include that information without seriously hampering the flow of the article. The 1 case in which it was joined the other source did not actually support the key details, but a broader overview, so you could not attribute it, e.g. saying "according to the SPLC" would be actually incorrect.
- it is impossible to write a tolerable article where you have to attribute every sentence. According to the APLC, he went to college, according to the SPLC, he got married... etc. If it's in doubt just don't include it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- That is really not what the close means or any reasonable interpretation of it. Andre🚐 17:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- If a source says you should "usually" attribute every single piece of information for a source, but does not elucidate when you should not, then what, exactly, are you supposed to think it means? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- You are meant to use common sense and apply the other policies and principles and consider whether there are exceptions. Andre🚐 18:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- And in this case I see no reason for an exception. I can't think of one where there would be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- You are meant to use common sense and apply the other policies and principles and consider whether there are exceptions. Andre🚐 18:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- If a source says you should "usually" attribute every single piece of information for a source, but does not elucidate when you should not, then what, exactly, are you supposed to think it means? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- That is really not what the close means or any reasonable interpretation of it. Andre🚐 17:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I agree it is POINTy and you should revert those removals, because they are not improvements and in the cases where you removed the SPLC they were joined by other sources and were not problematic usage Andre🚐 07:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Then why are you arguing that SPLC is less reliable merely for being an advocacy group? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Are you saying that is the policy of Wikipedia, or your personal view? Because by that logic, it seems to me we could not cite anyone about murder who was not somehow neutral on the subject of killing people, or about polio from anyone who thinks it should be eradicated. - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel I am saying that if the SPLC is unreliable solely due to being an advocacy group, without regard for the fact their work is widely cited and their factual accuracy is widely agreed upon, then all sources on the subject matter are unreliable because they're all advocacy sources. All academia about the far-right is of course written with the goal of stopping the far-right. There is not really any substantial difference between the work drawn by academics and the work by the SPLC in this manner; they are both written by experts with the goal of stopping the far-right. They are less academic sure, but that also goes for news coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: are you saying that an academic being opposed to fascism makes them not citeable about a fascist? And, if not, what are you saying? A peer-reviewed academic article should normally be citeable regardless of the politics of the author. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel You would presume, but it is not the case, even with extremely significant people like William Luther Pierce, very basic facts about his background are only citable to the SPLC (or it was before I removed large chunks of it as a result of the RfC). Incredible amounts of what seems like basic information are only citable to "advocacy sources". The information ecosystem in this topic area is extremely bizarre. And all sources on this topic, including academic ones, are advocacy sources; there are no sources "neutral" on neo-Nazism. If we disregard sources for being advocacy sources than there are simply no reliable ones, many academics are explicitly anti-fascist activists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Snow Rise that, given that they tend to make exceptional statements, they should be attributed in such instances, but per Simonm223, in case of facts that are verified by multiple credible secondary sources, we should not have to attribute them in the prose itself. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per policy, we would not report exceptional claims, no matter where they are reported, unless multiple rs had reported them. First, the most reliable sources could be wrong and second they would not be DUE. All the cautions that editors have raised about using the SPLC as a source apply equally to any reliable source. Even bias is inherent in any secondary source, since the authors decide what to write about, which facts to cover, whose opinions to report etc. TFD (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- My concern is more about maintaining a consistent position on advocacy groups than any specific concern about the SPLC. I don't think we should put advocacy group opinions into wikivoice. This is true even for the most dependable advocacy group (which SPLC is). For statements of fact we can trust them. For statements of opinion we should attribute their statements. I hope this is sufficient clarification. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per policy, we would not report exceptional claims, no matter where they are reported, unless multiple rs had reported them. First, the most reliable sources could be wrong and second they would not be DUE. All the cautions that editors have raised about using the SPLC as a source apply equally to any reliable source. Even bias is inherent in any secondary source, since the authors decide what to write about, which facts to cover, whose opinions to report etc. TFD (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment: PARAKANYAA says above that "very basic facts about his background are only citable to the SPLC." To me, if true, that is all the more reason to be very overt about citation: single-sourced information, available only from an advocacy group.- Also, there are ways to be clear where information comes from without the writing getting clumsy. If (for example) you had three paragraphs in a row whose citation came entirely from a report by SPLC, you could make that clear by starting the paragraphs, respectively:
- "According to a report [footnote here] from Southern Policy Law Center (SPLC)…"
- "According to that same SPLC report…"
- "Continuing from that same report…"
- Jmabel | Talk 15:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you have to do this, you should just remove the information as WP:UNDUE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Just as a comment on this: if we are include three or so paragraphs of wikitext that depend on only a generally reliable source where attribution is needed, without any other type of confirmation from other sources, that does beg if that much content is DUE. Masem (t) 18:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I would like to see a reason based on policy or guidelines why advocacy groups cannot be used as reliable sources (except for their own opinions). One editor wrote, "So far as I know, they have an excellent track record of getting their facts right." Isn't that the criterion for deciding a source is reliable?
Another editor said arguments about the use of other advocacy groups are whataboutism. Note this is an essay on arguments not to use in deletion discussions. They were probably referring to another essay, What about other content? It says that one cannot argue for the inclusion of material based on what is done in another article, because one cannot assume the other article follows policy and guidelines. But if someone argues that the SPLC cannot be used because and only because it is an advocacy group, then the same logic would apply to all advocacy groups.
If anyone is interested, there is another article called Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments: "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." Whataboutism should not be used as an incantation to stop discussion.
TFD (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Not an argument that they are wholly unreliable, but I have put forth the argument based in policy that they should be treated as self-published. The basic argument is that advocacy organizations have an inherent conflict of interest with regards to subjects related to their advocacy. Because of this conflict of interest, internal reviewers are not independent reviewers and this falls into how WP: V characterizes self-published sources. From WP: V "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content.". So basically, content from an advocacy organization's own websites should be viewed as self-published, and face the stricter scrutiny and greater use limitations that comes along with it. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- Kyohyi, it would have been helpful had you provided a link to where you originally made this argument. I am therefore replying to your current post only. From my reading, you agree that WP:SELFPUB does not cover all self-published sources. News media for example are excluded. Your argument focuses on whether or not the SPLC has a COI.
- COI as defined in WP:COI means being "paid or otherwise connected to the subject." The SPLC is not paid or connected to any of the groups it writes about.
- Perhaps you are referring to bias. Per WP:COI, "A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing."
- WP:BIASED says, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective....Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs....When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." BIAS in fact exists in all secondary sources. Usually it is not a concern when the bias is toward mainstream views, such as acceptance of evolution, climate change, the moon landing, public health and opposition to crime and racism.
- The reason for RS policy is to ensure the accuracy of facts in articles. Since no source is 100% rs, there are additional policies, including DUE and REDFLAG that prevent the inclusion of information that may be inaccurate.
- There is no reason whatsoever to believe that using the SPLC as a source would lead to greater inaccuracy in articles. TFD (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's an incorrect analysis of COI. WP: COI deals with editor behavior not source Conflict of Interest. A better analysis can be found in WP: COISOURCE which explains that "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting.". That means the internal reviewers have a COI with regards to their organizations advocacy, and any content that is in line with that advocacy does not have independent review. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I find it somewhat funny that half the people who are endorsing are going "actually, the status quo is the same, we only have to attribute for opinions" and the other half are endorsing more or less going "actually this is a major change and we do always have to attribute now". Not very clear; as clarified by Chetsford, this is NOT only for opinion statements, so almost all factual statements to the SPLC onwiki are now improper. in any case I don't see how this is not quite a major change to the status quo, given that someone is going to have to remove or refactor 1000+ citations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Block request
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:Giggity gangster 2521 is an account that has seemingly been created with the sole purpose of vandalizing the 2025 New York City mayoral election, would be helpful if someone wades in and blocks them from editing that page at least. Scuba 04:08, 25 June 2025 (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.
Requesting an Unblock on my Topic Ban
I am formally requesting the removal of my topic ban concerning Michael Jackson. Approximately 6-7 years ago, I engaged in disruptive edits and edit wars with another user. This behavior justifiably led to my block, and shortly thereafter, I continued to create new accounts. Although I ceased making disruptive edits in terms of the content itself, I was still violating Wikipedia's terms of service by circumventing my block through the creation of new accounts, which was inappropriate. Since that time, I have made efforts to improve myself and adhere to proper conduct. Last year, I was unblocked from Wikipedia, and this year, I am seeking to have my topic ban lifted. I deeply regret my past actions and sincerely hope to be granted a second chance, as it now feels like an eternity since I was the person I once was. Alessiorom13 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's too soon to lift this topic ban - you were unblocked 6 months ago, and since being unblocked you have made about 30 edits, most of which seem to be updating box office figures. I think most people would be expecting a more significant history of trouble free contributions as evidence that you have overcome the problems that led to the topic ban in the first place. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- 86.23.87.130 (talk · contribs) are you an admin who is not logged in? You do seem to have an understanding of this editor's history, but i'd respectfully suggest that most people would not expect an anonymous IP with 16 total edits to be making decisions about unblocks. Dfadden (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- They are not "voting" on an unblock, just offering an opinion which editors are allowed to do. Earlier, they made this remark about WMF which I thought indicated that they are not a new editor. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank @Liz. I also noticed they were editing in some places and had knowledge a new editor may not, hence my question if they had inadvertently been editing while not logged in. I appreciate my wording could have been interpreted as a little bit snarky, although that was certainly not my intention! Dfadden (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- IPs rotate. Looking at an IPs edit history won't clue you into their experience here. 12.75.41.116 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- They are not "voting" on an unblock, just offering an opinion which editors are allowed to do. Earlier, they made this remark about WMF which I thought indicated that they are not a new editor. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- 86.23.87.130 (talk · contribs) are you an admin who is not logged in? You do seem to have an understanding of this editor's history, but i'd respectfully suggest that most people would not expect an anonymous IP with 16 total edits to be making decisions about unblocks. Dfadden (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Archives
Hello, I need help fixing an issues. I performed a technical move request, but the page I moved have two achieve (1) pages: see Talk:United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites/Archive 1 & Talk:American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites/Archive 1. United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites is the main page. Jerium (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've merged the two archive pages' contents into the larger of the two, BLARed the other, and then swapped the titles so that the surviving archive matches the title of the main article. The current state of affairs is that Talk:United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites/Archive 1 now contains the combined material from both archives and Talk:American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites/Archive 1 redirects to it. I think this should resolve the issue but feel free to ping if any other cleanup needs to be done. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Requesting Block Review
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.
MisteOsoTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I am requesting a review of my block of MisteOsoTruth. Please see their unblock request on their user page. If there is a consensus that I over-reacted or that they deserve another chance, I will happily defer to the consensus of the community and my fellow admins. Courtesy ping Soetermans who brought this up. I also note that Daniel Case advised taking the matter to ANI, around the same time I was issuing the block. That said, I still think their long term behavior seems to have ticked a lot of the boxes at WP:TE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse but disclosure that I've previously blocked this user. They've been blocked before for Gamergate-related disruption. From what I can tell, they're still fighting Gamergate-related battles here. This is standard truth-warrior behavior. Time to cut bait. Well within admin discretion, not an over-reaction. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- His comments on the talk pages I reviewed certainly strike me as less than collaborative. I see no reason to let him return. Donald Albury 22:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well... judging by their talk page, this is someone who urgently needs to change their approach to editing, so forcing them to do so by means of a block seems pretty well within discretion. -- asilvering (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- While we're at it, might I suggest revoking talk page access? They continue all the same. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I gave them a warning about it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that is necessary at this point. And while this discussion remains open, I would prefer that they have some means of communicating. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Don't we automatically block new editors who have "Truth" in their username? It's generally a good predictor of future disruption. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- True. Truth69420 (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I was just kidding. But I actually was going to ask if anyone knew of an exception and then, poof! here you are! Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, you fooled me, rsjaffe! Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- I was just kidding. But I actually was going to ask if anyone knew of an exception and then, poof! here you are! Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- True. Truth69420 (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Don't we automatically block new editors who have "Truth" in their username? It's generally a good predictor of future disruption. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that is necessary at this point. And while this discussion remains open, I would prefer that they have some means of communicating. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I gave them a warning about it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- While we're at it, might I suggest revoking talk page access? They continue all the same. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Good block. While they have a very, very, very slight point in that all that GamerGate nonsense was tied to broader culture wars and there is still a whiff of slanty commentary remaining from the trench fighting of single-purpose editors on both sides, their approach is inappropriate for Wikipedia and makes the encyclopedia worse. This is a collaborative project and battlegrounding and WP:RGW are not tools for improving any content, anywhere. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't want to sound unprofessional, but as a former GamerGater I can tell you that these people all have a conspiracy map in their heads that they think explains why what they did isn't harassment and was totally justified, and they think that anyone who hasn't memorized this map is wrong. In reality their arguments are just pointing madly at minor discrepancies and shouting "WELL WHAT ABOUT THIS? WHAT ABOUT THIS?" and everyone else thinks that they're annoying or crazy.
- You saw this with the edits justifying sealioning: they think that their bad faith questions are good faith questions. SpaceboundRocket (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2025 (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.
Signature altered at RfC
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.
Sangdeboeuf has altered this RfC to make it appear as though it was unsigned by me (diff). WP:RFC clearly states: Sign the brief statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date). I signed the RfC with just the time and date as permitted by the guidelines at WP:RFC (diff). They did not seek permission from me to alter my signature on the talk page, or to move my comment. Per signature cleanup WP:TPO: If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information. Do not modify the signature on others' posts for any other reason.
I am unsure on how to proceed, because it is unclear to me if it will further mess up the RfC by putting in a new signature with just the time and date, and I don't want to be seen as edit-warring. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for removal of permission
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would appreciate if a sysop could remove my "pending changes reviewer" permission. I thought I would use it, but I really don't. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2025 (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.
Global RFC about paid editing as a CU
Based on recent events, I've started a global RFC about the compatibility of the CU userright with paid editing. Folks who are interested in this can opine at this page. Sohom (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Admin needed to close ANI proposal
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.
An administrator is needed to close the proposal at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal 2: Dicklyon Topic-Banned from Capitalization. I get that it's a giant clusterfuck, but that's why you all get paid the big bucks. 🥴 Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- By my count, Proposal 2 has 43 supports and 17 opposes. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- True, those proposals dont need to be closed together, and that one seems ripe by now. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like the entire mess has now been closed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:19, 26 June 2025 (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.
Arbitration motion regarding MarioProtIV's editing restriction
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 4 (MarioProtIV & NAC) of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones is rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Euriziano page deleted
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The page I created on Euriziano, a recent artificial language about which various articles have been published in different languages, has been deleted on the grounds that it is not sufficiently relevant, i.e. it does not have proven relevance demonstrated by coverage of a topic in reliable sources. So I ask: why is the page ‘Lingwa de planeta’, a recent artificial language that has no references in reliable sources, still present in Wikipedia Simple English? THE RULES MUST APPLY TO EVERYONE, OTHERWISE IT BECOMES ARBITRARY. Kuros2025 (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Kuros2025, welcome to Wikipedia. Different wikis have different rules as to what content can and can't remain. For example, an article that may be suitable for the Spanish Wikipedia may not be right for this one, and vice versa. This applies to Simple English as well, so they'll have their own criteria for inclusion. In the future, if you have any further questions, check out our Teahouse, which is the appropriate forum for this question (as this is the noticeboard for administrative matters, which this is not.) Happy editing! Relativity ⚡️ 13:10, 28 June 2025 (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.
Salting
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.
Would someone mind salting the following to prevent re-creation? These have been the repeated subjects of UPE for seven years and the most recent version was just deleted at AfD three days ago.
Note that two versions of the article, Bridge Back to Life and Russell Scott Surasky have been salted since 2019-2020". See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ross_kramerov for additional info. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'll do you one better and blacklist them. —Cryptic 08:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Now that's a new one to me - didn't know a) you could do that or b) the Page Mover perm includes creation of a blacklisted article. Older AND wiser today! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe not so much wiser as better informed... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Excellent, thank you! Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Now that's a new one to me - didn't know a) you could do that or b) the Page Mover perm includes creation of a blacklisted article. Older AND wiser today! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2025 (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.
RFPP
Wow, What a back load. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 22:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
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 moved this article to draft space as I felt it wasn't good enough for main space, it was edited and I still don't think it's good enough for main space. Iliketoeatbeansalot moved the article back into main space without doing the draft submission. I am hoping an admin can deal the issues here, as it's far too hot and bothersome for me!! Peace. Govvy (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is literally a copy and paste from the main article at Magdalene laundries in Ireland, that the creator is edit warring over wanting to say nice things about it. There's zero in this draft that isn't in the main article that provides much more information. Should be deleted and maybe a protected redirect to the main article from McAleese report. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes.
- I have notified Iliketoeatbeansalot of this discussion[54]. DrKay (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- I saw the speedy and changed the article to a redirect as I felt it had potential. It was reverted and so I deleted it. I still think it may have potential and should exist as a redirect. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- If they're only here to push this POV they should be indeffed. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- They have edited quite a range of articles since 2011. Not a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but they're adding absolute garbage POV sources to articles, e.g., this. They're here long enough to know better. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- They seem to have been able to produce decent edits but also get reverted a lot. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but they're adding absolute garbage POV sources to articles, e.g., this. They're here long enough to know better. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- They have edited quite a range of articles since 2011. Not a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Article was deleted as a CSD A10 and I created a Redirect. I'm not sure that anything else needs to be done. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Night Gyr
There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Night Gyr for Night Gyr to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for them to maintain their toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy.
Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Nathannah
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:Nathannah blindly reverted many of my edits. Despite clear explanations for them.
Examples: Television shows being referred to as "short-lived" or "long-running" - this is unencyclopedic and doesn't show a NPOV. What is long-running to one may not be to another. It's not a definite fact and is not typically used in articles. And is irrelevant to the context.
Mentioning credits for actors on show pages (e.g. Seinfeld's Jason Alexander) - Also unencyclopedic and informal. It typecasts the actor. Mentioning the actors name is sufficient. On a similar note, calling an actor "award-winning", which is an unnecessary detail in most cases. It looks like something you'd see in a press release.
I changed the place of death from the county to the specific city. This can be verified through a death certificate on Ancestry and wire reports. The initial error/vagueness came from a findagrave profile, which isn't a reliable source to begin with.
I've had lots of edits like this approved without issue. These phrases don't add any value. If the articles were up for FA review, this would be one of the first recommendations for improving it. I don't want to risk getting a 3RR violation. Megainek (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Please copy this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Continuous disruptive editing by Megainek; this is an improper venue. Nathannah • 📮 01:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I did. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:06, 2 July 2025 (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.
Fake election user sandboxes
I've noticing more and more user sandboxes with fake articles about elections (both past and future). Some recent examples are User:Pwalsh04/sandbox, User:Nahyla.alaini/sandbox, User:Nextwavepolitics/sandbox, and User:Jaminup/sandbox. In most cases, the users also upload fake election maps to Commons to illustrate them. It's clear that they're being used for some kind of off-wiki "alternate history" forum or game, given how similar many of the fake articles and maps are. Most (but not all) of these users have few/any mainspace edits, despite sometimes claiming that they're using these drafts to practice editing.
Because of the fake maps being uploaded to Commons, and politics being a contentious subject, I consider these fake articles (even in userspace) to be a more significant issue than typical nonsense and self-promotion in userspace. I usually nominate them for speedy deletion as G3, but sometimes they are not blatantly fake enough at first glance. I'd appreciate others' thoughts, especially on possible ways to reduce the problem:
- An edit filter to track (or block) use of {{infobox election}} in userspace by new editors.
- Partial blocks from userspace for those who misuse it - generally as a standard procedure when a fake/spammy article in userspace is deleted. This should be more akin in seriousness to an edit filter than a mainspace block, as good-faith users can (and should) be using draftspace.
- Explicitly including all fake election sandboxes in G3 or U5
- Better bot patrolling of userspace. This could include creating lists of new userspace pages for easier patrolling, or even automatic moves of likely drafts to draftspace.
I am also hopeful that ending cross-wiki uploads for new users will help, as the fake maps I see on Commons are all cross-wiki uploads. The Commons community decided last year to restrict cross-wiki uploads, which was endorsed on enwiki, and Commons will implement this via edit filter in August unless the WMF does so. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- This is not a recent problem, I've seen fake election pages in User space, sometimes to elections held in earlier centuries, for years now. They seem to be more common in years where there is a well-publicized presidential race or general election than off-years like 2025. We delete them as hoax articles when we come across them. I'm not sure if other administrators and editors believe this is the urgent issue that you seem to think it is. If you want to rewrite CSD policy criteria to specifically name these type of articles, I wish you luck. But to be effective, you should have some examples to show people as the pages that you pointed out were all deleted so only admins could view the contents. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- If they're
not blatantly fake enough at first glance
for WP:G3 as is, making it more explict won't change that - that's the article itself, not the criterion. An edit filter to flag {{infobox election}} in userspace does sound reasonable, but that's not within AN's remit - WP:EFR is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)- I agree with the idea to implement a filter. Using Wikipedia to create alternate history election articles is getting out of hand, and it is not a new thing either, it has been going on since at least 2020, when I joined this informal community of election afficionados called ElectionTwitter or ET. I propose that we implement a heavy-handed policy against this and redirect them to https://mockelections.miraheze.org as suggested below. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- But, a potential downside is that if we force them out of userspace, draftspace and WP:Sandbox, they will simply vandalise the mainspace articles with their althist stuff. I have seen this happen before. Some of them will inevitably fly under the radar, and that will be a bigger problem because readers will be exposed to false mainspace stuff. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the idea to implement a filter. Using Wikipedia to create alternate history election articles is getting out of hand, and it is not a new thing either, it has been going on since at least 2020, when I joined this informal community of election afficionados called ElectionTwitter or ET. I propose that we implement a heavy-handed policy against this and redirect them to https://mockelections.miraheze.org as suggested below. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm evidently a bit of an outlier but I'm personally sympathetic to these uploaders. There are a few communities where people make and share fictitious election results, such as on Reddit and X/twitter, and they predominantly use Wikipedia-style infoboxes. It is reasonable for new users to believe that your personal sandbox is a private space to mess around without disturbing anyone. Ideally these users would be made aware of alternative outlets such as https://mockelections.miraheze.org. I like the edit filter idea because it can display a non-generic message that explains our policies and potentially informs them of alternative outlets. In my opinion U5 is more accurate than G3, since they are not trying to deceive anyone and have no intention to move their infoboxes to mainspace. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, CSD U5 is another criterion for speedy deletiont that is utilized when the appropriate conditions exist. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Fake Elections and Other Fake Articles at MFD
Fake election pages are one of two types of fake articles that we see from time to time at MFD. The other sort has been unreal accounts of so-called reality television shows. What they have in common is that they involve the creation of tables showing results, often with color-coding, which may be fun for the author. They sometimes come in bursts, and there has been a burst of fake election articles in this past month. There are other alternate history topics and articles less often. There is an essay, Wikipedia is not for alternate history, which, among other things, identifies the policies and guidelines that are violated by alternate history. If the alternate history is in the past, it is usually either an obvious hoax or an unobvious hoax. Obvious hoaxes can be either tagged for speedy deletion as G3 or sent to MFD. I agree that they are not obvious hoaxes because they are seen as fiction. Unobvious hoaxes are sent to MFD. If the alternate history is in the future, then the applicable policy is Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which is not a basis for speedy deletion, but it is a basis for deletion at MFD. Also, the fake election articles often involve either the names or the images or both of living politicians, in which case they are BLP violations, which are usually not subject to speedy deletion, but BLP violations are a reason for deletion at MFD. Occasionally an editor is using Wikipedia mostly for fake elections (or fake television articles), in which case they can be tagged for U5, and maybe the originator may have to be blocked as not here to be constructive.
In my opinion, MFD is handling the load of fake election articles (and unreal reality television articles) satisfactorily. I haven't thought about whether a filter would be useful in finding these pages sooner and so sending them to MFD sooner. The volunteers at MFD are ready for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Page SputnikMusic Being Consistently Edited by Agenda'd Ex-Staff
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sputnikmusic&action=history
Users keep adding an unnecessary and defamatory "Controversy" section (with and without neutral language issues) (this was previously posted in the simple English wiki admin noticeboard by mistake - I apologize, I do not really know what I'm doing in asking for assistance here!) 2600:4040:A23F:900:8BB:5878:CD57:304D (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Restored version before edit warring started, and fully protected for 4 days to allow for discussion, preferably with fewer violations of the WP:Biographies of living persons policy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Much appreciated, thanks! 2600:4040:A23F:900:8BB:5878:CD57:304D (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2025 (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.
Interwiki Imperial University of Dorpat
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At Imperial University of Dorpat (d:Q28024477) can someone add en:Imperial University of Dorpat? 89.12.205.245 (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2025 (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.
Longest block ever?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna imperatrix mundi (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive user
User:Sportsfan1234 has repeatedly nominated a large number of articles related to African women's footballers for deletion (primarily through PRODs) over the past several months. This pattern has led to the removal of numerous articles, including those about players who are clearly notable — having participated in major international tournaments or played professionally. While not every article may be perfectly sourced, many contained multiple reliable references that were seemingly overlooked in the nomination process. This approach to deletion, especially when done rapidly or without thorough review, has caused significant loss of valuable information across articles on continental competitions, domestic leagues, and club histories. Such actions risk undermining the representation and documentation of women's football in underrepresented regions. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- While it looks like other users have raised this with @Sportsfan_1234, is there a reason you didn't wait for them to respond to User_talk:Sportsfan_1234#African_PRODs before coming here? You're also required to notify them you have opened a discussion. You have not done so. Star Mississippi 12:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Lunar Spectrum96, I know this won't address the problem you brought to WP:AN, if there is a specific article you are concerned about, you can request its restoration at WP:REFUND. As for PRODs, we are going through a period of time when a lot of footballers articles are being tagged for Proposed deletion. I have actually noticed more articles about Lebanese footballers and footballers from Japan than ones from Africa. But you are complaining about one part of a much larger trend of PRODding the articles of international football players that has been going on for months. Players from Africa are not being specifically targeted although there may be more women's articles than their percentage of players. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- User:Liz, I appreciate your response and understand that this is part of a broader trend involving many footballer articles being tagged for deletion. That said, my concern isn't with the general use of PRODs, but with the way they are being applied by the user in question. The issue is that they appear to be placing PRODs without first checking whether reliable sources exist or whether the players meet football-specific notability criteria. In some cases, the subjects clearly meet notability standards under WP:GNG or Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, yet the articles are tagged for deletion without any attempt to discuss or improve them first. i'm not saying that all of the PRODs are invalid some articles may well fall short of notability and warrant deletion. But when notable players are deleted without discussion, it results in the loss of valuable content, especially for underrepresented topics like women's football in Africa. In such borderline or unclear cases, it would be far more constructive to open a discussion at WP:AfD rather than use speedy or proposed deletion. That way, the community can weigh in, sources can be brought forward, and decisions can be made more transparently. Thanks again for replying, I really hope this leads to a more balanced approach going forward. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- You are discussing this with @Sportsfan_1234 on their Talk, which is where this discussion should be @Lunar Spectrum96. Please note that a sports specific notability has been deprecated and GNG is the one that is applicable. Focus your efforts there as meeting that will go further to establishing notability. @CommunityNotesContributor has provided a list and as @Liz mentioned, these PRODs can be restored. What further action would you like from this thread? You still haven't notified the other editor either Star Mississippi 20:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- User:Liz, I appreciate your response and understand that this is part of a broader trend involving many footballer articles being tagged for deletion. That said, my concern isn't with the general use of PRODs, but with the way they are being applied by the user in question. The issue is that they appear to be placing PRODs without first checking whether reliable sources exist or whether the players meet football-specific notability criteria. In some cases, the subjects clearly meet notability standards under WP:GNG or Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, yet the articles are tagged for deletion without any attempt to discuss or improve them first. i'm not saying that all of the PRODs are invalid some articles may well fall short of notability and warrant deletion. But when notable players are deleted without discussion, it results in the loss of valuable content, especially for underrepresented topics like women's football in Africa. In such borderline or unclear cases, it would be far more constructive to open a discussion at WP:AfD rather than use speedy or proposed deletion. That way, the community can weigh in, sources can be brought forward, and decisions can be made more transparently. Thanks again for replying, I really hope this leads to a more balanced approach going forward. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Lunar Spectrum96, I know this won't address the problem you brought to WP:AN, if there is a specific article you are concerned about, you can request its restoration at WP:REFUND. As for PRODs, we are going through a period of time when a lot of footballers articles are being tagged for Proposed deletion. I have actually noticed more articles about Lebanese footballers and footballers from Japan than ones from Africa. But you are complaining about one part of a much larger trend of PRODding the articles of international football players that has been going on for months. Players from Africa are not being specifically targeted although there may be more women's articles than their percentage of players. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- There is a list here that gives a recent list (of those within womens footy wikiproject that is). CNC (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Recreation of deleted article under altered title
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 admins,
The article Dananeer appears to be a recreation of the previously deleted page Dananeer Mobeen, which is currently protected and can only be recreated by an administrator. It seems the title was deliberately altered to bypass the restriction.
Behappyyar (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a reason, Behappyyar, that you didn't notify that article creator, User:A01169242, about this discussion? It's a required step to take. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Also, is there a reason you came here instead of tagging the article as WP:G4? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)- Strike the above - the original AfD was closed because it was G5'd, so G4 doesn't apply. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Given that, the subject may - may be notable - the original title was salted because it was being repeatedly recreated by socks, or apparent socks. Given this, I'm going to move Dananeer to Dananeer Mobeen as the more correct title. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz @The Bushranger I believe the recent move of Dananeer to Dananeer Mobeen—a previously salted title—is unfair to editors who are following the proper review process.
- I had previously submitted a draft (Draft:Dananeer Mobeen) version of the article under the correct title as per standard procedure, and was advised on the noticeboard to work through the draft and seek admin review for recreation.
- Meanwhile, another editor appears to have created an article under an altered title ("Dananeer")—likely to bypass the creation restriction—and that version has now been moved to the salted title without a full review of sourcing or notability.
- I believe this undermines the proper editorial process and disadvantages those acting in good faith. The correct approach should be to review all existing drafts and content before restoring a title that was previously protected due to sock activity.
- Requesting reconsideration of the move. I respectfully request that before further action is taken, administrators (and other experienced editors) compare the content and references of the two versions — the current mainspace article and my draft — and assess which one better meets Wikipedia’s content and sourcing standards.
- Behappyyar (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Behappyyar, you STILL haven't informed the editor involved in your complaint about this discussion. Why? Liz Read! Talk! 17:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- User has been notified. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks dear Behappyyar (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- When you first asked me, I thought you informed him on his talk page. Sorry for that. Behappyyar (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- User has been notified. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Behappyyar, you STILL haven't informed the editor involved in your complaint about this discussion. Why? Liz Read! Talk! 17:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Trying to summarize what could be a wall of text to put this into context. User Beyappyyar original requested the undeletion here. They are also part of this SPI filing which partially relates to it (Pinging @Hoary: and @DMacks: who were involved with answering that request). This page has been bludgeoned into the mainspace by a long-term abusing sock farm (StayCalmOnTress). It was just declined by S0091 at Draft:Dananeer Mobeen on June 25, 2025 and then recreated by user A01169242 on June 27, 2025. Why do we keep entertaining paid socks?--CNMall41 (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- if that SPI is ever closed by a CU @CNMall41, I'd be happy to cleanup as I know I inadvertently assisted Beh in an earlier thread. I think the issue is non CU admins can't get do anything here. Star Mississippi 00:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. The June 11th one with this thread's OP is just awaiting behavioral evidence. I just filed one of the user who created the new page so we can see where that goes. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- On 15 January '25, Anuwrites considered Dananeer Mobeen (actress) not to be ready for mainspace and moved it to Draft:Dananeer Mobeen (actress). I haven't noticed any effort to delete the latter. Whether it should be deleted is a matter on which I have no opinion. If there's no need for it to be deleted, then a editor -- of course one who's not a sock of a blocked editor -- believing that Dananeer Mobeen qualifies for an article is free to work on it. So far as I can comprehend the comment by Behappyyar that ends this archived WP:HD thread, it doesn't even start to convince me. While Draft:Dananeer Mobeen (actress) exists, any effort to start "Dananeer Mobeen" or "Draft:Dananeer Mobeen" is a waste of editors' time. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- The original 'salt-evading' article, for the record, is now at Draft:Dananeer Mobeen 2. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with this topic or user-pool other than what I could quickly see in deletion/protection histories, and was merely GF-addressing the HD question on its face. DMacks (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, after I moved the current creation to Draft:Dananeer Mobeen 2, A01169242 decided to move the June 25th declined Draft:Dananeer Mobeen back to Dananeer Mobeen. SPI now pending.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm just seeing this discussion now. But after deleting yet another CSD R2 from Dananeer Mobeen from this article being moved back and forth again from main space to Draft space, I protected the main space page. I understand why the full protection was lifted but it seems like the current state of this article is rather chaotic. A draft article shouldn't be moved back to main space until it has received AFC approval. These constant moves are disruptive. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz:, apparently it was not protected in time as this user moved it back claiming DRAFTOBJECT. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz:, were you going to revert and protect? We now have someone who "doesn't care about the ANI thread" saying they take responsibility for the page and adding in-depth ONEEVENT information in an attempt to make it look notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also noting this comment you made. Was going to follow up with user this morning but see you already did. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Adding the now DR filing since the filer "don't give a fuck's fuck about this ANI thread" and likely will not add it as relevant to this thread. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- NPP comment: I have independently from this discussion ascertained that the subject is notable, have removed BLP-related issues, such as content failing verification, and have marked the article as reviewed. I have also made an expansion to the article, but much of it was reverted by CNMall41 who is complaining about me above, who appears distrustful and sadly believes that my "editing is starting to close in on TE territory" (meaning, wp:Tendentious editing). I have to say that I think that CNMall41
became influenced by this AN discussion and the administrative angle a bit too much to calmly/did not—16:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)/ assess the topic and the article on purely content merits and has made quite unreasonable content edits as a result. It is about these edits that I have started the DRN.To be clear, I contest G5, and take responsibility for the article (this was the current revision when I marked the article as reviewed: Special:Diff/1298120709).—Alalch E. 18:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- "Influenced?" I would say that my influence came from the many SPI reports involving the bludgeoning of this page to the mainspace. As far as being "a bit too much to calmly assess the topic," you are making an accusation of my mental state. I am sure you don't give a "fuck's fuck" about it, but you will need to redact that statement as your lack of WP:CIVILity isn't appreciated.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. @Alalch E.:, consider yourself officially warned regarding WP:CIVIL for this comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- "Influenced?" I would say that my influence came from the many SPI reports involving the bludgeoning of this page to the mainspace. As far as being "a bit too much to calmly assess the topic," you are making an accusation of my mental state. I am sure you don't give a "fuck's fuck" about it, but you will need to redact that statement as your lack of WP:CIVILity isn't appreciated.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- An obvious sock left a comment on my talk page in connection to this discussion: Special:Diff/1298241562—Alalch E. 08:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- I have closed a request at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard concerning Dananeer Mobeen as also pending in a conduct forum (this conduct forum). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- I recommend that Dananeer and Dananeer Mobeen (actress) be
salted in article space as title gamingredirected to Dananeer Mobeen. Please do not salt any titles in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)- I recommend applying no such salting, made pointless by the live article, whose existence removes the name gaming impetus from the equation. —Alalch E. 20:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. Since there is an article, that is correct. In that case, the alternate titles should be redirected to the main title, because otherwise they may be used as content forks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- The redirects are there, and have been tagged. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. Since there is an article, that is correct. In that case, the alternate titles should be redirected to the main title, because otherwise they may be used as content forks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I recommend applying no such salting, made pointless by the live article, whose existence removes the name gaming impetus from the equation. —Alalch E. 20:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I am going to bow out of all further edits to Indian and Pakistan related film pages. Just not worth it with the constant bludgeoning of socks and undisclosed paid editing and those willing to defend them and assist in their disruption. I had to put up with this with another editor in the past and frankly no longer feel enjoyment of trying to curb UPE or SOCKing. Let the production companies have their day and good luck to those who still edit in that arena. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's important not to burn out over a single dispute. You have so much to give the rest of the project, CNMall41, don't let this be the hill you burn out on. There are times when you just have to let some other editor/admin take over. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate it and I am not bowing out of Wikipedia, but the Indian and Pakistani film pages can be bludgeoned with UPE and SOCKs for all I care. Hard to keep a handle on it when others are assisting by proxy. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Now that you have bowed out in the manner and to the extent that you have, I have finally restored the needed sourced content to the article, to enable context, comprehensibility, and neutrality. I am sure that we will collaborate better under different circumstances elsewhere. —Alalch E. 05:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I believe you meant "matter." Regardless, I am not bowing out because you are right. I am bowing out because of the conduct. It is disheartening that you do not see the difference. Feel free to have WP:TLW as I will only comment here again if Hounding turns to Stalking or if an admin requests clarification on the thread below. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Now that you have bowed out in the manner and to the extent that you have, I have finally restored the needed sourced content to the article, to enable context, comprehensibility, and neutrality. I am sure that we will collaborate better under different circumstances elsewhere. —Alalch E. 05:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate it and I am not bowing out of Wikipedia, but the Indian and Pakistani film pages can be bludgeoned with UPE and SOCKs for all I care. Hard to keep a handle on it when others are assisting by proxy. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Let these words hearten you then: I was and am right. You were wrong. The article speaks for itself. You bowed out, taking your wrong position with you, leaving the article to become representative of the right and good editorial position—my position. That is very heartening, as it means that our readers will be better off. And we are all here to provide a service to our readers. Now a lonstanding and credible editor from Pakistan has additionally cleaned the article up, remarking that This is currently the hot topic #1 in WP:PAK!!
(Special:Diff/1298645557). How joyous! Let us all open our hearts to this joy. The people want to read the article about their celebrity on the English Wikipedia and now they've got it. Because we can give it to them. We can give it to them because I proved through my source-based content editing (unlike the mostly source-agnostic conduct regulation) that we can write an article on this topic in a way that complies with our content policies. Problem solved. No more name gaming for this topic, no more G5-deletions, no more AfC declines and duplicate drafts—no future wasted effort enforcing a barrier to entry against that which has already entered and is in our midst. Now we have to accept it and nurture it, because that is our mission. Doing the opposite is the grave and expensive error of holding on to a sunk cost fallacy. Thank you for what you have done to push back against the fans (yes, the fans) and UPEs (them too, but don't forget that celebrities simply have fans). It was good for what it was during the relevant timeframe, but we don't need more of the same type of effort with regard to this topic. The type of effort that we now need is: Trying to answer to our readers: Who are Dananeer Mobeen's mom and dad? When was she born? Where? Does she have a brother or a sister? What school did she attend? Where did she learn acting? Those are the burning issues now, and that is wonderful. And heartening. Kind regards, —Alalch E. 01:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- You must be fucking kidding me. Seriously? Your WALLOFTEXT just proves how uncivil you are. I guess lack of civility is okay for you since you can do so without repercussion. Very very sad. Disappointed in your conduct as well as the ANI process. Take care. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- CNMall41 is expressing frustration that I also experience monitoring and working on paid editing cases, SCOT in particular. This is a editor obviously being paid to publish articles on non-notable subjects, not just a "fan", and despite being banned many times over, they still manage to get their commissioned articles published and earn their paycheque through a combination of persistence, brute force, and social engineering of well-meaning editors (see above). I spent about four hours this morning reviewing drafts recently created by this sockfarm, and a remarkably similar pattern is emerging: a draft is created and submitted, and rejected on review for undue promotion or lack of notability, then after a few days an obvious meatpuppet shows up and promotes the draft anyway without making any significant changes to address the reject concern. And then when an editor notices that pattern and moves the draft back for further review, some other well-meaning editor reverts that move because "rulez go brrr" and we all just go along with it. The drafts are often created in an obvious attempt to evade the title blacklist or creation protection, but SCOT can always find a willing administrator to ignore those restrictions and create the article anyway. Dananeer Mobeen was no different, and had Alalch E. not put in the work to subsequently review and clean up the article, we would have a plain advertisement with unverified information on a living person sitting in mainspace with no review tags on it at all. That's what all of this behind-the-scenes work is trying to prevent, and part of why we have an AFC review process at all.
- To admins and reviewers: when you are asked to create a protected title, please check with the protecting administrator. There is only so much we can write in a protection log entry, but titles aren't protected without good reason. Please make an effort to understand those reasons before promoting drafts, especially those tagged in good faith as promotional. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hi all. Thank you for believing in my good faith, specially respected admin/CU Izno and Ivanvector. Though uninvolved in all the above discussion, I wanted to make a comment. M. Billoo
17:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- And one more thing I want to put out via this platform now. The sock has been stalking me since as long as I can remember. M. Billoo 20:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- A very similar issue is here: Draft:Tabish Hashmi. This may had a history of editions by sock users (I cannot call everyone sock due to DBQ because AGF), until I tried rewriting it during 17 April to 1 May. This may not qualify under GNG or as a standlone BLP, but I assume I have added enough for creating notability of a performing artist. The draft remains unsubmitted since then, and no consensus established on the talk page. M. Billoo 12:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- And one more thing I want to put out via this platform now. The sock has been stalking me since as long as I can remember. M. Billoo 20:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Conduct of Alalch E.
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.
As stated above, I will not be editing Dananeer Mobeen. Good luck to anyone wishing to. However, there is a conduct issue that I feel needs addressed. Pinging @Alalch E.: as the subject of this thread.
- Despite the above discussion, Alalch E. has edited the page Dnaneer Mobeen despite Liz stating she was protecting the page and others saying to move it back to draft space until consensus could be reached.
- Within two hours of a content dispute, they filed this DRN despite it not being ripe.
- I asked them to redact their accusation assuming my mental state and they were warned by another user for this comment regarding civility.
- Despite the warning, they continue to be uncivil including attempting to threaten an RfC if I do not "give up" on my contention.
- They were again warned and told to stop making projections making assumptions that I was blindly reverting, yet they doubled down, accuse me of stonewalling for not agreeing with their preferred version of the page.
- Then adding back content that is in dispute despite not having consensus. The excuse will likely be that it was "reworeded" so it is not the same content.
- Then draw my name into it again to prove a point.
- Also seems to be a continued civility issue based on other comments. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
At this point, not sure what action is needed but the user clearly does not listen to warnings. The taunting and WP:BAITING is uncivil in my eyes. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- On the first bullet: Wikipedia being an encyclopedia that consists of articles, i.e. content and not conduct, content has primacy over conduct (enforcing proper conduct has the higher goal of enabling good content; conduct itself is a subordinate goal). I have significantly edited the article, both removing big chunks, removing the refbombing, and adding a big chunk. The chunk I added was supported by a BBC source and Al Jazeera source, which were not previously in the article. I was not concerned with what was being done on the conduct track. It could not have affected my work on the content track. I would have accepted a G5 or a protection in the short term and would have calmly discussed it with the administrator, and my editing in the meantime would not have been a problem. But I cannot accept being obstructed in my work by you, who did not seriously look at the sources I was working with, and being "sent" by you to AN/I to report in. I am doing my thing on the content in the article, and you are doing your thing on the conduct at AN. I do not report to you or take commands from you. Look, I sometimes care. I sometimes volunteer on the conduct issues. Sometimes I do not. When I began editing that article, working on the content to explore if the article is viable and improving it took away all my attention.
- On the second bullet: I admitted to you on the talk page that starting the DRN was a mistake; this mistake took some time away from Robert McClenon primarily who had to come up with a close, but at the same time, some useful talking happened in DRN, despite the quick close, and it is not the type of a mistake that causes problems down the line.
- On the third bullet. I have redacted the portion you asked me to redact. The part of the comment I was warned for by an administrator was an expression of exasperation that was not targeting you personally; it was how I felt. I accept the warning.
- I did not threaten an RfC, you said in the comment I was responding to:
you could always go RfC
. I said that I want to avoid an RfC if the dispute can be resolved without resorting to an RfC. No threat of any kind was involved. And even if I had announced an intent to start an RfC, that would not have been a threat. - I do not accept that warning from you. Stop with the overbearing and disciplinary attitude. What I wrote was backed by evidence. This is the evidence that you did not read the new sources I had added to the article when removing the content based on those sources and leaving something factually incorrect (Special:Diff/1298347140)—copied here from the talk page: You did not have the time to properly assess the BBC and Al Jazeera sources that had not been in the article when I added them in 16:22 when you removed the content which summarized those sources in 16:27, leaving behind content that does not genuinely summarize the sources and is more similar to the previous content, before my expansion. You then made the edit in Special:Diff/1298121411 with the summary
a viral video does not make you an influencer
, which means that you did not read this BBC article which contains: "Dananeer Mobin, 19, whose Instagram bio says "call me Geena", is a social media influencer from Pakistan's northern city of Peshawar. Her posts usually centre around fashion and make-up.", meaning that she has been an influencer prior to the viral video; this you were not aware of, because you simply did not read the source during the five minutes between my expansion and your partial removal, and the removal was selective, requiring some hands-on editing, meaning that during those less-than-five-minutes you were looking at the editing window, not the sources. You became entrenched in your position without studying the sources, and that is not some amateur psyschoanalyzing, it is, in fact, pretty clear. - That is not the content that is under dispute. The inclusion of which content points is disputed is explained in the DRN discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Dananeer Mobeen (there is a diff there: Special:Diff/1298121342)
- Yes, I am making it clear to the new arrival on the talk page who is advocating for what. I did not misrepresent your position.
- No comment on the unrelated disputes.
- You were WP:STONEWALLING on the talk page throughout, but your stonewalling escalated with this comment: Special:Diff/1298343099 (same as above, when you point to RfC instead of discussing concrete issues). —Alalch E. 05:27, 2 July 2025 (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.
Users Merchantsq and Captainnorse
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not very active in English-language Wikipedia (though I'm an admin in German-language WP and on Commons), so please accept my apologies if this is'nt quite the right place for this notice. - Well, I'm quite interested in the history of shipping, and so the articles Hurtigruten (now moved to Hurtigruten (Norwegian coastal route) by User:Merchantsq) and Hurtigruten AS (now moved to Hurtigruten (company) by the same user) are on my watchlist. Merchantsq, so far, has only edited Hurtigruten-related articles (like Captainnorse, the latter with only two edits) and I suspect some connection to the company Hurtigruten AS, as some of the edits seemed quite promotional. I reverted part of it, see Talk:Hurtigruten_(Norwegian_coastal_route)#Recent_edits_and_moves for more information. Also, the article Hurtigruten (company) used to contain some information on the split-off of a separate company for expedition cruises, which was removed by Merchantsq in December as "that is not relevant to Hurtigruten" which it of course is, as part of the company's history - I suspect that they don't think the split-off fits a promotional article after they sold the expedition cruise company in 2024. I added updated information on that under "Former assets", only to get it reverted by Captainnorse. (I re-added it; I think the next revert would be the start of an edit war). Now, I don't know how to proceed and what action could be taken, just wanted to point out that I think the activity of these accounts is questionable, and maybe the articles should also be moved back to their old titles (as the main meaning of "Hurtigruten" has always been the historical route as such, not some company). I will leave it to the local admins. I also will notify the users on their talk page, as per the notice here. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- By mistake, I added the notice to the user page of Merchantsq instead of the user talk page (which is something that really shouldn't happen, I can only try to invoke the mind-numbing heatwave here in central Europe as an apology...), so could an admin please delete the mistakenly created user page? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like Deor took care of this. We have a special COI email list that might be useful if someone has the address handy. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- It looks to me like there might be a whole group of accounts with ties to Hurtigruten AS. User:LPO1992 also has made similar edits, for example right now removing the "AS" with this edit (while I think the company form is useful to differentiate Hurtigruten AS, the company, from Hurtigruten, the coastal route). Gestumblindi (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2025 (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.
Repetitively removing sourced nickname
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 admins. From past few days some IP is persistently removing well sourced Nicknames from Shubman Gill page. When i reverted their edits, the IP keep on removing the sourced nickname. Yesterday the IP also posted on my talk page a warning to report me, if i add those nicknames. See here. Thanks TheSlumPanda (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- The IP has a point. They replaced a list of nicknames ("Prince of Indian Cricket, Kaka, Smoothman Gill") with "Prince" which seems more appropriate. WP:DUE means that not every factoid belongs in an article, and not every name that someone used belongs in the infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq Thanks for clarification. TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- @TheSlumPanda, you seem to have done the right thing over a week ago by starting a talk page discussion, but if you get no reply there to a content dispute then the next thing to do is described at dispute resolution, rather than create a report here. As Johnuniq says, not everything that can be sourced necessarily belongs in a Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq Thanks for clarification. TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2025 (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.
DR Party Page and GlowstoneUnknown
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So I was blocked over the drama on this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic-Republican_Party
The skinny version is that the page originally said that the Democratic-Republican Party was center-left to left-wing, with a source to back it up. @GlowstoneUnknown decided he didn't agree with the source, declared it original research, and removed it without discussion. The source objectively states that (at least) a faction of the Democratic-Republicans were left-wing.
This is basic knowledge in political science, as the terms left and right wing originated in the supporters and opponents respectively of the French Revolution, which the Democratic-Republicans supported. While the Democratic-Republicans, as a pre-industrial party, don't necessarily fit modern terms of left and right, such is anachronistic. It would be like saying that Vladimir Lenin isn't a leftist because he didn't support gay marriage or some such. Glowstone has carefully avoided actually engaging in the merits of the discussion itself.
In fact, before I tagged him specifically, he didn't once engage in the talk page on the subject - despite multiple users naming him as the one who opposed this mention. Other sources were provided, which Glowstone proceeded to remove and delete as well. He's edited the page to remove this mention over ten times, six times in the last week.
I mentioned on the talk page I'd be happy to track down another source so long as I had the assurance Glowstone would be willing to accept the information if properly sourced - a point Glowstone refused to engage with.
There is some contention over this inclusion, but no one user has taken it more upon themselves to remove this content, over and over and over again, no matter the source and without a word on the talk page (again, until after I tagged them).
Here's my big points on this matter
1) A user should not be repeatedly removing sourced content, especially without engaging with the relevant discussion on the talk page.
2) Edits that are properly sourced shouldn't be removed in the first place simply because one or two users subjectively decide the source isn't good enough, especially if several sources are provided.
3) There should be a good faith discussion in situations like this that the info will be included if a source meeting a fair criteria is found, unless there is a dispute on the merits of the content itself. 2601:18A:817D:9320:A1F0:3951:1CD3:19FA (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- First of all, you've already immediately broken ANI rules by not alerting me on my Talk Page, but I have to point out the numerous issues with the content of your report as well.
- You were blocked for consistent disruptive editing and edit warring behaviour (not because of "drama"). The accusation of a single user that I was the sole reason the political position was removed from the page's infobox holds no weight whatsoever, and isn't even true. Every source that has been used to justify the inclusion of a political position on that page's infobox was removed based on the merit of the sources and whether they were WP:OR-compliant (they weren't). The page didn't "originally" say "Center-left to left-wing", that was content added (boldly) by you specifically and reverted several times by multiple different editors: ([55] [56] [57] [58])
- It was always a completely irrelevant argument whether or not the party supported the French Revolution, as that's a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. As for your claim that you said that you'd "be happy to track down another source so long as I had the assurance Glowstone would be willing to accept the information if properly sourced", that's blatantly false, your exact words were:
But since you don't like the citation, how about YOU find one that you're happy with?
, which I replied to by citing the WP:ONUS policy and you responded, verbatim,Where are my assurances I'm not being sent on a wild goose chase by a guy who will always find an excuse to dismiss ANY source? None, right.
A pointed accusation that any source you provide would be dismissed by me, a blatant violation of the WP:AGF behavioural guideline, not, as you put it, "mention[ing] on the talk page [that you]'d be happy to track down another source". - There's no requirement to participate in talk page discussions before reverting WP:BOLD edits, however, after you borderline accused me of vandalism from the outset with a new section on the talk page:
At what point does repeatedly and unilaterally removing cited information for no apparent reason consitute vandalism?
I engaged civilly in the discussion and pointed out the problems with your arguments for inclusion whilst you repeatedly accused me of bad faith. - That's all I have to say for now. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 17:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BOOMERANG. OP was pblocked from the page in question due to disruption and edit-warring. Their response was to bring that disruption to AN, when the editor they're focusing on isn't even an admin. Epanded the two-week pblock to a full sitewide block. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:32, 4 July 2025 (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 next administrator elections need two monitors
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#Need 2 admin monitors. Said monitors will monitor the discussion pages on all the candidates. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2025 (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.
SouthParkFan100
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 new user seems to be doing a lot of reverting of seemingly acceptable edits. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SouthParkFan100&diff=prev&oldid=1298961378 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SouthParkFan100&diff=next&oldid=1298961378 176.108.139.1 (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- A couple things. First of all, editors are permitted to remove messages from their own talk page (see WP:OWNTALK), it is meant to be interpreted as their acknowledgement of having received the message. Second, the edit you made to Vincentas Jakševičius removed a list-defined reference which wasn't being used on the page, as far as I can tell. SouthParkFan100 probably shouldn't have reverted you without understanding what they were reverting ("because it needs a reference" wasn't a valid reason here) but I don't think there's anything for admins to do here. I reviewed a handful of the user's other reverts and really don't see a problem; maybe this report needs more diffs.
- @SouthParkFan100: you can remove messages and usually entire conversation threads from your own talk page, but don't ever do it on any other page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I removed the unused ref because it was flagged as an error by Checkwiki: https://checkwiki.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/checkwiki.cgi?project=enwiki&view=only&id=94. This happens quite often: an editor will "remove" a list-based ref by removing the opening ref tag and then checkwiki will flag that because the closing ref tag is unbalanced. This will show up as a new error next time Checkwiki updates the report. 176.108.139.1 (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. I apologize. SouthParkFan100 (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, they're still at it: blindly reverting non-vandalism edits by IPs [59], blanking attempts to talk to them about it [60]. Also blanked this very thread [61] earlier. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I really do want to AGF, but the above weird edits added to this, which is either straight up vandalism or so very odd it's unquantifiable, suggests trolling at the very least. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Trolling? I see no trolling in properly concise material. SouthParkFan100 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- A source published in 1983 said that Microsoft Word was given that name in 2003? And you’re standing by that?. I’m gonna say it again: I believe you are trolling us. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Microsoft Word was once named Multi Tool Word when it was founded, but was renamed to Microsoft Word in 2003. If you had read the article, you would know this. I simply wanted to make that clear to the readers of the article. SouthParkFan100 (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Multi Tool Word had become Word (for DOS, for Windows) at least as early as 1993.[62] Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I thought it was renamed to just Word in 2003? It’s what the article says. SouthParkFan100 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- It really doesn’t. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- There is a screenshot of Microsoft Word 1.0 from 1983 in the article, with "Microsoft Word" plain as day on the screen. What's especially ridiculous is your claim on the talk page that the IP is "vandalizing" the article by reverting your error. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I thought it was renamed to just Word in 2003? It’s what the article says. SouthParkFan100 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Multi Tool Word had become Word (for DOS, for Windows) at least as early as 1993.[62] Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Microsoft Word was once named Multi Tool Word when it was founded, but was renamed to Microsoft Word in 2003. If you had read the article, you would know this. I simply wanted to make that clear to the readers of the article. SouthParkFan100 (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- A source published in 1983 said that Microsoft Word was given that name in 2003? And you’re standing by that?. I’m gonna say it again: I believe you are trolling us. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Trolling? I see no trolling in properly concise material. SouthParkFan100 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I really do want to AGF, but the above weird edits added to this, which is either straight up vandalism or so very odd it's unquantifiable, suggests trolling at the very least. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, they're still at it: blindly reverting non-vandalism edits by IPs [59], blanking attempts to talk to them about it [60]. Also blanked this very thread [61] earlier. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've taken a look at some other reverts by SouthParkFan100, none of which included an edit summary:
- Reverting a single edit in a series without any explanation.
- Reverting a correction to wikisyntax
- I know nothing about John Maron, but this reverted a substantial amount of text with references
- And then there's this:
- This is probably a candidate for WP:SPEEDY
- 176.108.139.1 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I’m new here and don’t know all the rules. SouthParkFan100 (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- If you are new, I would suggest it would be best if you stopped attempting to enforce 'the rules' until you do know them. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- For instance, how was this a "violation of WP:BLP"? What was this reversion for? What was this if not vandalism? Why are you edit warring on John Maron? 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- If you are new, I would suggest it would be best if you stopped attempting to enforce 'the rules' until you do know them. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I’m new here and don’t know all the rules. SouthParkFan100 (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @SouthParkFan100. I did not realize there was a discussion involving you here until I looked at your contributions. I had some questions about recent edits you made, and since you have a discussion apparently already going on here, I hope it's OK if I ask you these here so we're not spreading the discussion around.
- In an edit (2025-07-07T16:06:00Z) at The Dance Awards you added incorrect information (a person's first name was changed). An IP user apparently reverted this later. What prompted you to replace the name? If this is a case of original research, I want to make sure we can answer any questions about that.
- In an edit (2025-07-07T17:27:14Z), you changed "Wichita, Kansas" to just "Wichita", and your edit summary just said "violation of WP:BLP". I wanted to check with you to see if there were any questions we could answer about WP:BLP, as I don't think your changes fixed any BLP issue in that article.
- —tony 17:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've indeffed. Whether it's CIR or trolling, either way the result is the same. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- This is, sadly, where this was always going to end up. Like you I'm still not sure if this was trolling (80% sure) or a new over-enthusiastic editor (20% sure). If it was the latter, it's a shame, but since the two options are indistinguishable... eh. Thanks for looking into this SFR; much appreciated. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2025 (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.
Declined username policy exception
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.
Bah, maybe I need to self-refer myself here... I declined an unblock request at User talk:Bayerische Staatsbibliothek where an exception to our username policy was being requested (by 
Courtesy ping: Doc Taxon, on behalf of the user). I said we wouldn't – well, I wouldn't – make an exception to the policy, but perhaps this was above my pay grade and I should just get back in my box. If you good folks think I called that wrong, let me know and I'll go and revert, and then have a stern word with myself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Nope. Policy is policy. They can rename the existing one to meet out username policy. Just because things are done one way on a different language Wikipedia doesn't mean it is the same for the English one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazing, @RickinBaltimore, @Asilvering: All okay, I told the user, that there is no way to get an exception to this username policy. You may close the case. And thanks a lot, – Doc Taxon • Talk • 09:53, 10 July 2025 (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.
Sex, Gender and X (or "Look what I found under the carpet")
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.
Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Sex, Gender and X (or "Look what I found under the carpet")- Raladic, why did you bring this to WP:AN? I think that Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be a more appropriate venue. Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I asked in the last paragraph on the question of venue @Liz. It affects a whole bunch of articles, needs some admin help, isn't just a singular histmerge, nor a singular RM (or even a multi-RM for that matter as I'd say each article needs to be looked at individually). Do you feel VPM would be the better place to start or some other forum? I genuinely cracked my head of which noticeboard to start at.. Raladic (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for the suggestion, I'll take it to WP:VPR then. Raladic (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2025 (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.
Standard offer : GamerBoyMike
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.
GamerBoyMike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked five years ago for sneaky vandalism, and made things worse by taking one unblock request to own up to it. He was a teenager then and an adult now, so I'm prepared to accept he's now got the required maturity to give editing a go, and give them the standard offer. Either the maturity will show and they'll be a productive editor, or it won't and they'll be booted out of the door quickly enough. Either way, I don't see any real harm in giving them a second chance. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Go for it. Assuming no socking for the last few years, five years is long enough self-reflection, and the unblock request indicates maturity; WP:Unblocks are cheap. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. – robertsky (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333, is there some reason you're bringing this here rather than simply using the normal unblocks process? I don't see any obvious reason to do so, so I'm wondering if I'm missing something. -- asilvering (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Four previous denials, can't hurt to make sure the community is good with this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a combination of indef block for vandalism, not immediately owning up to it, and multiple declined unblock requests. Plus a chat here also means anyone can check there was no socking going on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Four previous denials, can't hurt to make sure the community is good with this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Make it so. Five years is indeed a long time.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Approve A kid growing up is exactly what you'd want to see as a recovery from the initial block. Five years and GBM's statement aligns with that. Low risk. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've unblocked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 05:25, 9 July 2025 (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.
Adrien Nunez image revisited
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.
- Adrien Nunez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Grantball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The same WP:SPA has again deleted the infobox image at Adrien Nunez following Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive371#Adrien_Nunez_image. What are the procedures to follow now. Can I get this SPA blocked?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've pblocked them from the page. Girth Summit (blether) 19:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
ResolvedThe 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.
Blocked editor who added false death dates to BLPs
Fairly recently there was an editor who was blocked for adding false death dates to BLPs (and that's all they did) - they also socked to carry on. I've completely forgotten the puppetmaster's name. Does it ring bells for anyone? Now re-appeared at 187.126.183.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), hence the query... GiantSnowman 20:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's Guilherme Gava Bergami (talk · contribs) - for future reference... GiantSnowman 20:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- They have 39 confirmed and suspected sockpuppets so I guess we can expect to see them again in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Back already overnight - Luishetme9 (talk · contribs). Thanks to @Lofty abyss: for taking action. GiantSnowman 09:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- They have 39 confirmed and suspected sockpuppets so I guess we can expect to see them again in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Non-admin edit filter manager request
Hello, a request for edit filter manager access for a non-admin is open at the edit filter noticeboard. Comments are welcome on the discussion there. Thank you. – DreamRimmer ■ 10:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Imitation?
This is probably going to sound extremely petty but I am more just concerned about accusations of sockpuppetry in the future. An editor I have previously interacted (@Imperial khasah) with seems to have copied my userpage introduction almost word-for-word.
His userpage intro: Hi! I'm Khasah. I have a deep interest in the medieval world, particularly the histories. My focus extends to exploring Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. I especially enjoy editing topics that delve into the lives and legacies of monks, philosophers, and scholars from the middle ages.
And mine: Hi! I'm Ixudi. My editing interests lie predominantly in the medieval world. In particular, I am interested in South Asia, Central Asia, the Balkans and the Caucasus. I also edit on topics related to Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, particularly the biographies of monks and philosophers who lived in the middle ages.
I wouldn't usually care but the user seems to be getting dragged into quite a few content disputes and I don't want an Admin to somehow assume we are connected. What is the best way forward with this? Should I just change my Userpage? Ixudi (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- You should probably edit your user page, and send a message to the imitator. I also recommend posting this at ANI next time.
- - Starfall2015 let's talk profile 16:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Ixudi, a lot of new editors copy more experienced editors' User pages so while it might be unsettling to you, it's not enough commonality for a Checkuser to assume that you are the same person. I'd only change your User page if that would make you feel more comfortable. Have more faith in our functionary team to have confidence that they would need more evidence to identify you two as sockpuppets. It's more likely that inexperienced editors would assume there is something up but you only need to be worried about wrong conclusions from an SPI report and I think you are safe there. I would drop a note to Imperial khasah, sharing your concerns. But remember to assume good faith, they probably copied it not out of ill intent but because they admired it and wanted their own User page to have a similar look.
- In the future, if you have an inquiry like this, I wouldn't post about it on WP:AN but just directly contact an admin or checkuser on their User talk page. This isn't a case that needs the attention of the entire admin community. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Forgot password; locked out of my account. What do I do?
I lost my password and I don't know what to do. How do I get my account back? Is having the IP good enough? Stbpsci45 (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have email enabled to your old account? If not, then there is not much that can be done. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- You also need to declare your use of an alternate account; see WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
A draft on hold for months
Hi dear admins, and other editors! I want to raise a concern very similar to this recent thread at AN.
There is Draft:Tabish Hashmi, which may had a history of editions by sock users (I cannot call everyone sock due to DBQ because AGF), until I tried rewriting it during 17 April to 1 May. This may not qualify under GNG or as a standlone BLP, but I assume I have added enough for creating notability of a performing artist (TV host, stand-up comedian as per WP:CREATIVE). The draft remains unsubmitted since then, and no consensus established on the talk page. I tried taking it to the other patforms, including WP:3O, but got response from nowhere, and therefore, I am coming here after more than two months.
It would be helpful if someone looks up the issue and assist, though my availability will be limited from tomorrow onwards.
Lastly, is it necessary to ping the involved editors? I assume that uninvolved editors can sort this out better. Thank you! M. Billoo 14:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- You seem pretty confused about how English Wikipedia works. You should perhaps go to the Teahouse, our new user forum, and ask for assistance there. In short, you have to submit a draft for approval if you want anything to happen. Also, no consensus is necessary. If you decide you don't want to use Articles for Creation, just create the article in mainspace yourself right now. Articles for Creation is optional, and there's no reason for someone to sit around idly wishing that they could create an article. Of course, if your draft can't pass review at AFC, it'll probably get deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Billoo,
- I apologize, because I know you have tried to get my attention about this issue (or on something else) and I haven't responded. But it's still not clear to me what exactly the problem is that you want help with from admins. Reading over Draft talk:Tabish Hashmi, I see there is another version of this article at Draft:Tabish Hashmi 1 but you don't mention this fact in your query (above). Most of the editing that has gone on and submission on Tabish Hashmi occurred in April, not recently. Is there a title blacklist or a main space page that is protected? Or is it because there are two copies of an article on the same subject? You could do what NRP suggests and move the draft to main space but given that it has been rejected twice, it would likely be tagged for a speedy deletion or deletion discussion by one of our NPP patrollers so I don't recommend you move it to main space without more draft improvement. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. The fact is, I was frozen to make edits because from one side, the actual sock (StayCalmOnTress) was attacking over my contributions, and from the other side, I became part of the very same SPI. By calling it similar issue, I meant, rewriting and still getting AfC rejection, then having a very similar disagreement on its talk page, (and also recreation of a duplicate topic, sorry to not mention) just all that had also happened at Dananeer's topic (except for the protection part). It was not just one article for me, it was happened at the chain of articles, since April 2025. I will try resubmitting it right now, hopefully someone else experienced may check it independently. Thank you! M. Billoo 22:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
non-admin edit filter manager request
Hello, a request from a non-admin to become a local edit filter manager is open at the edit filter noticeboard. Those interested in this are invited to join the discusion there. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 10:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2025).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a talk page discussion, speedy deletion criterion G13 has been amended to remove "Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text."
- WP:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts was upgraded to a guideline following a RfC discussion.
Miscellaneous
- The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
- Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
Change to the CheckUser team, July 2025
The Arbitration Committee acknowledges the resignation of ST47 (talk · contribs) from the CheckUser team and thanks them for their service.
On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates
Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates
The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.
Here is the schedule:
- July 9–15 - Call for candidates
- July 18–22 - Discussion phase
- July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
- The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
- Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
- The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
- The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
- Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Closure Review (Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I am following the closure review process which mentions this board.
- I would like to dispute this closure for outright ignoring consensus.
- This closure on neutrality grounds because it functions as a supervote while completely mischaracterizing one side of the discussion. The policy based rational of the other side is one based on WP:WEIGHT. Therefore the characterization
We are left, therefore, with a policy-based argument to include publisher expectations versus editors' opinions that they should be excluded
is not accurate because WEIGHT is Wikipedia policy, and arguments derived from WEIGHT are valid and shouldn't be dismissed outright.
Accordingly I'd like to request an admin to evaluate and re-close these two discussions. Sorry if this is the wrong ___location as I've never done this and I'm not familiar with this board. Thanks! Koriodan (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Koriodan, per the instructions at the top of this page, please reformat this request to use Template:RfC closure review, which should be used for such a discussion. You may delete this comment if you want while doing so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- I also notified User:Compassionate727 which you hadn't done yet, Koriodan. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Koriodan (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. It looks like ScottishFinishRadish was able to update it. Let me know if it needs further updates. Koriodan (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- I also notified User:Compassionate727 which you hadn't done yet, Koriodan. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm missing something but AFAICT User:Koriodan asked User:Compassionate727 about their close at 11:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC). Without waiting for a response, they then opened this malformed thread 50 minutes later at 11:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC). Compassionate727 first responded at 21:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC). There's been some back and forth before then, and I don't think Koriodan is satisfied with the response. But I don't see how this complies with Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures "
contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion
" or the basic courtesy of the ANs which is except in exceptional circumstances you should generally have talked to the editor about your concerns first, at least previously if it's some sort of repeated behaviour. Even accepting it looks likely the two are at an impasse now, it doesn't seem to me that prejudging that you won't be satisfied with the closer's response helped the situation in any real way. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Non-participants (Dragon Age: The Veilguard)
- In my view, AN should decline to hear this appeal both because of the procedural issues noted above, and also because the underlying content dispute (about how the gameplay of a video game should be compared to its predecessor) is so trivial that it is not worth spending more volunteer time on. Sandstein 09:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Decline per Sandstein. From the discussion itself and Koriodan's failure to adequately collaborate, it seems that this is more a dispute for the sake of argument than a dispute for the sake of content. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Procedural close (decline). The first complaint is unsubstantiated. Because a close is a recording of consensus by definition, saying "this closure [is] outright ignoring consensus" is equal to saying "the close is wrong" without saying how it is wrong—it is like submitting a piece of paper titled "Complaint" and signed, with nothing in between. The second complaint is based on quoting out of context. Interested editors can read the full close statement on the talk page. Both complaints lack an actionable request: "I'd like to request an admin to evaluate and re-close these two discussions" does not state how the discussions should have been closed but were not due of a purportedly incorrect analysis of consensus, and what remedial action—what different outcome—is therefore requested. There is no explanation for what difference it makes if the closer is or is not admin; usually, this is not important. The filer needed to discuss their concerns with the closer beforehand, and base an actionable request on that, for any issues that remain following such a discussion. The filer started the review before receiving the closer's response. That is not acceptable since this and that discussion are two forums for the same thing that must be used in an escalatory manner, not in parallel, in order to avoid wasting other editors' time on process that may turn out to be unnecessary. Seeking community review of closures of such discussions is asking a lot from the community, so when it is done, it needs to he done right. —Alalch E. 14:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Participants (Dragon Age: The Veilguard)
- Ignore as per Sandstein. I don't know whether I should list myself as Involved or Uninvolved. My role with Dragon Age: The Veilguard is that I tried to mediate a dispute about it at DRN which is archived at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_252#Dragon_Age:_The_Veilguard. I think that these two disputes about this game, and a recent dispute about Forspoken, and other disputes, illustrate that video games are a contentious topic sensu lato, not because the subject matter is contentious, but because a subset of the editors of the material like to quarrel about them. I don't know whether that means that we need to list video games as a contentious topic sensu stricto in order to avoid wasting the community's time with trivial video game disputes; but we don't need to resolve this closure appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:PIA topic banned
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.
Dear admins; I was blocked by an administrator on WP:PIA topics. Of course, I wasn't aware of this policy at first, and on subsequent occasions, since I work on WP:NPP, I made edits regardless of the topic of those articles. I assure you that these edits, and my contributions to Wikipedia in general, are made in good faith. I work professionally on human rights and military articles. This lack of access has imposed a lot of friction on me.
I had useful edits and articles and good interaction with users on Wikipedia. I also contributed to the preservation of PIA articles. (1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7)
With respect and acceptance of the blocking administrator's opinion, I request another administrator to remove this block so that I can be useful. HumanRight 19:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- User talk:Human Right Wiki#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction seems to be details Secretlondon (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Secretlondon Thank you for reply. That's true, and I admit my mistake. But I meant more like the biography of a journalist, not PIA. I hope it can be forgiven. HumanRight 21:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Human Right Wiki, the usual way to appeal this kind of ban is to ask the blocking admin first. It doesn't look to me like you've contacted Rosguill since your initial questions about the tban? -- asilvering (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering Thank you for reply. Yes, here and here we discussed this topic and Rosguill asked me to request another admin. If you'd like, I can contact Rosguill again or invite him to join this discussion? HumanRight 21:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand - both of those are from before you were extended-confirmed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering I just asked Rosguill to join this discussion. HumanRight 21:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand - both of those are from before you were extended-confirmed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering Thank you for reply. Yes, here and here we discussed this topic and Rosguill asked me to request another admin. If you'd like, I can contact Rosguill again or invite him to join this discussion? HumanRight 21:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) This user, despite saying they "work on WP:NPP", has never had the new page reviewer userright. Toadspike [Talk] 07:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I had a similarly confusing interaction at User talk:asilvering#Request for APAT. -- asilvering (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering @Toadspike Based on the WP:HEP where it says: "... anyone who has edited is known as a Wikipedian or editor. Small edits add up, and every editor can be proud to have made Wikipedia better for all." and based on Wikipedia:You can and cannot change Wikipedia and WP:BB where it says: "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia not only lets you add and edit articles: it wants you to do it.." I was just trying to make good faith edits. If I've broken the Wikipedia policies, please let me know. HumanRight 19:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I had a similarly confusing interaction at User talk:asilvering#Request for APAT. -- asilvering (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose the unban request and urge HR to adhere more strictly to the terms of the TBAN moving forward, since they link to some ban violations and have continued to make more since starting this discussion. No more PIA-related protection requests, please. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers Thank you for joining this discussion. I did it based on the WP:PP where it says: "Protection is a technical restriction applied only by administrators, although any user may request protection.". In one month, I filed 11 protection requests, 10 of which were approved and one is pending. If this doesn't deserve appreciation, I don't think deserve to blame. It also states in the WP:PIA policies: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. If I've broken the Wikipedia policies, please let me know. Regards. HumanRight 19:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I would also oppose at this time, although FWIW I am fine with HRW having come here without directly appealing to me first, as I laid out an appeal to AN after reaching 500/30 as a valid route to appeal. I agree with FFF that pointing to their
preservation of PIA articles
is not what we want to see in a PIA ban appeal. I'm also concerned by the repeated appeals to their off-wiki expertise despite having already received explanations that en.wiki does not consider off-wiki credentials, and the various references and engagement around NPP and autopatrol, which at best demonstrate rushing/confusion and at worst smacks of WP:Hat collecting. signed, Rosguill talk 16:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)- @Rosguill Thank you for joining this discussion. I think there was a misunderstanding because I didn't request APAT for myself. Currently I don't need this access because my articles creating through AfC. What I requested is to unblock PIA. Just like other EXTENDED users, I want to make good faith edits. HumanRight 19:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Human Right Wiki, you've been making edits in violation of your topic ban. No one is going to lift that topic ban until you show that you're capable of following it in the first place. If patrolling new pages is making it difficult to adhere to that ban, you should stop patrolling new pages. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering I understand the sensitivity of this issue. But this restriction not only hurts me. It's also goes against WP:GF's. I haven't made any destructive contributions. I just made some edits to articles as a newbie and accidentally made them. My contributions are clear. Please look at the articles I have created. Many of these are related to PIA's topics. This restriction is constantly stressing me out. Regards. HumanRight 19:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- You were topic-banned. You edited in violation of that topic ban, as recently as yesterday. You are not going to have the topic ban lifted given this. You could easily be blocked for this, but in the interest of good faith, let's do this instead: do not edit any articles or topics in the PIA topic area, or you will be blocked. After six months of violation-free editing you can appeal the topic ban. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger Thank you. I am agree :) HumanRight 21:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- You were topic-banned. You edited in violation of that topic ban, as recently as yesterday. You are not going to have the topic ban lifted given this. You could easily be blocked for this, but in the interest of good faith, let's do this instead: do not edit any articles or topics in the PIA topic area, or you will be blocked. After six months of violation-free editing you can appeal the topic ban. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Asilvering I understand the sensitivity of this issue. But this restriction not only hurts me. It's also goes against WP:GF's. I haven't made any destructive contributions. I just made some edits to articles as a newbie and accidentally made them. My contributions are clear. Please look at the articles I have created. Many of these are related to PIA's topics. This restriction is constantly stressing me out. Regards. HumanRight 19:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Human Right Wiki, you've been making edits in violation of your topic ban. No one is going to lift that topic ban until you show that you're capable of following it in the first place. If patrolling new pages is making it difficult to adhere to that ban, you should stop patrolling new pages. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Rosguill Thank you for joining this discussion. I think there was a misunderstanding because I didn't request APAT for myself. Currently I don't need this access because my articles creating through AfC. What I requested is to unblock PIA. Just like other EXTENDED users, I want to make good faith edits. HumanRight 19:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
@Asilvering, @Rosguill, @Firefangledfeathers, @Secretlondon I've actually lost the enthusiasm I had for Wikipedia at first. I feel like I've been treated like WP:NOOB. My request is just WP:XC as a normal user, which can be approved or rejected. I don't want to take up any more of your time. Thank you for contributing in this discussion. HumanRight 20:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Your account is only a month old, you are a noob. I can't believe you are already doing things like NPP with an account that is only a few weeks old. Did you edit here previously with a different account(s)? You are very fortunate that you are not being blocked right now for violating your topic ban. I wouldn't push the envelope here. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz Thank you for joining this discussion. I'm familiar with programming. Working on Wikipedia is similar to web design, and I regret realizing this too late. I enjoy the contributing and interaction here. A virtual environment but with a human hierarchy. Something like a cyber army:) I usually think before doing something, except in this case!!! Mostly, I use Google search to reach Wikipedia instructions and policies. Honestly, it is somewhat complicated, but it is not something I cannot handle :) HumanRight 22:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- What is the answer to the question Liz asked, "Did you edit here previously with a different account(s)?". Your response did not address it directly. If the answer is yes, you can just say so and name the account. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Sean.hoyland No, I have never contributed to Wikipedia before. HumanRight 18:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Working on Wikipedia is similar to web design
it's as "similar" to web design as it is to shopping on Amazon. M.Bitton (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)- @Sean.hoyland It depends on users. What they have learned outside of Wikipedia. HumanRight 18:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- What is the answer to the question Liz asked, "Did you edit here previously with a different account(s)?". Your response did not address it directly. If the answer is yes, you can just say so and name the account. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz Thank you for joining this discussion. I'm familiar with programming. Working on Wikipedia is similar to web design, and I regret realizing this too late. I enjoy the contributing and interaction here. A virtual environment but with a human hierarchy. Something like a cyber army:) I usually think before doing something, except in this case!!! Mostly, I use Google search to reach Wikipedia instructions and policies. Honestly, it is somewhat complicated, but it is not something I cannot handle :) HumanRight 22:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
This isn't going anywhere productive. If there are concerns about machine translation, they can be handled separately. Giraffer (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
@Human Right Wiki It's unrelated, but since we are already here - are you using Google translate to create new articles? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
|
- I strongly support this and am astonished at the WP:ASPERSIONS being leveled against this user. Their edits are overwhelmingly constructive. The "broadly construed" rule is extremely confusing and nobody has posted evidence that they were purposely violating this or gaming or lying or anything else I have seen mentioned. @Human Right Wiki, thank you for your contributions, and my deepest apologies for the treatment you have received. I hope this doesn't deter you from contributing further. LordDiscord (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- @LordDiscord I deeply appreciate your support. Of course, I give the admins the right to review sensitive topics. After all, they have been working on Wikipedia for years and have more experience. What I expect is fair punishment based on the right to freedom speech and Wikipedia rules. Thank you again for your support. HumanRight 19:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Came here after cleaning up some of this users articles, and seeing they were at AN. The edits I made to Hossein Sajedinia, Azizollah Rajabzadeh, and ESPECIALLY Mojahed Kourkour reveal huge competency and bias issues around this users editing. Spamming a large amount of unrelated refs about the BLP under a section and sentence that NONE of them reference is bafflingly bad. And in the case of Kourkour's article, the editor included the wrong name in the section about him being executed, and mangled the direct quote of a Canadian MP so badly that I can only assume it was the fault of machine translation or AI use. This editor needs to spend much more time studying our PAGs before they should be allowed near the PIA area, or Iranian articles at all. Parabolist (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- The reference issue might be AI hallucination. If not, this editor may need a sitewide block. And if so, probably still a sitewide block. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- I put the Farsi version of Kourkour's article from 11 June into Google Translate and compared it to the first revision of the English article, that MP's quote comes out word-for-word the same except for the last sentence. The reference to the tweet was present and had the correct quote in it from the beginning, but was missing the last sentence entirely. No idea what could explain this other than automated tools plus a lack of care. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Parabolist, I agree that the Mojahed Kourkour issues are quite strange. I will issue a mainspace pblock. -- asilvering (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oh. In the meantime they've made another PIA tban violation on their userpage. Nevermind. I'll indef. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- asilvering, how did this limited block for topic ban violations turn into an indefinite block for this editor? What did I miss? Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz, they didn't have a block of any kind, just a tban. As for the reasons for the block, see Parabolist's comment two steps up and the edits referenced there, which are serious WP:V issues. See also (sorry in advance) the extensive discussion at User talk:Human Right Wiki#July 2025. -- asilvering (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, Asilvering. I was just surprised because I thought they would turn into a solid contributor after this bump in the road. Well, I hope they appeal after some time passes. I'll look into the sources you are pointing me to. Much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz, they didn't have a block of any kind, just a tban. As for the reasons for the block, see Parabolist's comment two steps up and the edits referenced there, which are serious WP:V issues. See also (sorry in advance) the extensive discussion at User talk:Human Right Wiki#July 2025. -- asilvering (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- asilvering, how did this limited block for topic ban violations turn into an indefinite block for this editor? What did I miss? Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oh. In the meantime they've made another PIA tban violation on their userpage. Nevermind. I'll indef. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2025 (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.
- Star Mississippi, I think the closing statement should be amended to mention WP:V issues, as at this point that seems to be the more significant obstacle to an unblock (see their talk page). signed, Rosguill talk 14:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Using AI and LLMS to make a page and making personal attacks: Hyggemule
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:Hyggemule
Hyggemule made this page:
Draft:Matthew Swarts and it got rejected, for using LLMs like Chat GPT, there is also these walls of text that is obviously ai generated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Matthew_Swarts&oldid=1299973163
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Matthew_Swarts&oldid=1299967672
And he is making personal attacks at User:Qcne and User:331dot calling the latter's critique "gross editorial incompetence". He was also using disabillity as a way to bypass our rules and policies against LLM's and AIs. I am asking for anyone's opinion on this matter, including the users involved, except Hyggemule because of his use of AI. I atleast think we should indef ban him for using ai and language models. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:6D82:20DD:2B01:7EE9 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- This is factually completely incorrect.
- Qcne used abusive language (called me, in public, a "shitbot"). They stated they did not read the draft. Hyggemule (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Probably because you were using ai which discredited your ai because of your use of it to defend it, and plus it cant even be in mainspace since rejected. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:6D82:20DD:2B01:7EE9 (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- And also, he was referring to the chatbot, and I would rather much trust people who were here and read the policies every single day and follow them for years. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:6D82:20DD:2B01:7EE9 (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2025 (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.
Image backlogs
I've been working through Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, which has some overlap with Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons with hidden file revisions. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
An administrator recall petition has been initiated for David Gerard
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/David Gerard for David Gerard to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for him to maintain his toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy.
Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Now closed, as David Gerard has resigned the tools. Bishonen | tålk 19:09, 12 July 2025 (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.
Review of autopatrolled right removal (Victuallers)
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.
- Victuallers (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Victuallers had his autopatrolled right revoked in 2023 by Beeblebrox enforcing the consensus in this ANI discussion. Yesterday, Dclemens1971 submitted the following nomination to Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled: (permalink)
I have been familiar with Victuallers' work for some time but coming across his work on Malawi in the new pages feed today made me realize with surprise that he is not autopatrolled. His new page creations are of high quality and demonstrate awareness of Manual of Style, notability guidelines, etc., just as I'd expect for a long-tenured admin. Unless there's some reason not to grant this permission that I'm unfamiliar with, I think adding the AP flag to Victuallers will reduce the backlog for reviewers.
— Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Since the right was revoked by community consensus, I'm moving the discussion here as a procedural action; I'm not leaving an opinion. Should Victuallers's autopatrolled permission be restored? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Victuallers, who says that the quality of my contributions has not varied for years. This means that a) their articles are presumably of the same quality as they were when P was revoked, so need to be patrolled by others; and b) that they don't recognise the issues that led to the revocation of AP and haven't adjusted accordingly, in which case their articles need to be patrolled by others. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support. I was unaware of the AN/I discussion at the time of requesting the flag for Victuallers and would not have suggested it had I been aware of the prior community consensus. However, I reviewed Victuallers' previous 10 creations (my usual standard when I run into a non-AP editor whose work does not appear to require additional patrolling) and found no problems that I considered warranted ongoing patrolling. But since I started the conversation and TechnoSquirrel69 has moved the discussion here, I will share my view: I do wonder if the prior discussion applied too strict a standard to Victuallers and perhaps conflated the article quality problems with the separate topic of deleting preexisting redirects when creating new articles. Autopatrolled is for
prolific creators of clean articles and pages in order to reduce the workload of the new pages patrol process on Wikipedia
; there's nothing in WP:APCRITERIA that requires error-free creations. These kinds of errors flagged in the AN/I discussion are nitpicky ([63], [64], [65]). One of the articles flagged Fram cleaned up 10 minutes after some typos were made in an edit by Victuallers and less than an hour after Victuallers created the article. Flagging Victuallers' mistakes in this window of time as problematic editorial behavior at a noticeboard is unreasonable, especially considering NPPers are expected to observe WP:NPPHOUR. I'm quite sure that everyone who is autopatrolled makes similar mistakes from time to time. (Victuallers' use of an unreliable source is more serious, but in the context of other nitpicks discussed above I'd be more inclined to forgive that.) Autopatrolled is about focusing our volunteer patrollers where their time is most valuable, not ensuring that articles need virtually no editing by other users. Victuallers continues to be a prolific page creator and thus re-granting AP would have an impact on NPP volunteers' time. I think another chance can be granted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that arguing the previous consensus was wrong when it was literally 100% in favor of recvocation helps Victuallers' case now, to be honest. But that several experienced users (including two admins) found sufficient concern to revoke reflects both the seriousness of the issues—including copyvios—and, shall we say, a perhaps less than firm understanding or awareness on Victuallers' part that several issues needed addressing, but had not been. Respect your analysis, though. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Fortuna imperatrix mundi, like I said above, I wouldn't have brought it up at PERM had I been aware of the earlier consensus. I respect all the editors who came to the conclusion at the time. Just figured that since I inadvertently triggered this conversation I should at least read through the original discussion and not avoid commenting on something I started. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that arguing the previous consensus was wrong when it was literally 100% in favor of recvocation helps Victuallers' case now, to be honest. But that several experienced users (including two admins) found sufficient concern to revoke reflects both the seriousness of the issues—including copyvios—and, shall we say, a perhaps less than firm understanding or awareness on Victuallers' part that several issues needed addressing, but had not been. Respect your analysis, though. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- On a separate note, I'd like to apologize to @Victuallers if my post at PERM dredged up unpleasant memories or started a discussion that you'd rather not have. (If we should speedily close this thread, please let us know.) I was truly unaware of the history and only wished to highlight what I saw as a net-positive track record of contributions to the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- If you think it saves time then do proceed with your application although I see that Fortuna is getting confused when they say "in favor of recvocation helps Victuallers' case now, to be honest". There is no "Victuallers' case", and it shows a deep misunderstanding of what's happening here. I am not the applicant. Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the gaslighting, but 'Victuallers' case' literally means 'the case regarding Victuallers'. There is no intimidation as to the 'applicant' ('appellant'). Suggesting that those who disagree with you are 'confused' or 'misunderstand' demonstrates precisely the lack of introspection I touched on in my comment. Caoi! —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- I assume this was intended to mean "the case for Victuallers to be granted autopatrol"; I can certainly imagine myself using it that way if I wasn't being very careful with my words. Rusalkii (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I can see that Rusalkii, but "introspection"? Why is that relevant?. Is someone still misunderstanding the case? This is an application by NPP patrolers to make a change to save them time. It is based on their perception of my editing. They will know that my "lack of introspection" (or the PhD that I could be taking in the subject) is irrelevant to their case. Victuallers (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't really want to get into arguing about someone else's words, seems unconstructive. Rusalkii (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- I can see that Rusalkii, but "introspection"? Why is that relevant?. Is someone still misunderstanding the case? This is an application by NPP patrolers to make a change to save them time. It is based on their perception of my editing. They will know that my "lack of introspection" (or the PhD that I could be taking in the subject) is irrelevant to their case. Victuallers (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support. I have reviewed a random smattering of Victuallers's creations for issues identified by other editors (about 15? I wasn't counting, sorry). The only NPP-relevant issues identified by other editors are the following:
- Special:Diff/1293545114: citation to a predatory journal removed by Headbomb
- Special:Diff/1281129389: factual error, caught by Thoughtfortheday as part of a series of major edits to the article
- Neither of these users were actually patrolling the article, and I don't expect the average new page patroller to catch either of these issues. Do their articles have issues? Maybe. But if they're there they empirically are not being caught by NPPs, so we should reinstate the right to decrease the burden on patrollers. (I would change my mind on evidence of continued nontrivial copyvio, but given the history if that was occurring I would support harsher sanctions than not granting autopatrolled, since in this hypothetical that had empirically not fixed the issue). Rusalkii (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per FIM. I am not convinced that the issues have been resolved. JayCubby 14:36, 11 July 2025 (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.
Sudden image spam brigade
Help, did someone misplan another edit-a-thon? All brand new accounts.
- Kingsbrown (talk · contribs)
- Victorpeter001 (talk · contribs)
- TedeCyber (talk · contribs)
- Mary Ekere (talk · contribs)
- Hossana1 (talk · contribs)
- Phina001 (talk · contribs)
- Kuuzy (talk · contribs)
- Honeydear (talk · contribs)
Remsense 🌈 论 18:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Multiple overlapping pages and images, there's definitely some coordinated underlying situation here. DMacks (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, but what the fuck? This has a distinctly malicious feeling to it. Can we start thinking about doing something quick with all these accounts? I can't keep up. Remsense 🌈 论 18:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Scratch that—I was right the first time. Sigh. Remsense 🌈 论 18:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- After analyzing their contributions, I came to the conclusion that we should block all of them. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) Tamil speakers: Contribute here 18:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Blocking won't solve the problem. What I see are a few overzealous/excited contributors involved in an ongoing campaign. A warning should suffice for now. If the behavior persists, then more serious actions can be considered. Idoghor Melody (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like the coast is mostly clear. I do appreciate that, unlike some events, the realization something was running hot was acted upon in a perfectly reasonable period. Thanks, everyone for that. Remsense 🌈 论 18:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Blocking won't solve the problem. What I see are a few overzealous/excited contributors involved in an ongoing campaign. A warning should suffice for now. If the behavior persists, then more serious actions can be considered. Idoghor Melody (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Kuuzy mentioned wpwp, so probably this is m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2025? —Kusma (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Kusma, yes, that's it. Idoghor Melody (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I had to be the bearer of bad news again, y'all. Remsense 🌈 论 18:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- And yet, without the magic hashtag, they don't get credit for it. DMacks (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Three new contributors each found the same nondescript old image File:Ycyk-Ata stolovay.jpg to put in Foodservice, and I still can't figure out how what kind of search of Commons as suggested at m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2025 would uniformly return that. NebY (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Kusma, yes, that's it. Idoghor Melody (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well, the bad news is that this contest runs until the end of August. The good news is that this is the organizing team and the main organizer is User:Reading Beans who can probably answer any questions you have about this event. Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, especially to the participants: this is a really neat idea, but in my opinion like everything else on wiki there should be an intentional balance between convenience and intent. I would ponder how we can make real strides in certain topical areas, for example, if participants have overlap in their interests and would have more expertise for what articles would benefit from going in. Again, I really feel bad about this, and hope everyone can enjoy contributing going forward. Remsense 🌈 论 19:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Without the #WPWP hashtag, they don't get the credit for the edit; however, after previous year's dumpster fires, using the hashtag is limited to extended-confirmed editors via Special:AbuseFilter/1258 (which the organising team don't seem to have realised since they tell people they can just create an account!). All contributions using the hashtag can be tracked using Filter 1073. If new accounts are blasting images into articles without using the hashtag, I would suggest doing what we did last year and warning them; and if they ignore that just pblocking them from article space. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- If WPWP is back it must be time for me to go on holiday. And does this really need 18 people to organize it? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hello all, the campaign has a restriction on the English Wikipedia where only extended confirmed users can participate due to disruptive editing from new users as we have seen here. A filter was created to enforce this but it seems to be that they’ve evade the restriction by not using the hashtag which means they are not to be considered as participants. I do not neglect my “duty” as the campaign coordinator as I monitor every edits with a 30 minutes window (see the hashtag tool for English Wikipedia). I would go ahead and send them a formal disqualification notice. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Reading Beans, m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2025 simply says
if you don't have an account yet, create a new account for Wikipedia
. Please can you change that, there and anywhere else it may appear, to make it clear that new users cannot participate on en-wiki? Otherwise we can expect to see more editors following the instructions and either being disappointed when they work through all the steps only to find their posts are rejected by the filter, or sometimes working around the restriction by omitting the hashtag - and then perhaps being reverted. That's a bad experience for potential new editors. NebY (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)- True. I’ll definitely get to that before morning. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 21:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Reading Beans, m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2025 simply says
- Despite the glitches that have occurred, Reading Beans, I just want to thank you for your efforts in encouraging new editors to participate in editing Wikipedia in so many different projects that are a part of WMF. Discussions like this arise out of frustrations that typically arise when new editors who are unfamiliar with the rules here dive into editing but if some of them learn our system and stay on as editors after the campaign is over, we will have benefitted from it. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words Liz. It’s a mere attempt to bring more Africans into the free encyclopaedia. You are the best. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that, @Reading Beans. Could you also fix the text in the box in m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2025#Campaign rules? It begins
Participants must be a registered user on any Wikimedia project. Sign in or Create a new account on Wikipedia....
m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2025/FAQ and Contest Rules#Campaign rules is the same. Of course, the restriction makes rather a mess of the Best Newcomer category, currently described asEditor account created in July 2024
, which is workable but not obviously "new" – no idea what you want to do with that in future. NebY (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)- Of course, new accounts can still enter the competition on other wikis, I believe it is only en.wiki that has the ECP restriction (though I could be wrong). Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, but Reading Beans' amendment seems more comprehensive. NebY (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Ah OK, fair enough then. Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then @Reading Beans should definitely change the text under "Campaign Rules" that says
Participants must be a registered user on any Wikimedia project. Sign in or Create a new account on Wikipedia. You can create an account on any language Wikipedia, for use in your own WP and on all Wikimedia projects.
to something likeParticipants must be a registered user on any Wikimedia project for at least one year before participating. Sign in on Wikipedia. You can use an account from any language Wikipedia in your own WP and on all Wikimedia projects.
--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)- Yes! Thank you for catching that. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, but Reading Beans' amendment seems more comprehensive. NebY (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Of course, new accounts can still enter the competition on other wikis, I believe it is only en.wiki that has the ECP restriction (though I could be wrong). Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Despite the glitches that have occurred, Reading Beans, I just want to thank you for your efforts in encouraging new editors to participate in editing Wikipedia in so many different projects that are a part of WMF. Discussions like this arise out of frustrations that typically arise when new editors who are unfamiliar with the rules here dive into editing but if some of them learn our system and stay on as editors after the campaign is over, we will have benefitted from it. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's time we fully opt out of this contest; it's been causing chaos for years and I don't believe yet another minor tweak to the docs will ultimately solve anything. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Wow it's been four years since I created User:Chipmunkdavis/WPWP to ease the twinkle work. I have not kept up with the new campaign rules, so if anyone finds it useufl please edit that notice to note that new users cannot participate on en.wiki. CMD (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Supersonic232
Hi, I recently received the following email from Supersonic232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Do something crazy and shoot me your PW - If this is soliciting an administrator’s password by email, make the block parameters (account creation disabled, email disabled). Enable autoblock for IP addresses/ranges.
I'm afk so don't have time to act on it. (I'm writing this on my phone, apologies if it's terrible)
It's a very strange way of requesting a block imo and of course they don't need a block if they just want to stop editing, but they're right, they have technically broken a rule that normally warrants a block.
I'll notify them of this discussion of course, but then it's over to you guys, I'm on holiday! WaggersTALK 07:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've asked them to come and explain themselves but I'm thinking they have another, primary account that is currently blocked. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'd suspect it's Jiwood23. DMacks (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- @DMacks, Liz, and Waggers: Either one of you three block that user @Supersonic232 indef. from editing. 166.196.54.86 (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- For soliciting an admin's password by email (and LTA possibly) 166.196.54.86 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @DMacks, Liz, and Waggers: Either one of you three block that user @Supersonic232 indef. from editing. 166.196.54.86 (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'd suspect it's Jiwood23. DMacks (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm back! Since blocks are preventative not punitive, and the editor has not edited since, I'm going to take no further action for now. WaggersTALK 10:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Admin Recall discussion notice
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could have sworn this was up here before, but it doesn't appear to be in the archives. Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Night Gyr has been open since 1 July. Additional widespread feedback would be appreciated. Request this be kept until the Recall finishes (request, not a demand) in order to maximize feedback and visibility. Buffs (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- This was already posted on the 1st of July when the recall was opened, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive372#An administrator recall petition has been initiated for Night Gyr. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:40, 14 July 2025 (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.
Vandalizing
so an account with no username has this up address 105.158.201.17 keeps adding and vandalizing the font of this page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Royal_Moroccan_Army#Air_defense_systems without any sources , I worked really hard to keep it up to date and he just doesn't seem to care SemperSupra (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- @SemperSupra: - You do not hold sole title to any Wikipedia article, and the IP's edits are not vandalism. 'Vandalism' has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and any edit in good faith, which these are, are not it. This is a content dispute; I've protected the page for 72 hours and encourage both you and @105.158.201.17: to discuss this at Talk:List of equipment of the Royal Moroccan Army and come to a consensus about the content of the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- I never said that I hold any title , I said that it's not fair for a person to change the font size and add sections without any proof SemperSupra (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I worked really hard to keep it up to date and he just doesn't seem to care
may not have been intended as an assertion of ownership, but it can be easily seen that way by other editors. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- I never said that I hold any title , I said that it's not fair for a person to change the font size and add sections without any proof SemperSupra (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, SemperSupra,
- You might try reporting this to WP:AIV. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help SemperSupra (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Shidrokh radmehr is using Wikipedia
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:Shidrokh radmehr is spreading the propaganda of IRGC against the citizens of the West. Some of the contents indirectly refer to some kind of terrorism threat. Some of his edits are also misleading information. In Persian Wikipedia, his accounts have been blocked, including this one (due to using multiple accounts). Check his edits in political articles related to Iran. Almost every one of them can be enough evidence. Unfortunately I'm sure he is part of something bigger. But for now we can stop this account. Edard Socceryg (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, Edard Socceryg,
- Please inform the editor that you opened this complaint about them. Also, you need to present a case so please offer some diffs/edits that show the disruptive content you are bothered by. It's up to you to share the evidence to convince other editors that there is a basis to your complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/1297297787, Special:Diff/1299956441, Special:Diff/1299961859.
- I listed these three recent ones. But each of his edits is similar or even worse. In the first link, see how he refers to Israel and their people. He has edited the text exactly like the Hamas spokesperson and basically makes no attempt to be neutral! In the second link, he has used a source that recommends killing the enemies of the Iranian regime, including the people of Israel and protesters inside Iran! It is interesting that the text he added is also Iranian regime propaganda. See WP:PRESSTV. But the most important is the third link. Where he added a false claim of a terrorist hacker group to scare people inside Iran and prevent people from sending videos to Iran International. Indirectly, he has threatened to kill people inside Iran who have cooperated with this TV channel. Spreading Iranian government propaganda is unfortunately not his only job. He also spreads propaganda from Iranian government hacker groups. I can list more if needed. Edard Socceryg (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Dear friend, hello, I am not a member of any group or party. I only edit articles out of interest in political articles and with the aim of spreading the truth. (Considering Wikipedia rules)
- I have only one user account.
- According to Wikipedia rules, I have used reliable English sources and have not spread any misleading or false information.
- I have not threatened any group or person with death and have never recommended the death of any person.
- All people, regardless of language, religion, or creed, are valuable to me.
- As for the first accusation: Special:Diff/1297297787
- With this move the Zionist regime showed that its real goal is science and technology, and it has come to war against Iran's scientists using the tool of terror.[9]
- I have stated in the article about Iranian scientist Abdulhamid Minouchehr that Israel has assassinated Iranian scientists and scientific elites.( Israel has assassinated about 30 Iranian scientists.)
- Have I spread lies? I described only one of the events of the 12-Day War.
- Second accusation: Special:Diff/1299956441
- The channel is backed by a Saudi-British investor with ties to the Saudi government,[9][10][11][12]According to the British newspaper The Guardian, Saudi Arabia has provided a 250-million-dollar fund for Iran International in 2018.[13][11]
- It has been repeatedly mentioned in reliable English sources that Saudi Arabia provides financial support to Iran International.
- Do you see favoritism or threats in the above text? I have only reported the news from the Guardian and other sites about Saudi Arabia's financial support for the International.
- Third charge: Special:Diff/1299961859.
- The Handala group infiltrated the internal systems and data of the Iran International media outlet in July 2025. Iran International confirmed the authenticity of the leaked data in a statement.[102][103]The group said it had published information on more than 71,000 users, employees, financial records, contracts and internal messages of the network. In total, the volume of the leaked data is said to have exceeded 2 terabytes.[104][105][106][107]
- I only reported one event of the day and even used the Iran International website as a source because it confirmed the hacker attack.
- Do you see intimidation or threats, even indirectly, in the above text?
- I did not support or favor any hacker group.
- Have I acted outside the rules of Wikipedia?
- I think the accusations against me are exaggerated and malicious.
- Please judge me fairly and justly and make a decision. Shidrokh radmehr (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Edard Socceryg, I think you should stand down. New claims are verified by at least one reliable source. Ahri Boy (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- The second and third diffs, certainly, but I'm not sure how With this move the Zionist regime showed that its real goal is science and technology, and it has come to war against Iran's scientists using the tool of terror isn't blatantly original commentary in an extremely sensitive area. And Shidrokh radmehr shouldn't be editing a page that is related to Iran-Israel War anyway except to make an edit request. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't check the edit count.
So I'm informing Shidrokh right now.(user was already warned before) Ahri Boy (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC) - They've been warned before for violating ARBPIA. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked for 1 month. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't check the edit count.
- The second and third diffs, certainly, but I'm not sure how With this move the Zionist regime showed that its real goal is science and technology, and it has come to war against Iran's scientists using the tool of terror isn't blatantly original commentary in an extremely sensitive area. And Shidrokh radmehr shouldn't be editing a page that is related to Iran-Israel War anyway except to make an edit request. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Edard Socceryg, I think you should stand down. New claims are verified by at least one reliable source. Ahri Boy (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:UAA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following 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.
Wow, what a backlog. Starfall2015 let's talk profile 11:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- The OP has been declining UAA reports [66], despite not being an admin. Their edits to Template:UAA should probably be reverted as well. [67] 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E5C6:A985:B43E:CAB3 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- UAA is almost never an urgent backlog that requires a notice at AN. Any editors engaging in disruptive editing can be reported to AIV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Any reason I shouldn't block Starfall2015 from WP:UAA? When they pass an RfA or an election, then they can clerk the page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Should at least warn them to knock it off first. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- This editor has been borderline disruptive for weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've taken a quick look through their edits. I don't think sanctions are appropriate, since as SFR said they haven't really been warned and this seems clearly good faith. However, Starfall2015, your edits recently have been almost entirely to backend parts of the project, including ones that require plenty of experience. Please step back. Avoid commenting on noticeboards unless it's a dispute you were involved in. Avoid nominating things for deletion for a while, read some deletion discussions and policy, and try to help out by commenting in AfDs once you feel like you have a grasp of it. Avoid asking for advanced permissions. I get that you're trying to help, but this isn't the way to do it. I'm happy to take questions about what is or isn't appropriate right now, if you'd like, or the teahouse is a great resource. Rusalkii (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like they should still get a warning. Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz you already did User_talk:Starfall2015/Archive_1#Suggestion
- I think at minimum they should be p-blocked from project space, but their draft work is also concerning as @Rsjaffe noted. Star Mississippi 17:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- They've been archiving/deleting their warnings and feedback on their userpage. I did give them some more feedback this morning. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- I would request that you not block me, as I'm a valued contributor. I am good-faith, and if you blocked me I wouldn't be able to help UAA or something. Starfall2015 let's talk profile 17:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Starfall, please read the above thread more carefully. You should not be trying to help out at UAA right now. You are not ready, and it isn't helpful. Rusalkii (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Given that response above exhibits an astounding lack of clue, I've pblocked them from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Once they have taken on board the community's concerns and agreed to act on them, anyone can lift the pblock. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: Concur. @Starfall2015: it is good that you are trying to help. However, you are not helping; you are disrupting. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, DFO; I think UAA can probably do without that kind of help. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- I have declined the unblock request. They are currently running for adminship, which is the feedback they took on board from IP 2A0E's comment above. Le sigh. Star Mississippi 13:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Related, I've also warned LordDiscord for trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Having looked into LordDiscord's recent comments over the past few days, I am unfortunately convinced that they are not trolling and are being honest. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- This has to be trolling. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Very well. The reason I was convinced of their honesty was because of the comments at User talk:Olitun and User talk:Human Right Wiki. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- This has to be trolling. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Having looked into LordDiscord's recent comments over the past few days, I am unfortunately convinced that they are not trolling and are being honest. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Related, I've also warned LordDiscord for trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sheet! The cat's out the bag now. If they hadn't gone through with the RfA, this might have been salvageable, but now we are firmly in the realms of CIR. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- And their response to their RFA being tagged for speedy deletion was to remove the tag. Not a good look. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- And now they've removed it again. Surely a CIR block is inevitable at this point. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- That's because it is transcluded! Starfall2015 let's talk profile 14:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- And now they've removed it again. Surely a CIR block is inevitable at this point. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- And their response to their RFA being tagged for speedy deletion was to remove the tag. Not a good look. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: Re, "you've been here long enough to know better", to be fair, I don't think they have: although the LordDiscord account is five years old, they've only been active about a month. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- While that isn't very long, being here long enough to know about nominating at RFA is long enough to know "don't fucking troll people into getting their teeth kicked out of their face at RFA and probably make them quit editing". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Why would people be uncivil (“teeth kicked out”) at RFA? If that is really a problem, then that should be fixed. The solution shouldn’t be to discourage qualified editors from being nominated. LordDiscord (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- And an IP is attempting to stop my RFA! That is very bad. Starfall2015 let's talk profile 14:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- @LordDiscord I don't think you were trolling, but the naivety about the environment that is RFA isn't helping you or @Starfall2015 who should withdraw. While I don't think they'd be elected, the group election would have been much more kind than an RFA which will be SNOW closed at best and gutwrenching at worst because Snowfall is not qualified to be an administrator. That is a fact, not uncivil. Star Mississippi 14:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- The election is what I offered to nominate them for (because I saw that there was an ongoing election). Although I thought that was the same thing as an RFA. I see now there are two different processes. LordDiscord (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps. In any case, Starfall2015 is now demonstrating sufficient lack of CLUE/competence that the outcome's inevitable at this point. Going by their RfA "answers", we're probably been trolled... Q: "What are your best contributions?", A: "The thing that got me blocked". —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- My RFA is now transcluded. Starfall2015 let's talk profile 14:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Per consensus here, I have asked them to withdraw and apologized to them. LordDiscord (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: I don't think that's really a necessary comment. There are no requirements to nominate someone for adminship, and while yes, RfA is a bleeding shitshow nowadays (for a list of reasons so long that it could be the subject of dissertations), adminship remains no big deal. Everyone's standards for adminship are different, and while Starfall is a bit...lacking in the clue department, I think LordDiscord was genuine in their offer to nominate, and calling a kind but naive offer "trolling" is somewhat condescending, and there were so many better ways you could've phrased that. More to my point, and this is solely my opinion, but I think you should strike your accusations of trolling that you have raised towards them here and on their talk page. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Encouraging an editor to stand at RFA or nominating them at RFA citing the behavior that just saw them blocked is indistinguishable from trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- The behavior leading to their block was that they needed to be an admin to clerk UAA. They then were offered a nomination for adminship, which is, at least in theory, the way to remedy that issue. I don't see where this is necessarily trolling, so much as just well-intentioned but misguided. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't believe that any reading of this thread up to the point of the offer of a nomination could be summarized as "they just need to be an admin." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- I admittedly did not read the entire thread at the time, but the initial comments were all about that (“When they pass an RfA or an election, then they can clerk the page”, “The OP has been declining UAA reports, despite not being an admin”). The reason why I thought they were qualified was because of my experience with them at ANI, not this one, which I mentioned in my initial comment. That’s the only place where they had directly interacted with me.
- I was surprised at the response, as I thought I was doing something good at the time. And that is a problem if it is indistinguishable from trolling to several editors, which is why I will be avoiding any RFA/admin election/related topics until I have a better understanding of the community standards. I hope that alleviates any concerns. LordDiscord (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't believe that any reading of this thread up to the point of the offer of a nomination could be summarized as "they just need to be an admin." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- The behavior leading to their block was that they needed to be an admin to clerk UAA. They then were offered a nomination for adminship, which is, at least in theory, the way to remedy that issue. I don't see where this is necessarily trolling, so much as just well-intentioned but misguided. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Encouraging an editor to stand at RFA or nominating them at RFA citing the behavior that just saw them blocked is indistinguishable from trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Why would people be uncivil (“teeth kicked out”) at RFA? If that is really a problem, then that should be fixed. The solution shouldn’t be to discourage qualified editors from being nominated. LordDiscord (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- While that isn't very long, being here long enough to know about nominating at RFA is long enough to know "don't fucking troll people into getting their teeth kicked out of their face at RFA and probably make them quit editing". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: Concur. @Starfall2015: it is good that you are trying to help. However, you are not helping; you are disrupting. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Given that response above exhibits an astounding lack of clue, I've pblocked them from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Once they have taken on board the community's concerns and agreed to act on them, anyone can lift the pblock. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Starfall, please read the above thread more carefully. You should not be trying to help out at UAA right now. You are not ready, and it isn't helpful. Rusalkii (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- I would request that you not block me, as I'm a valued contributor. I am good-faith, and if you blocked me I wouldn't be able to help UAA or something. Starfall2015 let's talk profile 17:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like they should still get a warning. Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've taken a quick look through their edits. I don't think sanctions are appropriate, since as SFR said they haven't really been warned and this seems clearly good faith. However, Starfall2015, your edits recently have been almost entirely to backend parts of the project, including ones that require plenty of experience. Please step back. Avoid commenting on noticeboards unless it's a dispute you were involved in. Avoid nominating things for deletion for a while, read some deletion discussions and policy, and try to help out by commenting in AfDs once you feel like you have a grasp of it. Avoid asking for advanced permissions. I get that you're trying to help, but this isn't the way to do it. I'm happy to take questions about what is or isn't appropriate right now, if you'd like, or the teahouse is a great resource. Rusalkii (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- This editor has been borderline disruptive for weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
| Derail, please open a separate thread if LD or IP173's conduct needs assessing Star Mississippi 22:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Given that they're edit warring over the speedy deletion tag on their RFA [72], coupled with this frivolous warning and this obviously invalid RFPP request, it's abundantly clear that a block is needed at this point. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Do not block me. I have not violated 3RR. Starfall2015 let's talk profile 14:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- I have declined the request for protection, with some probably futile, but nonetheless kind, words I hope. Lectonar (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- No, but this is beginning to look like WP:CIR. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- The sealioning, IDHT, obsession with RfA, tying as many editors up in as many knots as possible over a range of namespaces. Kind of remnded me of this guy, who Zzuuzz CU'd as Arch'134. Still, by now I guess the sheer amount of dsruption probably warrants/justifies a general Checkuser needed request. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- S2015 seems
Unlikely to A134 imo. dbeef [talk] 16:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- A134 was for example, Dbeef. I assume there are several others who do not object to wasting the community's time like this. Mind you, I guess there's always room for a new kid on that particular block... —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- In case CU does not immediately find other accounts to connect to, I do a comparison.
- I've got no opinions on a block; I was only looking at it from a technical point of view. dbeef [talk] 16:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies Dbeef, didn't mean "block" in our sense, rather City block as in "New Kids on the" :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- I guess we were hoping this was a sock rather than a terribly confused new editor. The RfA application is extraordinary. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Rsjaffe@Dbeef as I said on their Talk, I consider myself Involved to block unilaterally and they appear to have paused after the ill-fated ANI thread. But if they resume editing I think it's time for at least a p-block from project space if only to save themselves from walking into an INDEF. I'll open the proposal Star Mississippi 16:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- My guess, if any, would be ATMN, as they recently were also involved in the Oasis kerfluffle. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- A134 was for example, Dbeef. I assume there are several others who do not object to wasting the community's time like this. Mind you, I guess there's always room for a new kid on that particular block... —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- S2015 seems
- The sealioning, IDHT, obsession with RfA, tying as many editors up in as many knots as possible over a range of namespaces. Kind of remnded me of this guy, who Zzuuzz CU'd as Arch'134. Still, by now I guess the sheer amount of dsruption probably warrants/justifies a general Checkuser needed request. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: P-Block from Project Space
While UAA was the immediate issue, discussion here and at their Talk has shown that the issue is a broader one and that Starfall2015 does not have the Competence to edit in Project Space. I believe removing them from this complex area will help them gain the editing experience to be a better editor in the long run. Star Mississippi 16:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support as proposer and per self. I also think there's a case to be made for the IAR close of their RFA. Star Mississippi 16:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support This behavior is starting to become very similar to another recent ANI "customer." Best in my view to give them a time out and let them build competence through the experience of normal editing.
- Well maybe; but I doubt it's enough. Sorry, but as I said above, this editor either lacks WP:CLUE and sufficient competence to edit here, or, frankly we're being trolled. Either way, they've become an absolute timesink. First, they're clerking at WP:UAA, which wasted several editors' time and bought them a pblock, then the appeals, then launching an RfA which if it's allowed to run will waste a lot more editors' time... all of which have done nothing except waste several editors' time and energies over a period of days. See also ths thread. The fact that at RfA their answer to the question, "What are your best contributions?" was answered with, effectively, "The thing that got me blocked", says all we need to know. As Cullen328 noted, they have been disruptive for weeks, and not only in project space: they attempted to endrun AfC by moving their draft back to article (twice!) and have left innaproprate user warnings and refactored other users' talk pages. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- I take responsibility for any disruption from the RFA, I encouraged them to do that. LordDiscord (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's not socking since they didn't edit concurrently and no attempt at obfuscation but Starfall15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is their prior account per the history of Draft:York Bypass (thanks @Fortuna imperatrix mundi). The deleted contribution show some nonsense from the first edit which makes me think they weren't new then. cc @Dbeef if there's anything helpful there. Star Mississippi 19:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support, though, as Fortuna... states above, this may not be enough. I get the impression that this is a very young editor, who perhaps is salvageable given enough time. Putting in some hard guardrails like namespace blocks may help. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with your impression. Though I am concerned that they will react poorly when this proposal passes. I did try to explain our blocking policy, so hopefully that helps a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above. Clearly there is a competence/judgement issue that time building the encyclopedia might remedy.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- As if there were not enoguth reasons before. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- That was a bit earlier. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oh but I just saw it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- That was a bit earlier. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- As if there were not enoguth reasons before. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support with regret, because I don't think they're being malicious, but I don't think project-space access for this user helps anyone, including them. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Some sanction is needed for this editor short of a site ban, and this is probably what is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support Starfall is clearly well intentioned, but misdirected. The issues they are having are unfortunately fairly common among certain types of newcomers, namely they are trying to be an admin despite not having the experience or knowledge to contribute to administrative parts of the project in a productive manner. This seems like it would be a good way to redirect them to more productive endeavours, where they can get experience and learn how policy and guidelines work. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well said. It saddens me that this new user received such horrendous advice. It's been a long time, a very long time, since a user with three months tenure and 600 edits stood a prayer of passing a request for adminship. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- The encouragement didn't help the situation but I'm not sure it made a difference in the outcome. The editor was pretty gung-ho already and was being a nuissance on the UAA noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra I was very close to starting "Proposal 2: LordDiscord is topic banned from RFA nominations", but given that they seem to have agreed to step back from these areas of the project above I don't think it would be necessary. Nominating people for adminship while having no idea of what is required for success or even an understanding how the process works (like RFA and admin elections being different) is utterly ridiculous.
- I think in a lot of ways LordDiscord's disruption has the same underlying causes as Starfall's - too much enthusiasm combined with too little knowledge resulting in disastrous attempts at getting involved in administrative areas, as I said it's unfortunately common among certain types of newcomers. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Enthusiastic new editors diving into admin areas happens all of the time, for example, we just dealt with ToadetteEdit who early on sent off a lot of red flags. It frequently occurs with clerking AFD daily log pages. I'd even guess that this phenomena happens about every three months or so. We try to steer the wayward newbies towards content work so the situation doesn't end up with a topic ban, namespace ban or, in worst cases, a site-wide block. I've already posted to LordDiscord's User talk page, they have received plenty of feedback and they agreed to step back from participating on noticeboards. I don't think action is called for in their case. All that is still required in this discussion is whether or not Starfall receive a namespace block of limited or indefinite duration. Liz Read! Talk!
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.
And now we have this: User:Starfall2015/The July 2025 Admin Incident. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Had I been active I'd have likely supported a site-wide block, but now that the community has chosen a namespace-block, if we're going to be fair we should probably give them some room to breathe. That page is silly, but is not harming anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Update: Starfall2015 is now blocked indefinitely for being compromised. See User talk:Starfall2015 § Blocked indefinitely. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 00:11, 15 July 2025 (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.
Merge request: Culpeper, Virginia → Culpeper
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 admins,
I’m requesting assistance to move "Culpeper, Virginia" to "Culpeper." There is currently a redirect at "Culpeper" pointing to "Culpeper (disambiguation)," which blocks the move. I don’t have the permissions to delete the redirect or move the page myself.
Also, I’m unable to add this request on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page because any edits I try to make there get automatically removed by bots. Because of this, I’m posting here to ask for admin help.
Thanks for your time! Waypoint47 (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Not done. Please see WP:USPLACE. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
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.
FlightTime
Inappropriate notices on an IP for a public library. See User talk:153.111.229.202
It's pretty clear from the activity on the page of this user that it is used by multiple users accessing a public library IP. It has been mentioned in various places. The public library users edit a wide variety of topics including local history. User FlightTime thinks this is a conflict of interest, and has reverted articles based on this misunderstanding.
The notices should be removed. It would be good if users from other countries did a little research before reverting changes, and understood different localities have different internet access not to mention different types of history. Not to mention that this type of action seems to contravene the wikipedian notion that anyone can edit wikipedia. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- No issue with them warning you that if you have a COI, address it at Talk:Christchurch City Council, and you would receive none of these warnings if you decided to create an account to edit, which is encouraged in a public environment to provide edit clarity. You also previously posted copyrighted content we had to remove, so be thankful you can still post at all from this IP. There's discussion going on there, so I would advise you to return there, and this should be closed as there are no administrative issues to be dealt with. Nathannah • 📮 23:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- This was addressed at Talk: Christchurch City Council, and ignored. Wikipedia terms of use say you don't have to create an account, and that edits are accepted from all. Not everyone can create accounts safely. The issue here is a misunderstanding that an IP for a public library is not an IP for a council so there is no conflict. The council may provide the service but it is used by third parties. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding here. The message said
if you have an external relationship
. If you in fact do not then there's nothing to be concerned about as only the potentiality was mentioned. On the other hand, if your editing evinces a CoI other editors may start a WP:COIN thread despite your denials. All of that is irrespective of whether or not you have an account, or where you choose to edit from. - All reverts and their edit summaries are visible at Special:PageHistory/Christchurch City Council. None of those reverts cited CoI as a reason which in any case is not normally ipso facto a reason to revert though the details and nuance of that are off-topic for now. Your edits were reverted for introducing copyvios and due to apparent disagreements over the scope of the article. The former is non-negotiable. The latter is a content dispute which does not belong on AN.
- The WP:Dispute resolution guideline covers how to deal with disagreements over content; I suggest you read it. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- The council may provide the service but it is used by third parties, yes. Third parties that appear to hold a COI. That is why you were notified. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding here. The message said
- This was addressed at Talk: Christchurch City Council, and ignored. Wikipedia terms of use say you don't have to create an account, and that edits are accepted from all. Not everyone can create accounts safely. The issue here is a misunderstanding that an IP for a public library is not an IP for a council so there is no conflict. The council may provide the service but it is used by third parties. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- 153.111.229.202, you should have posted a notification of this discussion at User talk:FlightTime. I have done that for you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, I suggested that the IP come here to air a concern of the welcome template on their talk page is incorrect, as stated on my talk. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- The Whois info says what the Shared IP template says and I'd say a public library is a government facility. So from my POV it's perfectly fine. The history of responses to problematic editing on that IP's talk page all read as though they're the same person, so the complaints ring hollow to me. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, I suggested that the IP come here to air a concern of the welcome template on their talk page is incorrect, as stated on my talk. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Just to note that the same IP complained in the morning on my talk page that I reverted copyright violation they introduced to the article (not sure what they expected, but anyway). Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Harassment and personal attacks by User:LVLewitinn
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I’m requesting administrator intervention regarding User:LVLewitinn, who is leaving harassing and deeply inappropriate messages on my user talk page and his user talk page in response to my placement of a COI template.
Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LVLewitinn#c-LVLewitinn-20250715215600-LegalTech-20250715202000
In the message, he states (among other things):
> "Hey, LegalTech: You clearly have some sort of mental issue. You spent an entire month editing, line by line, the entries for a married couple. Please name yourself and explain your motivation behind it. Jilted lover? Bigot? What's your real motivation? Interesting that you're based in Oregon. Gee, I wonder who else is there...."
This is a clear violation of WP:NPA (No Personal Attacks), WP:HARASS, and WP:CIVIL. It includes personal insults, insinuations about mental health and personal relationships, doxing-adjacent behavior (reference to ___location), and a hostile tone intended to intimidate.
I am requesting that this user be **blocked or otherwise formally warned**. This behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia, and I am not engaging with him further.
Thank you. LegalTech (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have access to all 25 edits, but of the 17 edits by LVLewitinn that I can see, there is quite a bit to go over from today. From the page history at Sarah Lewitinn, LegalTech has been editing that article since 2023. More notably, there was a series of edits starting from June 8th onward with 24 edits from June 8-24 and then 3 more edits on July 11-12. One of LVLewitinn's edits that seems interesting is this reverted one (Special:Diff/1297198902) with the edit summary
proposed deletion. despite substantial efforts to improve the article, notability fails and sources are marginal at best. the page has a history of being heavily edited by individuals with a relationship with the subject, and one of the primary sources the article relies on even states the article is maintained by the subject's brother. (Emphasis mine.)
(Quick note: Reverted per WP:PROD as LegalTech already had proposed this back in 2023 and it was reverted as contested by Jfire both times.) - LVLewitinn starts editing the page today (as far as I can tell) and all six edits are reverts in under a ten minute span. Revert three accidently restored the PROD notice that I covered above, leading to revert four (Special:Diff/1300680154) where LVLewitinn claims in the edit summary they are who LegalTech is referring to, before attacking LegalTech. (Again, today appears to be User:LVLewitinn's first edits to the article and all are reverts.) Eventually, LVLewitinn reverts everything back to January 2024 (Special:Diff/1300680815) while saying that LegalTech had attempted to
(...) harass subject by vandalizing page
. LegalTech starts a discussion at WP:COIN with claims, alerts LVLewitinn, and LVLewitinn responds by blanking LegalTech's talk page (Special:Diff/1300681095) and then starting a discussion called "Knock it off" (Special:Diff/1300681169) on the blanked talk page. LVLewitinn then goes to Daniel Patterson (chef) where LegalTech had been editing since last month and proceeds to revert all of LegalTech's edits again (Special:Diff/1300681897) with claims again in the edit summary that LegalTech is harassing the subject and says that LegalTech should be banned. Finally, LVLewitinn makes the edit above as mentioned by LegalTech. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)- Blocked for attempted doxxing. I know other admins were trying to avoid a block, but this attack was just too far, in my opinion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2025 (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.
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Revisiting WP:INACTIVITY. Soni (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
How does an article get connected by interwiki
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have created Against All Currents on ENWP. NL:Tegen alle stromen in exists. How do articles get connected by interwiki?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Via wikidata. There is a languages option in the sidebar, with an "add links" button. Click that and put in the information about the article on the other project and they will link up. — xaosflux Talk 18:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Done I've taken care of it. Deor (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- User:Deor, Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 15 July 2025 (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.
Andrew West (linguist) (User:BabelStone) is deceased
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Andrew West (linguist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- BabelStone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
As stated in the title. 阿南之人 (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- 阿南之人, thanks for letting us know. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- Just requested full protection for this page at WP:RFPP/I. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure full protection is needed, but deceased editors' accounts are usually globally locked; I've requested that at meta. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- WP:DWGU says deceased user pages must be protected from vandalism. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure full protection is needed, but deceased editors' accounts are usually globally locked; I've requested that at meta. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- Just requested full protection for this page at WP:RFPP/I. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Consarn keeps removing my edit for no reason
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.
@Consarn Sybau772 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sybau772, are you the same person behind Whattfirrad and other accounts? --Yamla (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- yes, their first edit was (seemingly unintentionally) admitting to it on my talk page consarn (grave) (obituary) 19:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- You keep removing important information from Dio's character sheet for no reason. And refuse to say why Sybau772 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sybau772, you have not answered the question I asked. --Yamla (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- the first reversion was over block evasion, the others were over edit warring. if you want to be a pedant, you can say those reversions were more procedural than anything, but if it helps, i do still disagree with you on top of that consarn (grave) (obituary) 19:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- You keep removing important information from Dio's character sheet for no reason. And refuse to say why Sybau772 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- yes, their first edit was (seemingly unintentionally) admitting to it on my talk page consarn (grave) (obituary) 19:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- omg hai :3
- this editor is a duck whose idea of arguing towards keeping their edits to dio brando is spam. is it legal to just ask for a block and a close? consarn (grave) (obituary) 19:49, 17 July 2025 (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.
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as
All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
- The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
- The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
- All sanctions previously imposed under SL, IPA, and GS/CASTE remain in force. In place of the original appeals rules for GS/CASTE, they may be modified or appealed under the same terms as Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. Users appealing such a legacy sanction should list "GS/CASTE" as the mechanism they were sanctioned under.
- Editors aware of the previous contentious topic or general sanction designations are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within a subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.
- Given the broad scope of this contentious topic designation, admins are encouraged to use targeted sanctions, such as topic bans from specific subtopics, before banning an editor from the area entirely.
- The topic of Indian military history is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
- WP:GSCASTE is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
- Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.
- A consensus of admins at WP:AE may extend WP:ECR to subtopics of WP:ARBIPA if such a sanction is necessary to prevent disruption. Such extensions must be of a limited duration, not to exceed one year.
- Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by contentious topic designation in the original India-Pakistan case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
- Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;
- Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
- There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
- Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
- The contentious topics procedure permits full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
- Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs), Ekdalian (talk · contribs), and Extorc (talk · contribs) are admonished for their behavior in the topic of Indian military history and related caste issues.
- AlvaKedak (talk · contribs), Akshaypatill (talk · contribs), Capitals00 (talk · contribs), Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs), and Shakakarta (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of these remedies, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Dympies (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid breaches, even minor, of their topic ban.
- Administrators are reminded that, when possible, topic bans should only be as broad as necessary to stop disruption. Some possible subtopics related to WP:ARBIPA are:
- Specific time periods in Indian history, such as before or after the establishment of the British Raj or before or after the foundation of the Republic of India
- Human activity in India
- Indian entertainment, generally or in a specific language
- Indian political, ethnic, religious, and caste topics
- Hindu nationalism and opposition thereto
- India–Pakistan relations
- Indian WP:BLPs or biographies
Remedies that refer to WP:GSCASTE apply to social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal
, even though GSCASTE was rescinded and folded into the contentious topic designation of South Asia.
For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
JJMC89 bot is even removing files that do NOT violate WP:NFCC#9c
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 bot even deletes images that are in userspace with edit note "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). Non-free files are only permitted in articles.", buuuut: Wikipedia:NFCC#9 states "subject to exemptions", where the exemptions include "Special Pages" and a "user page" IS a "special page" (BOTH "Help:Special page#Personal" AND "Help:Special page#M" list it - "Special:MyPage")... So userpages are exemptions as they are "special pages". (am linking to this section on @JJMC89 's talk page now so he can follow this topic.) D4n2016 (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I believe you are misunderstanding. Although Special:MyTalk takes you to your talk page via redirect, it doesn't mean that your user talk page itself is part of Special Pages, and it does not mean non-free images are permitted there, nor are they permitted on your user page. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- As Yamla said, this isn't correct. Your talk page is in userspace and subject to NFCC#9. That a special page redirects to it does not change that. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- "special pages" in the policy is not the same as pages within the Special: namespace. We could be more clear with the wording in NFCC because of that possible confusion, but its clear from context it applies to only called-out exemptions given in NFCC. Masem (t) 12:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Non-free content is also not allowed to be used in userboxes per WP:UBX#Caution about image use in addition to userpages per WP:UP#Non-free files, drafts per WP:Drafts#Creating and editing drafts, talk pages per WP:TPG#Non-free images, and any other page outside of the WP:MAINSPACE per WP:NFCC#9. If you want to use some type of Microsoft-related image in a userbox, you'll need to use one from Commons or one uploaded locally to Wikipedia that's not licensed as non-free content. You could, for example, use File:Microsoft logo (2012).svg or anything else it in c:Category:Microsoft company logos if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
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.
Sockpuppetry at Wiki
Somebody uses an army of socks to vandalize Wiki, which is annoying, since socks make many edits before they get blocked. The article is now extended confirmed protected. What they do is they own a large number of socks created more than a month ago, they go to the sandbox of these socks and make 500 useless edits. Then the socks are extended confirmed and ready to vandalize the article. Do we have any tools to stop the inflation of sandbox edits? I understand that the alternative is to full protect the article, but may be we can do better than that? Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I deleted a couple of sandboxes, but for admins this is the most recent one: [73]. Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- That user's MD najmul Mia1, and yesterday I blocked the surprisingly similarly named MD najmul Mia just before they got to 500 edits. I also just now found and pre-emptively blocked MD najmul Mia2. Completing the set, MD najmul Mia3 was blocked as soon as they were registered in May, by Zzuuzz. I guess they won't be spawning more of these particular usernames now, but I'll keep an eye out anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I am afraid they are more creative than that. The sock I blocked yesterday was User:João Eduardo1, and User:João Eduardo2 is not registered. (That one was easy, because the page was only semi-protected; now they really need to do this sandbox editing). Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I guess they figured that just changing the digits makes it a bit too easy to connect the dots. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I am afraid they are more creative than that. The sock I blocked yesterday was User:João Eduardo1, and User:João Eduardo2 is not registered. (That one was easy, because the page was only semi-protected; now they really need to do this sandbox editing). Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- That user's MD najmul Mia1, and yesterday I blocked the surprisingly similarly named MD najmul Mia just before they got to 500 edits. I also just now found and pre-emptively blocked MD najmul Mia2. Completing the set, MD najmul Mia3 was blocked as soon as they were registered in May, by Zzuuzz. I guess they won't be spawning more of these particular usernames now, but I'll keep an eye out anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Salebot1. Not sure if we have an edit filter to log the behaviour or not. -- asilvering (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, judging by the behaviour and the locks, it's definitely SB1. A checkuser could probably set up an edit filter or something. Of note, they only started vandalising enwiki a few months ago, before that they were mostly on Commons. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 12:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- We don't really need a CU in specific to write the edit filter. -- asilvering (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Izno since he seems to be familiar with this case. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 12:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I can provide no further assistance that I can see. Izno (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Ah yes. This helps me out greatly, as I've come across this user a while ago, and it seemed like a sock of somebody, but just couldn't figure out who. Thanks! Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 00:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, judging by the behaviour and the locks, it's definitely SB1. A checkuser could probably set up an edit filter or something. Of note, they only started vandalising enwiki a few months ago, before that they were mostly on Commons. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 12:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- It seems United States Senate is also targeted by the same gang; same MO and again with accounts created on May 30. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- That one is actually a contentious topic. Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Request to publish article: الشيخ عماد الهاشم
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
I tried to move my article about "الشيخ عماد الهاشم" from my sandbox (User:Youssef Imad Al Hachem/sandbox) to the mainspace, but I received a validation message asking me to request help here.
The article is written in Arabic and is based on historical sources and family records. Kindly review the draft and advise on how to proceed with publishing it.
Thank you. Youssef Imad Al Hachem (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Youssef Imad Al Hachem This is the English Wikipedia. We only host articles written in English. If you want to publish on the Arabic Wikipedia, please go to ويكيبيديا، الموسوعة الحرة qcne (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Not only is the article not written in English, it is entirely unsourced and is very promotional. But if you want a formal review, please submit it to WP:AFC and an AFC reviewer will give you their opinion (which will be similar to what we just said). Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 17 July 2025 (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.
FIFA Club World Cup
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure where to put this. Anyway, the above article was previously disrupted massively by the now-banned User:Fa30sp and their large array of socks, and now the talk page has suddenly been invaded by a number of new editors (at least four) who, remarkably, all agree with Fa30sp's original changes to this article (which includes a number of major changes). This is too suspicious to ignore, but I believe that throwing all of those editors at a Fa30sp SPI would effectively be fishing, and this could equally be an off-wiki co-ordination issue. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Does it make any difference whether this is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing up this topic here! Users who use dirty tactics have no place in the civilized space of discussions, and this phenomenon must be punished. But know that on that article are also honest users who want to discuss the issues raised there in the talk page. Patagonia41 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Lkt777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Uruguay Tetracampeón (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Yaqitano91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- I don't want to make false accusations, but these three new users are the most suspect, apart from other ip-users. It's not about their opposing viewpoint to mine, but rather the way they express their arguments, which bears a resemblance. And like User:Fa30sp has been active in the portuguese wiki, so is User:Lkt777 (GlobalContributions). Furthermore, Lkt777's insults are problematic in themselves, see diffs:
- 20:07, 14 July 2025 -
Just two neurons above an Australopithecus level would be enough to see how illogical...
- 15:07, 15 July 2025 -
let’s be honest, would only make sense if we were working with, say, the cognitive range of Australopithecus.
- 15:33, 16 July 2025 -
But sure, when someone’s cognitive performance is somewhere between an Australopithecus and a traffic cone, even mildly complex topics can get tricky.
- 20:07, 14 July 2025 -
- Miria~01 (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I am a brand new user, and this is my first ever engagement on a Wikipedia debate, and I signed up specifically to engage in this conversation. My motivation was because this argument has been played out repeatedly on social media all week, and it’s clear that one of the main sources of misunderstanding on this issue is Wikipedia - a site i’ve always appreciated for these kind of records as a sports writer myself. If there’s any reasonable evidence I can present to demonstrate I am not a ‘sockpuppet’ (a word i only learned today), I’m more than happy to do so, as regardless of my position, I understand how that can be problematic. Yaqitano91 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- If you are indeed an honest user, then you deserve respect and I thank you for wanting to express your opinion. But if it turns out that you were not honest and used multiple accounts, then you should know that you acted incorrectly. The talk page of that article should be a civilized space where users can express their opinions with decency. Patagonia41 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. That's exactly what I tried to do. Yaqitano91 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- If you are indeed an honest user, then you deserve respect and I thank you for wanting to express your opinion. But if it turns out that you were not honest and used multiple accounts, then you should know that you acted incorrectly. The talk page of that article should be a civilized space where users can express their opinions with decency. Patagonia41 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Look, he's not the only person who argues that they're different cups. I started editing when I saw on Spanish Wikipedia that the 2025 World Cup was being held as a continuation, and my eyes bled, so I spoke out there, but since no one paid attention, I went to English Wikipedia to present my position. However, those who oppose the modifications have been quite disrespectful. They talk about solving problems with arguments, when their argument is that your opinion is garbage. We rely on secondary sources, and it won't be done, without any solid arguments. And now they're telling me I have multiple accounts; it's disrespectful, really. This page is increasingly failing, which is why they treat Fidel Castro as a hero and any president who isn't a radical leftist as a tyrant. Uruguay Tetracampeón (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- If it is proven that you are an honest user, then you deserve respect and I thank you for expressing your opinion freely, without being influenced by anyone. But if it is proven that you were dishonest, then know that you have shown disrespect towards us. The talk page of that article should be a civilized space where users can express their opinions with decency. Until we find out what the deal is with your account, you voted in the polling section for RfC? Patagonia41 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've already said it, I only created an account for this. I'm not that kid's puppet, nor do I know him. xD I'm just a Uruguayan in Colombia. They can't say we're puppets just because they don't share our opinion. Uruguay Tetracampeón (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, I never voted there, nor did I know it existed. Txs. Uruguay Tetracampeón (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/179.1.65.194 This IP is mine, but it wasn't even malicious; I'd forgotten my login and realized it when I posted the comment. It's not a puppet or anything, I just forgot to log in that time. Uruguay Tetracampeón (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I did that exact same thing by accident from my mobile, in a comment that I clearly continue with my account directly after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.38.78.100
- I'm an Irishman based in Italy - as the above user I just signed up for this debate to help fix a glaring error on Wikipedia.
- It's of note, I am yet to hear a coherent counter-argument against the core argument, however have received baseless insinuations of being a 'sockpuppet', which is unwelcoming. Yaqitano91 (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- If it is proven that you are an honest user, then you deserve respect and I thank you for expressing your opinion freely, without being influenced by anyone. But if it is proven that you were dishonest, then know that you have shown disrespect towards us. The talk page of that article should be a civilized space where users can express their opinions with decency. Until we find out what the deal is with your account, you voted in the polling section for RfC? Patagonia41 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I am a brand new user, and this is my first ever engagement on a Wikipedia debate, and I signed up specifically to engage in this conversation. My motivation was because this argument has been played out repeatedly on social media all week, and it’s clear that one of the main sources of misunderstanding on this issue is Wikipedia - a site i’ve always appreciated for these kind of records as a sports writer myself. If there’s any reasonable evidence I can present to demonstrate I am not a ‘sockpuppet’ (a word i only learned today), I’m more than happy to do so, as regardless of my position, I understand how that can be problematic. Yaqitano91 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- This has absolutely spiraled out of control and completely needlessly. There was no reason to re-open this discussion that we just had over the past month and a half at Talk:2025 FIFA Club World Cup#RfC: Referring to the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup as the "1st Edition". I literally just added that discussion to Wikipedia:Closure requests as well! Jay eyem (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Jay eyem: This is such a mess, if you go through the RfC and subsequent sections on the 2025 CWC talk page, clearly there is a combination of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and WP:BLUDGEONING going on, all aided by extremely long-winded AI-written responses. The person responsible for all this clearly has an extreme fixation on the Club World Cup, as evidenced by the 15 or so discussion sections they've opened that (apart from the RfC) have wasted everyone's time. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, I consider that users who use dirty tactics have no place in the civilized space of discussions, and this phenomenon must be punished. But know that on that article are also honest users who want to discuss the issues raised there in the talk page. You cannot start from the premise that the discussion was deviated by dishonest users. For example, I have been honest and I believe that there needs to be a change. Thank you! Patagonia41 (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I just changed my vote in the polling section, so that discussion is not really inactive. Since the end of the 2025 edition, many secondary sources began to emerge confirming the information mentioned by primary source FIFA. You can find them in my post in the polling section. For the moment, the score is 10-6 in favor of the change. I do not believe that discussion should be closed, as it is still relevant. Thank you! Patagonia41 (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, another user voted for the change. The score became 11-6 in favor of the change. Patagonia41 (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- You need to stop responding to every single person that voted against the change. That is VERY bad behavior in a RfC discussion. And why on Earth did you write the same thing at Wikipedia:Closure requests as well? There is not a "score", RfC discussions are not a vote. The whole point of starting a RfC discussion and following the RfC process was to keep the conversation from degenerating to its current state. Jay eyem (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- I kindly ask you to calm down, my intention was not negative, to pressure any user to change their vote, but I simply mentioned some things that have happened recently, namely that many secondary sources have emerged with the completion of the 2025 edition and it is necessary for all users to be aware of this. We must also not forget that you proposed to close the discussion and this was not necessary, as it was still active and relevant. That is why I intervened, but I apologize if I disturbed you in any way. Patagonia41 (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed that you took the discussion to the WikiProject Football talk page as well and you said there that „I think has run its course at this point” about the RfC, but you didn't take into account that the 2025 edition has just recently concluded, a week ago, and with its completion, many secondary sources have started to emerge that confirm what the primary source, FIFA, is saying, that the old FIFA Club World Cup (2000, 2005-2023) has been renamed to FIFA Intercontinental Cup, and new FIFA Club World Cup started this year. Just the other day, Chelsea FC updated its trophy cabinet. It is also natural for many comments to arise following the emergence of these secondary sources; therefore, the discussion is still active and relevant. I want to remind you that on Wikipedia, every opinion is important and you shouldn't be bothered if there are many users who have different opinions from yours. Thank you! Patagonia41 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- You need to stop responding to every single person that voted against the change. That is VERY bad behavior in a RfC discussion. And why on Earth did you write the same thing at Wikipedia:Closure requests as well? There is not a "score", RfC discussions are not a vote. The whole point of starting a RfC discussion and following the RfC process was to keep the conversation from degenerating to its current state. Jay eyem (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, another user voted for the change. The score became 11-6 in favor of the change. Patagonia41 (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Jay eyem: This is such a mess, if you go through the RfC and subsequent sections on the 2025 CWC talk page, clearly there is a combination of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and WP:BLUDGEONING going on, all aided by extremely long-winded AI-written responses. The person responsible for all this clearly has an extreme fixation on the Club World Cup, as evidenced by the 15 or so discussion sections they've opened that (apart from the RfC) have wasted everyone's time. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2025 (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.
Report 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.
user Mehrad SH is a destructive user who has entered this scientific, specialized, and public environment to cause destruction. He is removing sources and texts from articles and has made destructive edits. I request that this be investigated and that Mehrad SH's access be permanently suspended. Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- You've made no attempt to seriously discuss your content disagreement with them, and instead you've done this [74]. AN is not a place to resolve content disputes, and you should realize that your own conduct will come under scrutiny. Unsupported accusations are not viewed with favor here. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
| AN isn't a forum for content disputes |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
Please discuss your concerns on the relevant talkpage, without using accusations like "vandalism" or "saboteur." Both you and Mehrad SH are new editors, please take the time to learn about Wikipedia's expectations for discussion, sourcing, and conduct. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)- Per ARBPIA neither editor should be participating in this topic space anyway. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Good point. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Per ARBPIA neither editor should be participating in this topic space anyway. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:32, 20 July 2025 (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.
Two sources affiliated...
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.
Two sources affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran that confirm the role of the preventive police. Please add sources to the text. In Iran, the preventive police are responsible for managing all police stations.
کدخبری:1077832
کدخبری:85891517 Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- I added two news codes affiliated with official news agencies in Iran to the talk page. Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- کد خبر: 85891517
- کد ۱۰۷۷۸۳۲ Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Two sources affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran that confirm the role of the preventive police. Please add sources to the text. In Iran, the preventive police are responsible for managing all police stations. Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2025 (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.
I have not edited a page related to Palestinians or Israelis.
I have not edited a page related to Palestinians or Israelis. Charles Miller 2007 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Charles Miller 2007, why did you come to the administrator community at WP:AN and open this complaint? Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Liz, Charles previously opened a thread here which he improperly deleted following its closure which concerned WP:CT/A-I, and the fact that he should not be editing in it. Weirdguyz (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) In that case, restored as a WP:TPO violation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I was considering doing it myself but worried about messing something up somewhere. Weirdguyz (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) In that case, restored as a WP:TPO violation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you have. The PIA topic area is broadly construed, hence your notification. And Iran–Israel war order of battle, which you edited after your notification, is explictly under ECR restrictions. Accordingly, blocked for 31 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, The Bushranger, I was wondering what the heck was going on with this editor, he was editing very fast, then reverting edits and seemingly not taking a second to read all of the messages that have been left for him. I don't think 31 hours will be sufficient but it will give him some time to slow down and think before he acts. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- I was going to say hope springs eternal, but then there came obivous WP:LOUTSOCKing to evade the block [75]. Sigh. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, The Bushranger, I was wondering what the heck was going on with this editor, he was editing very fast, then reverting edits and seemingly not taking a second to read all of the messages that have been left for him. I don't think 31 hours will be sufficient but it will give him some time to slow down and think before he acts. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Liz, Charles previously opened a thread here which he improperly deleted following its closure which concerned WP:CT/A-I, and the fact that he should not be editing in it. Weirdguyz (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Image link removal request at Shubhanshu Shukla
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is requested if any admin can remove the image links (two images deleted due to copyright violation from commons) at Shubhanshu_Shukla#Gallery. Thanks in advance. 14.139.127.131 (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for letting us know! DMacks (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2025 (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.
- (Non-administrator comment) I thought that CommonsDelinker (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) was tasked with this kind of work. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- The page is fully protected, so the bot can't edit the page. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)