Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
    CfD 0 0 0 2 2
    TfD 0 0 0 8 8
    MfD 0 0 0 2 2
    FfD 0 0 0 9 9
    RfD 0 0 0 24 24
    AfD 0 0 0 3 3


    Unban request for Wikiuser1314

    Consensus to unban. charlotte 👸♥ 21:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wikiuser1314 is banned by the community under WP:3X. They were initially blocked as a sock of WorldCreaterFighter who has a long-term abuse page, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/WorldCreaterFighter. They claim to be unrelated, but admit a long string of sockpuppets. As a WP:CHECKUSER, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. I solicited feedback from other checkusers on the cu mailing list but did not get a response. --Yamla (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Wikipedia community! At first I want to apologize for my past mistakes. I want to face my past and work to regain the trust of the community. Quite some time has passed, and I fully understand my wrongdoings now. After waiting the mandatory six months since the block of this account, I sincerely ask for a WP:UNBAN process. – To better understand and summarize my past mistakes, I will try to exlpain how it started: my first account user:Satoshi Kondo (no access anymore), which initially got blocked because I stupidly created two other accounts at that time user:일성강 and user:Kumasojin 熊襲 simultaneously. I attribute these quite stupid actions to my then quite young age of 15 years old in 2016. After some time, those three accounts got correctly blocked as confirmed to each other, but later got merged into the "WorldCreatorFighter" sock-zoo, which now is confirmed to represent (at least) two distinct users (the other being user:Vamlos). I was however to dump and too impatient at that time to explain or wait and apply for a standard offer. As such, the misery started, paired with other rule violations and childish behavior on my side, such as being too impatient and too fixated on my personal views (regardless of if they were correct/sourced or not) and did aggressively try to implement them here. – My blockes were justified and I am ashamed of my past mistakes. Since late 2022, and with this account (Wikiuser1314), I learned a lot, not only here on Wikipedia, but also in real life. I improved myself, became more patient, more cooperative and appreciated to work together with other users. In short, I got older and learned from my past. For that, please also take a look at my talk page and edits of this account (Wikiuser1314). – I really want to constructively and positively edit and contribute to the Wikipedia project, together with fellow Wikipedians, and according to the rules. I do not want to run away anymore and hope to get a chance to prove myself. I am ready to fully cooperate with the Wikipedia community to regain trust. I am also ready to reveal my real identity to administrators and get in contact with them, to explain myself and for further details if it is necessary. Thanks. Sincerely – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I then asked, Please list all of the accounts you've used. A good place to start is Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WorldCreaterFighter and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WorldCreaterFighter. I'm primarily interested in accounts you've used in the past year that we haven't listed there and primarily interested in accounts you claim do not belong to you. --Yamla (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yamla: Embarrassing for me, but here are the accounts I once used: User:Banjardar, User:Bharat99x2, User:Kumasojin 熊襲, User:Kush3897, User:Ogbuago, User:SapmiSamo, User:WhiteTeaWiki, User:X Aterui x, User:일성강, User:突厥 哈萨克族, User:2001.4bc9.824.e0e4, User:AmurTiger18, User:AntiTuranism1908, User:Ape-huchi, User:Arario, User:Arkiat, User:AsadalEditor, User:AustronesianTaiwan, User:Azazmeh, User:Baikal13, User:BaiulyQz, User:Bayan Khagan, User:Benjamin Samasa?, User:Benji887, User:ChampaDroid, User:DeEnTranslator?, User:GanjDareh4, User:GoguryeoHistorian, User:Gyatso1, User:HainanTai, User:Heiwajima20Ip, User:HlaaluTW, User:Hmoob Yao, User:Jäkke34, User:JihoHone, User:KalifFR?, User:Kang Sung-Tae, User:KinhyaKing, User:KuroZetsu oho, User:KwestaPC, User:Lankaman20, User:LenguaEditar?, User:Lord Huynh, User:Magyarrider, User:Manasam98, User:Mandari9, User:Masamannamasam, User:MLx22, User:MomotaniSS, User:MomotaniYY, User:Nam Việt 18, User:OghurBushi, User:Quapaw, User:Rimisibaqwa, User:RobertoY20, User:Ruuchuu, User:Sakushain, User:Satoshi Kondo, User:Saxhleel, User:Shatuo, User:ShiroEmishi, User:Skaalra, User:Takeshima42, User:TAMILinJAPAN, User:TamizhUser, User:Tiberiussan, User:Tomislav22, User:TürkSamurai, User:Turukkaean, User:Whhu22, User:WikiEdit2204, User:Wikiworkbot2.0, and User:YonaguniFan.
    —
    The others in both lists are unrelated to me. (Not me:User:WorldCreaterFighter, User:ConspiracyThinkerPeople, User:Dddcg, User:DerekHistorian, User:DragoniteLeopard, User:Jinjin555, User:KnowledgeAndPeace, User:Lynch Kevin de León, User:TechnichalProblems, User:WorkingCatDog123, User:Adygeheipeople, User:BoxRec9, User:CantoneseMaster, User:ChowChowWong, User:Dan Capoccia, User:Deccodabo, User:DrKoraKora, User:Gailververgailqqq, User:HeichtiSmech, User:InternationalAffairs3, User:LemanderOrange, User:MasterChai, User:Namela123, User:OrenburgNative, User:OttoKhan, User:PeopleTaking11, User:Pinoy123xaaa, User:Robela2, User:Spiritclaymore, User:SushigirlJessice, User:TelephoneBaby, User:ToRespond, User:TurkicDelight, User:Verakhu, User:WayneMacleod1, and User:WuyueDNApeople. )
    —
    Accounts once associated with me, but not blocked/listed here should be these: User:Orange172212, User:Noble4c2, and User:Krause96. – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this user is really distinct from the master of the WorldCreaterFighter sockfarm, we couldn't distinguish them by behaviour nor by technical data, and we have a lot of those data points. At some point when we get into the hundreds of accounts that both look and act the same, we stop bothering to carefully distinguish one account from another, because they've collectively been so disruptive over such a long period of time that there's practically zero chance of them ever being unblocked, and each new one is just adding to the garbage heap. So maybe Wikiuser1234 is a different person, maybe they're not; to me it's irrelevant, and policy supports this irrelevancy. This case goes back over a decade, has been persistent throughout that time, and involves pushing fringe theories in a sensitive subject. I'm inclined to say never here, but I'd like to hear from people who edit that topic and have had to put up with this for a decade. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do we know when the most recent sock was? There's too many here for me to hunt-and-peck looking for it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on manual investigation (!!!) of the self-declared socks, Wikiuser1314 last edited articles on 2024-04-22. Prior to that account, Krause96 on 2023-08-02. --Yamla (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually disagree with Capitals00 here; there is a reasonable request, a substantial (and surely rather embarrassing) confession and, more to the point, why would we want to inflict upon a sister wiki a user whom we do not believe is reformed? ~ LindsayHello 20:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Closure request for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN appeal

    Would an administrator please close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN appeal? I am not brave enough to test whether it is socially acceptable yet for non-admins to close discussions involving bans. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a secret third option, if you are feeling brave.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Compassionate727, complaints that have been archived are not edited so closing an archived discussion would not be appropriate because, basically, it would be hidden from view and, as I said, archives are not edited unless it is to revert vandalism to them.
    I would consider "unarchiving" this discussion and reposting the case here. But, regarding your main question, I don't think it's appropriate for a non-admin to close a discussion about imposing or lifting a ban or block although I'd like to hear from other admins here about this. Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At one point it was unarchived, but then someone commented at CR that this was unnecessary, so nothing was done when it was automatically archived again. In my observation, editors split about 50-50 on whether it is okay to close an archived discussion without first unarchiving it (usually, a courtesy note is left on the active page when leaving it archived). At any rate, I don't care about the implementation details, as long as someone closes it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if this query is not about a desired discussion outcome and more about your need for closure, then I think this request will not solicit any response from admins who review this noticeboard. Discussions on AN and ANI often get archived without any closure or action being taken. It's something you'll need to accept. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With five people supporting an unban vs. two opposing, one of two things should happen: the ban be lifted, or an explanation of why the opposing side's arguments were stronger be given. I don't think it's fair to the appellant that a consensus to unban seemingly have formed, yet the ban never formally be lifted because no admin could be bothered to take responsibility for it. That is why I posted here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    archives are not edited unless it is to revert vandalism to them. Based on what happened at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444, I would say that usually they are not edited unless it is for vandalism. Rare for discussions to be closed after being archived, but it happens. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Super Goku V, I find this surprising. Do any examples come to mind right now? Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other examples, not immediately. But I should be able to get a list of some discussions in the next 30-ish minutes. (Going to go digging at Wikipedia:Closure requests.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Consider this detective work, not homework. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. Since this is would likely take half a day to type up, I will just list the results from Archive 1 and Archive 39 for Closure requests and some additional notes for the others typed up afterwards. (I was using the search results, hence the jump between multiple archives in the notes.) Collapsed for convenience. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78 (Request)
    2. Taiwan/Archive 20[A] (Request)
    3. Notability (people)/Archive 2012 (Additional edit; Request)
    4. Pakistan/Archive 14 (Request)
    5. Talk:Circumcision/Archive 70 (Request)
    6. Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444[B] (Request)
    7. Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169(-1170?)[C] (Request)

    Other results:

    Notes:

    Additional details:

    • Archive 4: 8 requests with all being done.
    • Archive 5: 6 requests with 5 done and 1 modified.
    • Archive 14: 17 requests.
    • Archive 19: 28 or so requests. Multiple done and a few not done.
    • Archive 22: 58 or 59 requests. Multiple done, few already done, at least 1 not done.
    • Archive 25: 20 requests.
    • Archive 30: 30 requests.
    • Total requests from Archives 1, 4, 5, 14, 19, 22, 25, and 30: 179 or 180.
    I'm not sure of how exactly to interpret this information but I appreciate your efforts and I think some of our data-loving administrators will find it interesting, too. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Archive 444 was the first example mention, but that was a bit of an exception. RSN regularly grows to an unmanageable size, so restoring a near half megabytes discussion would have (and did) make the page semi-broken. It shouldn't be taken as any kind of precedent. Also notices where posted on RSN that the close(s) had taken place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But at the same time, there are closes that occur after a discussion has found itself archived for one reason or another. Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 22 is the best example that I know of with over 50 requests. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like charlotte 👸♥📱 07:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a consensus to vacate the sanction, but the other side of the IBAN opposes the idea. What's the play here other than to quietly allow status quo to remain undisturbed? I'd argue that it would be reckless to close that discussion. And as for closing archived threads, I've always felt that only archived threads should be closed since their archival indicates nobody had anything more to say meaning they're actually ready to be closed. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That would just allow parties to drag the discussion on indefinitely, avoiding a result. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. While it is important to listen carefully to the other party's concerns, I think that properly stops short of giving them a veto. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I'd characterise the participation in (and material content of) the archived thread as sufficient to warrant a formal closure, and the byte weight of the thread as insufficient to disrupt this page. Anyone feel like unar­chiving and closing? We've got like twelve new admins, right? Folly Mox (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't wish to be cynical, but my observation is that administrators tend to be risk-averse and reluctant to make difficult closes, which I believe is because risk aversion is what enables them to pass RfA in the first place. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Where you see risk aversion, I see prudence. It's counter-intuitive to lift a two-way IBAN when one of the parties is explicitly against it; I'd go so far as to say that it would effectively invite the opposing party to subtly annoy the other until they request its reinstatement. I don't know if User:MaranoFan would accept such an invitation, but I'd certainly find it more than a little tempting. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeking opinions: protection of the help desk and teahouse

    Most of you have probably seen threads here or on the incidents board about MidAtlanticBaby (MAB for short), a long-term attention troll who targets the help desk and teahouse. They're the one that rapidly cycles through open proxies to repost their whine about being banned everywhere and blocked on IRC and not getting responses when they email the Foundation. They're banned from all those channels because any attempt to communicate with them is met with spamming death threats to the user, like this. Don't try to talk to them, WP:RBI is the only appropriate response.

    For the past couple weeks they've been spamming those two new user pages. Look through the history and you'll see many instances of an IP posting a message in an alternate unicode font, being reverted and blocked, and a new IP restoring the message within minutes. This can go on for hours, and only stops if the page is protected, which of course means that legitimate new users also can't post to those pages.

    Earlier in the week I set both pages to pending changes, thinking that this would allow new users to post through PC moderation but also starve MAB of the attention they crave. It seems to be working - they are active but have not tried to post on those pages - but at the same time there have not been many legitimate posts from anonymous users hitting the moderation queue either. Pigsonthewing asked on the Teahouse talk page to remove the protection, and other users have suggested that we should just let MAB run amok since someone has to revert them anyway even if their edits are paused in the PC queue. I'm on the fence myself if the protection is net positive.

    I'd like to hear what other users think. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I was actually just combing through the logs to look at who implemented pending changes, to start a discussion with them. I don't think pending changes really makes sense in this specific circumstance, since MAB's ostensible goal is to harass specific editors, and logged-in editors can see their posts through PC protection regardless of whether those posts have been approved or not, so PC doesn't really do anything to protect MAB's main targets. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think admins should be free tho deal with MAB as they see fit: short protections, blocks, and why not pending changes protection? There is no ideal solution, and being flexible in responses is a way to go imho. My take on pending changes has always been that it takes out the "immediate reward" part of trolling...I actually let the pending changes review lag for some minutes before reverting; some people have short attention spans. Anyway: pending changes is another way to deal with him, I would just shorten the time of protection. Lectonar (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I'm not opposed in principle to PC protection being used for this purpose (and certainly I don't think there was anything untoward with Ivanvector's use of it), I'm just unsure of the efficacy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't take it as being against pending-changes protection in principle; I just think that there's no right way to go about it, but also no wrong way. And as the WMF isn't moving, we are stuck with the instruments we have. Lectonar (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) As one of MAB's favorites, I understand the frustration in dealing with him. (Look at the > 100,000 byte edits on my talk page for examples.) I am pleased that he's found other ways to express himself while being saddened that others have to clean up his messes. What worked on my talk page was very brief semi protection combined with RBI and proxy blocks. Wish I had something better to offer. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more or less in agreement with Writ Keeper. I don't want to go into too many details about how I normally try and deal with them, and unfortunately there's very limited ways to get admin coordination on the response.
    I'm more concerned that this harassment can keep up for months and there's no support from WMF to get the lists of residential proxies they're using, e.g. vpngate and massblock them. That shouldn't be foisted onto individual communities and bot operators. There are other LTAs that use similar methods to harass people, including non-editors, and we really need to be able to shut that down. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen, brother. Amen. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I echo ScottishFinnishRadish's point that we need more support to deal with long-term abuse like this. It's time-consuming and exhausting for admins to handle, and this is clearly MAB's goal. Well, that and to normalise death threats. MAB has kept this up for literally months, if (perhaps) not years. And admins shouldn't have to deal with this garbage. Every approach I've seen so far has simply moved him from one venue to another, but hasn't meaningfully reduced the frequency. I think if we bulk shut down all VPNgate proxies, that has a chance of working. I don't think anything less than this has a chance, but I support any attempts, including Ivanvector's approach. We need a much firmer approach with MAB. --Yamla (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think PC is the least bad option here. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly what I mentioned on Meta for admin retention strategy, which includes more resources from WMF to support admins dealing with persistent, long-term abuse. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Double amen on getting the proxies list. Ridiculous that we don't have it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting PC on the Teahouse in particular has a detrimental effect on its target audience - new, inexperienced users. As I said in the original discussion, if used in the case described, it should be for hours at a time, not a month. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. MAB gets frustrated quickly and moves along. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The conundrum here is that if we protect for a short amount of time, or for a long time, MAB comes back within hours of the protection expiring. I agree that our goal here is to limit the disruption to new users, and I guess the question is: is it more disruptive to new users to have to submit their questions to a queue for approval (pending changes), or not be able to submit questions at all for a period of time (semiprotection), or to be frustrated by edit conflicts when MAB is active and spamming the page? We don't have a lot of good options here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think pending changes works perfectly well for this and don't really understand the opposition to it. It's not like newbies posting at the teahouse get immediate responses. They can also survive not getting immediate posting access. But semi-protection for an extended period of time is a bad idea, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, the issue is that they're normally reverted and blocked very quickly. Adding PC to that adds additional labor even when they're not actively trying to disrupt the noticeboards. I don't strongly object to PC, but I don't think it's actually benefiting us. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, that's fair. I don't really feel like periodically approving some pending changes is a lot of work, but I see what you mean. I'll be the "don't strongly support" to your "don't strongly object". -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A question in that vein: are users seeing a message that discourages them from editing pages under PC protection? I haven't been able to check, I'm on a corporate VPN. I can report that the message that logged-out editors get on proxy-blocked IPs is fairly discouraging. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Logged into my testalt – appears there's a list of info with the following wording:
    "Note: Edits to this page from new or unregistered users are subject to review prior to publication (help link).
    [Protection log entry for PC]
    The latest accepted version was reviewed on xyz date. There are x pending revisions awaiting review.
    The edit form below includes changes that have not yet been accepted. (show those changes)"
    It's all listed next to an information icon, so no red warning signs or (excessively) giant text for what it's worth. I can't say whether or not that deters any editors, though. Perfect4th (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know the edit filter is not a fix-all solution, but might it be useful in this case? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Without going into detail, it's already being used. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I see. Well, in that case, (1) I would certainly defer to the judgement of people dealing with this user, but (2) if outside opinions are actively being solicited, I think I come down on the side of making Teahouse and Help desk more available to new editors, even if it means having to deal with more MAB posts. If we keep pending changes, asking more PCR's to watch both pages for legit questions might help. If we remove PC, then asking more admins to watch those pages and RBI might help. That's ... pretty useless advice, but it's all I've got. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm an administrator with over 11,600 edits to the Teahouse and it is definitely frustrating to deal with this driven individual. Rapid reverting and blocking is the obvious approach and trying to engage is an especially poor idea in this particular case. Personally, I find pending changes a clunky solution that may well deter new good faith editors. I agree with Floquenbeam that more adminstrator eyes on the Teahouse and the Help Desk would be a good thing, and if this conversation accomplishes that, then that is a positive outcome. Cullen328 (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not recommend engagement. It proved counter productive. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) I thought I saw your face come up in the header yesterday. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If possible, I immediately unwatch all pages under PC (I really, really hate PC) so I am no longer watching the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Certainly protection of any kind for newbie-facing pages like these should be as short as possible. If we are fighting a single troll, I expect they will sleep every now and then so protection should be not longer than 16 or 20 hours at a time. —Kusma (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My suggested approach to this type of individual has always that the Foundation should bring a legal proceeding seeking injunctive relief. I do not know whether that might be practicable in this instance nor whether the possibility has been explored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I admit to some curiosity about how this would be possible but it seems like a WP:BEANS issue to discuss here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we're in agreement here that protection on these pages is not ideal, especially not long protection. I'll lower it on both pages momentarily. Might I suggest that when MAB shows up again, short periods of PC would be preferred to short periods of semi? Or is consensus that we should not protect these pages at all and revert when needed instead? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we should at the very least protect the pages for long enough to get them to go elsewhere. I don't think that needs to be a long time - 10 or 15 minutes worked for me last time. -- asilvering (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If we protect, it should be PC, not semi. Don't want to close the door on a newbie. That could have a lasting effect on the editor. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And we don't care about the effect on established editors? Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I emailed JKoerner (WMF) a couple of weeks ago after seeing Relaunch of the Community Safety Survey. I gave brief examples of abuse and wrote Asking "have you felt unsafe or uncomfortable contributing to Wikipedia" is not appropriate when such extreme abuse cannot be prevented. I received a nice reply but do not expect anything further. It is past time for the community to push the WMF. We need a statement that they exist to spend money on maintenance or on marketing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you think they have any money to spare?[sarcasm] — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Wouldn't it be wise to discuss further this wherever admins discuss LTA matters, i.e. maybe in a less public forum? Perhaps there's a chat or something? I'm not trying to prevent non-administrators from offering opinions, but it should probably be assumed that most LTA are aware of these noticeboards and the talk pages of the pages they're disrupting and are monitoring them to see what steps are going to be taken. The Help Desk was unprotected and the posts starting appearing right away. If WP:RBI is what needs to be done with respect to LTA, then even a discussion such as this seems to somewhat be giving the LTA what its wants. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate that this is crossing a threshold into more serious waters, but I feel it's completely warranted to discuss at this point. To be clear: I am only interested in discussing whether we should ask the WMF to investigate; of course, I do not think anyone else should conduct anything themselves. While invoking the legal system is almost always a rhetorical pratfall, the internet is real life, and this level of sustained attack on Wikipedia's ability to operate warrants outside intervention. In my view, the WMF should determine whether MAB can be identified, and evaluate the merits of taking legal action against them if so. I know there has been much concern recently as regards the personal information of users, but there is no reason that seeking legal remedy against one of the most disruptive serial bad-faith actors in site history should be seen as a violation of trust or principles. Per User:win8x, it seems plausible for the WMF to contact VPNGate given their anti-abuse policy. I would appreciate input regarding whether we should communicate this matter to the WMF, and if so what the best means of doing so are. Remsense ‥ 论 04:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This sounds like something that ArbCom could try to talk with the WMF about. A petition should be a last resort. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right—I've clarified that I would support whatever means of communication is considered best. Remsense ‥ 论 04:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestion. Deb (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on board with ArbCom talking to WMF about this. Although I certainly don't have all the information, I'm happy to talk to either group about the problems if it would help. We've also brought up bulk-blocking VPNgate endpoints, though presumably this list wouldn't be something VPNgate would be eager to give us. I'm not immediately sure how we could obtain such a list. If we could, we wouldn't need ArbCom or WMF to do the actual blocks. --Yamla (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll look into this, in my capacity as an individual arb. Z1720 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is currently some work to integrate IPTool with AbuseFilter: phab:T354599. Depending on the outcome of the integration, we may be able to prevent edits from proxy IP addresses. – robertsky (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unban/unblock request for Albertpda

    Here then it is--

    I acknowledge that I'm banned on the English Wikipedia and wish to request WP:UNBAN. Here is my request to appeal the ban and I would like someone to post it to the appropriate area: "I sincerely request to be unblocked for the first time as I haven't been unblocked before, and be given a chance to return to contribute to the community. I understand that in the past I have engaged in warring edit and using accounts to evade to continue editing after being blocked. After mustering sufficient knowledge and experience, I have come to terms with the rules and acknowledge that I must embrace a serene approach in editing and resort at all cost to discussion when disagreements arise. I will restrain myself to the one-revert rule and embrace discussion. I also understand that abusing multiple accounts only complicates the matter and I will not sockpuppet under any circumstances. I will be very appreciate if I get extra help as a startup to further immerse with the positive environment.

    If unblocked, I would start editing in simple articles related to sports and geographical locations, as these type of articles generally lacks controversial segments so it would be easier to get used to the editing process. If disagreements arise, I have read and know how to use the WP:3O to soliciate third opinions for a consensus-reaching process. I also read and understand WP:DR, WP:MEDIATE, WP:RFC and other policies and will strictly resort to and abide by these when disagreements arise. I will ask questions whenever necessary.

    After all, Wikipedia is an environment of collaborative editing and positive exchange. I now understand this well. We strike to construct a friendly environment. I learn to understand and respect other people's stances on matter. Warring edit counters this aspect and should be absolutely avoided in my mind. When I was first blocked I was a completely new editor to a new environment so I have yet to foster any experience and therefore engage in warring edit without knowing that contested edit must reach consensus. I now have read thoroughly the editing process and the policies to understand what I must abide by to create constructive and positive collaboration. I have never been unblocked, so it is worth it to give me a chance to prove that I will be a great contributor."

    Carried over -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • tentative and hope filled support unblock.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it confirmed that there has been no sockpuppetry recently? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was hoping Yamla would pop in. He did not comment on this UTRS. {{checkuser needed}} to be certain. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      CU isn't much use here. The Albertpda account is  Stale, which would be expected as it's globally locked. I don't have CU access on UTRS and am not sure how that works but maybe that would be more helpful.
      I would be extremely hesitant to unblock this user even if CU comes up clear. The socking history is extensive and their edits are pretty much all disruptive, see the most recent sock listed at SPI for example. This doesn't seem like a situation where someone is trying to make valid contributions but keeps getting blocked for block evasion. I do not see the point in unblocking someone who's likely going to go around indiscriminately blanking articles. Spicy (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The CU data from the UTRS request shows that it is coming in from a spur.us confirmed residential proxy. The particular IP address range is hard-blocked on en.wiki. There's been no evasion from the IP address range, but that's a truism as it's been hard-blocked. Based on the UTRS CU evidence, I can't even be sure the UTRS is coming from Albertpda (but have no evidence it isn't). --Yamla (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support per above. Given that the user has no recent sockpuppetry on any Wikimedia wiki, then the user might be unlocked soon. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm landing, with some hesitation, on oppose. I feel slightly guilty doing this because I cannot really articulate why, but I feel in my gut that unblocking would be a mistake. Something about the request… I don't know, it kinda feels like someone who knows what types of things they should say in an appeal but isn't exactly sincere. The fact that it can't meaningfully be demonstrated that he has repented of the sockpuppetry and disruption only exacerbates my concerns. I'm sorry. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: I cannot rationally articulate my tentative support, so we are even. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Reply to Compassionate727 carried over-
      "Thank you but you should or may have not also bring in the first two sentence that are not in the quotation marks, can you remove them from the request on the noticeboard, because it may make the request looks somewhat awkward. Can you kindly carry over my reply to Compassionate727 in the noticeboard as follows: Compassionate727, I'm really, really sincere about being unblocked. I really regret the edit warring I did and the subsequent block evasion. It's important to note that I have never been unblocked so why is giving someone a chance so hard? I can be easily blocked again if I infringe the rules again. Why would I take all this time to write the request and wait just to be insincere and blocked again? Anyone can mature greatly, please give me the opportunity to be positively productive. I first created my account 9 years ago. The primary reason for my block was because of edit warring. All the other accounts were blocked only because of block evasion. I addressed above how to avoid edit warring in the future, and especially I will restrict myself to the one-revert restriction. 9 years ago I was younger and not as clear headed. If you unblock me, you can either get a vandal that easily blocked after seconds (which is a very small risk) or a positive contributor who contribute positively for years (which is a very reasonable great positive exchange). I promise you with my hearts I will be on the latter side."
      Carried over by me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting Global lock has been down-graded to a global block. Hopefully, Albertpda can now edit his talk page. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I disabled the global block locally. Hopefully, that fixed it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Noting to hold the archival bot at bay that I'd hoped for greater participation. 😢 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, the unblock statement says "If unblocked, I would start editing in simple articles related to sports and geographical locations, as these type of articles generally lacks controversial segments so it would be easier to get used to the editing process." I do not know about sports, but my interactions with this user (specifically various socks) were disruption in geographic articles. Someone saying a topic that they have created large numbers of sockpuppets to war in "generally lacks controversial segments" inspires no confidence. If they want to be unblocked, they should pledge to avoid this area that has clearly caused huge issues, not pledge to specifically go back to it. CMD (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      reply carried over
      @Chipmunkdavis:: I pledge to avoid editing in the area of geography for a period of a year while making at least 1000 good faith non-disruptive edits in other areas. I also pledge to be restricted to a one-revert restriction rule. May you accept it?
      reply carried over
      -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A year and 1000 non-disruptive edits? It's not up to me to accept, but if an unblocking admin wants to take that on I won't stop them. CMD (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      reply carried over-
      @Chipmunkdavis: So may you support the appeal with the addition of this condition? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am unsure if I would support the appeal, but as above an admin is welcome to disregard my oppose to the original request given the modifications. CMD (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know what, I'm convinced. I'll support if a one year 1RR restriction is imposed, and I'm neutral otherwise. No opinion on the TBAN from geography, I'd need to understand this user's history better than I do. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, they have put in the time to learn about the project and understand their mistakes. It seems that they've grown and matured; I believe they deserve a second chance. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support hold them to their word. You've got some rope...use it well. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Socked for too long. Let him prove he can productively edit any sister wiki before requesting unblock here again. Capitals00 (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Can't. Globally blocked. I disabled it locally so he could participate in this discussion. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I'm an optimist. I'll support this, with a 1RR restriction for one year, and a 1 account restriction indefinitely (i.e. no WP:LEGITSOCKs). – bradv 04:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Null edit to hole the archive bot at bay. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deacon of Pndapetzim

    Administrator Deacon of Pndapetzim has doubled-down on uncivil and canvassing behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dachuna.

    • When the article was AfD'd, they took it very personally, as indicated by their initial response on their talk page expressing exasperation and questioning the nominator's motives (diff).
    • Posted this patronizing comment suggesting that non-historians shouldn't weigh in on historicity of the subject (deeply ironic not only because I am a historian, but because the nomination explicitly cited high-quality historiography to justify deletion)
    • Canvassed Ealdgyth—who, according to AfD stats, had not !voted in an AfD for over a year and has only !voted five times in as many years—to counter a perceived conspiracy of deletionists (diff)
    • When confronted about this uncivil behavior, they respond by deleting it as trolling (diff)

    Deacon of Pndapetzim recently increased their participation on the project after an extended lull in contributions. I think they should be admonished and instructed to relearn the relevant policies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pbritti is evidently very unhappy that I informed Ealdgyth of the discussion and how Ealdgyth responded. Ealdgyth is as far as I'm aware the main editor on medieval English religious topics. Pbritti seems to have come here trying to escalate things & create drama following a threat to do so that he made on the discussion page. Also, if anyone wants to explain what canvassing actually is to this user please feel free. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting a non-neutral note seeking to affect the outcome of a discussion is canvassing per WP:INAPPNOTE. Your comments were also not very civil and anyone can participate in a discussion, notwithstanding whether they're professional historians. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Read 'It is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation' That's what I intended to do and what I did. Not discussing this point any more, it's silly to suggest that one cannot inform other interested users and note their own concerns, esp. when the guideline page actually encourages it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Lest I be extremely hypocritical, I'll note that I saw this discussion mentioned in passing on Discord, but participated on my own accord without being asked :p) That's a very select quote from the canvassing policy, and ignores the context of the rest of the page. Ealdgyth is certainly an accomplished editor in the field, but you informed her and only her in a clearly biased way and urged her to participate on your side of the argument. There's miles between that and popping in with a "Hey, there's an AfD in your area of expertise" without commentary. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What?! Selective? It's from the top of the page my friend, summarising the most important points. If you disagree with it, go try and have it removed, then and there I think you will learn what the actual consensus about the policy is. If you are successful, come back. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From lower down the page: Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. See also WP:VOTESTACKING: Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT vibes here, getting a bit robotic as well. It is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation Posting to Ealdgyth was not canvassing or vote stacking, Pbritti may not see it like that because of what Ealdgyth ended up saying but that doesn't change anything. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting WP:AGF while question another editor's motivations for a reasonable AfD and then quoting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when nobody is convinced by your misinterpretation of policy. I change my recommended response to this from a formal warning to favoring thanking Deacon for their 16 years as admin and desysoping. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins can't desysop another admin: that proposal needs to be handled by ArbCom or recall. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless there's a huge reform in their behavior, I think we're heading there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sad that you dislike me so much, but I can tell you one thing from being here 20 years, Pbritti, conflict forum escalation and grievance drama mongering will only take you so far and eventually bring you more trouble than it's worth. Only the Machiavellians & folk with no interest in content get on with people 100% of the time. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop assuming anything about me. You have accused me of a number of things yet haven't provided evidence for any of it. I encourage you focus on your behavior and how you can adopt current policy/guidelines into your behavior on-project. Thank you for your years of content creation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (after edit conflict) I'm going to repeat my comment I made at Deacon's talk page here "I have Deacon's talk page watchlisted, I was already aware of the AfD (I saw it in my morning reading of my watchlist over breakfast before Deacon posted on my talk page). I had planned to weigh in, but I had to feed farm animals and batten down the hatches this morning in front of a large storm headed my way." I'll further note I had noticed the prod notices and even before the AfD was filed, was predicting that one would be filed and had begun to look at the article during my overnight bout of insomnia (where, I also weighed in on Barkeep's talk page on a totally unrelated matter, thus confirming I was actually up at some ungodly hour of the morning), before Deacon posted on my talk page. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You proved nothing except that you only intervened in this AfD once prompted. Rather humorously, you even mirrored Deacon's unusual !vote of Oppose (rather than a typical "Keep") further suggesting that your involvement is reliant on Deacon's prompting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What I see from DoP: a mild mannered exasperated response to an AFD; the comment about 'historians' was not patronising; the 'canvass' message was just (just!) the right side of breaching CANVASS, but in any event the person who was targeted has said they were not actually canvassed; and I can totally understand why they removed your talk page post (which was patronising), but describing it as 'trolling' was inappropriate.
      All in all I'd politely suggest DoP take a deep breath in future when dealing with similar situations, but that's about it. GiantSnowman 19:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The comment about historians was absolutely patronizing and completely improper: an admin should not tell editors they can't participate in a deletion discussion because they're not specialists in a particular area. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No-one should tell editors they shouldn't comment on a particular area, doesn't matter if they are an admin or not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Posting templated 'warnings' on the pages of experienced users, it's patronising but trolling too surely, at least with a lower case 't'. What good can any experienced user reasonably expect except to arouse some sort of emotional reaction? Re the historian comment, no it has nothing to do with do not participate, it was a response to naive assertions about the historical issues relating to the talk. I did not act with any admin powers on that thread so I don't understand this obsession with me having the mop. I'm honest and sometimes tough in my approach to those things, I got my mop with that being a well established thing about me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      neither Pbritti nor i posted any templated warnings on your talk page - i don't generally do that, and prefer to use my own words when there's an issue, as i did in this case. i PRODed and nominated the article for deletion with WP:Twinkle, which automatically places notice templates on the creator's talk page. those are not warnings. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      More than that, I explicitly avoided a template and anny of those garish warning signs, even offering my appreciation for your return to content work in my personalized message. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I did notice the offering of appreciation, but it was accompanied by the 'warning' header and more trollish stuff, and I felt you were trying to escalate conflict, so I removed it and I would also remove other such comments in future if I felt the same way, it's my talk page I'm entitled to do that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What, exactly, was trollish? That seems like a pretty serious aspersion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Deacon of Pndapetzim Policy expects that administrators lead by example, and they are expected to be role models for the community and to be civil at all times. Having the tools means that your words and behavior are scrutinized more because you have measurable "soft power" in discussions. While WP:NOBIGDEAL has been cited by numerous people participating in RfAs, uncivil behavior has led to admins being desysoped. Accusing someone of trolling in response to good-faith concerns about your behavior and editing their comments breaches basic policies and guidelines. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also the fact that the canvassed editor intended to participate anyways is irrelevant. DoP couldn't have know that when the message was posted. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      She wasn't canvassed, why are you proceeding with that notion like it's some established fact? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't interpret his comment about historians as saying 'do not participate in the AFD'. GiantSnowman 19:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the statement speaks for itself: It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, neither of you know what you are talking about. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Evidently not. The deletion discussion wasn't about the notability of this specific saint, not the historicity; that issue was being raised in naive and unhelpful way, that's why I suggested the issue be avoided. Make sense? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      the crux of my argument is not about the historicity of the saint - that is simply one aspect i mentioned in the nomination. the crux of my argument is the lack of sources, i.e. non-notability. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The historians comment wasn't about the crux. Honestly, I think that's relatively clear, but I've clarified now in case there was any confusion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Especially patronizing, considering that sawyer777 (who nom'd) has worked diligently in the medieval saint subject area and has contributed FA- and GA-level content. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • i said i would disengage until further prompted, and apparently here's my prompting.
      i nominated the article for deletion earlier today after my PROD was contested yesterday, and during the discussion (& on user talk pages) Deacon has made comments such as:
    • "this selective attempt to impose deletionist maximalism" (diff)
    • "The deletionists going for the kill here could be emboldened to go after a lot more" (diff)
    • "It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, you don't know what you are talking about." twice (diff, diff)
    • "if you want to call yourself a historian" ... "I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings but this is a public encyclopedia used by millions of people and the lack of relevant competence is important" (diff)
    • "I didn't want this discussion to have no input from knowledgable people & just be me and the two of you" (diff)
    i left Deacon a message regarding his conduct, and he both edited my comment and replied in the same diff (edit summary: "rm trolling & ugly format, resp"), which changed the meaning significantly by cutting out multiple sentences. i restored my comment and linked WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS, and was reverted with the edit summary "rv, please don't troll or put ugly format on my talkpage. if you think your meaning has been changed remove the comment". that's not how this works. i am not imposing "deletionist maximalism" or "going for the kill" i just don't think this supposed saint is notable. speculating about my competence, accusing me of trolling, and editing my comments is creating a hostile editing environment. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    forgot one:
    • "Regarding being a historian, I don't care if you're not a historian [...] I made the comment because you were saying nonsense things about something that is much more complex than you seemed to understand. Personally I think if one is editing articles on a project like this one should be [...] honest about where and how one can contribute competently." (diff)
    i don't even know how to engage with this. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly inappropriate to edit another user's message, and it's even more inappropriate to accuse an editor of good standing, making a good faith edit, to be trolling. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is astonishingly poor behaviour. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the article (here), but I think that Deacon of Pndapetzim should probably re-calibrate back into the relative obscurity they have enjoyed for most of the past, err, 12 years. Community expectations of discourse, collegiality and communication may have moved on since then. SerialNumber54129 13:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what the goal is here with this complaint. Is it to admonish Deacon of Pndapetzim and ask them to be more civil, to not give the appearance of canvassing or be condescending, to not accuse your fellow editors of trolling and to assume good faith on their part? Deacon of Pndapetzim, even if you don't agree with these charges, do not do those things in the future. None of us should behave in these ways and this complaint is a reminder of this to us all that even in the midst of a dispute, we need to treat each other with respect and civility.
    If the goal is to de-sysop them, well, you would have to show a pattern of misconduct, Pbritti, and while some of the behavior cited here is inappropriate, for a regular editor or for an admin, I don't think you have shown misconduct beyond their reaction to this one AFD. Additionally, at most, if there was a lot of agreement with your position, there might be a recommendation to take this complaint to arbitration or to start a recall petition but so far, I don't see a groundswell of support here yet and I don't think either a request for arbitration or a recall effort would be successful. Liz Read! Talk! 20:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the focus is the civility, the implication that only historians should participate in that discussion, and the canvassing. At least that's my read of it. In my opinion, you do want complaints prior to recalls, so as to not appear to be jumping the gun and to give an admin a chance to grow and adjust based on feedback given. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HMIJ summarizes my rationale for opening the AN. Without this posted to AN, there would be no formal acknowledgment of their inappropriate behavior. I think Deacon's persistent refusal to acknowledge that their behavior was inappropriate here suggests their status as an admin should be changed. Above, I say that a reform in their behavior could prevent this step, but it should happen sooner than later. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also finding their inappropriate edit summaries (stating a genuine comment by an editor in good standing is trolling), and editing other user's comments to be very inappropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Josh, I hope it didn't seem like I was trying to shut down a discussion. That wasn't my intent. But I think it's helpful to know why a complaint is filed, what the goal of it is. If it is bringing to light misbehavior, I thought that had been accomplished early in this discussion. If the goal was seeking to de-sysop this administrator, then this is the wrong place for that discussion. But I do agree that, for arbitration, editors are advised to try other avenues for redress before opening an arbitration case request. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I definitely didn't view that as the intent of your message @Liz, especially given our past interactions I know better than to assume something like that from you. I just wanted to share my perspective on the matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaint is presumably targeted at getting consensus that obvious incivility and canvassing is in appropriate, and below community expectations. We shouldn't create the expectation that the next step after bringing to light misbehavior is recall. CMD (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, I think the goal was articulated at the end of the initial post: I think they should be admonished and instructed to relearn the relevant policies. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to concur Deacon of Pndapetzim's comments in the AfD fall below the collegial standards I think we should strive to maintain in discussions. Comments should be about the arguments, not the participants. (I do admit this might be easy for me to say from the sidelines, especially as someone who is more of a reader than someone who writes content.)

      Regarding the comment DoP sent to Ealdgyth, to me it clearly crosses the line into non-neutral. There's no reason not to say simply "As someone interested in and knowledgeable about the topic area, you might be interested in participating in this AfD"; arguments about the precedent and consequences of deletion can and should be made in the discussion itself.

      While I do offer my feedback in the hope DoP changes his approach, some of the back-and-forth discussion above doesn't necessarily seem to be benefiting anyone. Talking about RECALL also seems excessive at this time. Retro (talk | contribs) 20:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I actually think the discussion is at the right time, given the number of different issues that are evident conduct wise. RECALL may be premature, but you should start a discussion about someone's conduct before doing so, and this is the opportunity for DoP to adjust their behaviour appropriately. Unfortunately, their responses are falling quite short of WP:ADMINCOND at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel like there's a meme here
    Wikipedia: Why are there so few admins, this is a crisis.
    Also Wikipedia: That guy told someone about a discussion & someone felt attacked, they're an admin, get them to the stake.
    I feel like defending myself had just been feeding the drama beast, I'll leave this be, please don't tag me in any posts unless it is necessary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deacon of Pndapetzim Is this how you intend to respond when people raise questions about your conduct in future? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deacon of Pndapetzim I'm asking you again, since you have apparently chosen not to respond. Is this the way which you intend to conduct yourself when people raise questions about your behaviour in the future? This is a yes or no question. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether on wiki or in real life, perhaps you should consider taking criticism to heart and hearing people out instead of being dismissive @Deacon of Pndapetzim. Fwiw, part of the reason people believe there's not a need for more admins (a view I disagree with) is because so many old admins hold onto tools but don't utilize them, hence the misleading number of admins vs active admin numbers we have. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Without evaluating the whole thread, I will renew a concern I've expressed before about overbroad use of the anti-canvassing guideline. I understand the purpose of the guideline, but it should not be interpreted to prevent bringing a discussion to the attention of the people best able to comment knowledgeably. For comparison, I am a known authority on the author Rex Stout. If someone proposed deleting an article relating to Stout and I missed the AfD notice, I would like to be told about it; and if I then commented, I would not feel that either I or anyone else did anything wrong. Likewise, if an AfD concerns a disputed personage in medieval history, why would we want to disallow seeking input from a major contributor to our medieval history articles? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You do make a good point, but the biggest issue in this notification is the non-neutral way in which it was done. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    just speaking for myself, i have no issues per se with him notifying Ealdgyth - she is, as you say, a major contributor in the medieval history area (and someone i have a lot of respect for). the issue Pbritti and others have taken with the talk page message is the tone and content, especially the parts that say I'm pretty worried about the level and type of reasoning being used and the precedent potentially being added and The deletionists going for the kill here could be emboldened to go after a lot more, including the many place-filler bishop articles we've created over the years. in my view, that clearly indicates an intent to bring a "friendly" editor to be backup in a debate, rather than a simple notification of a relevant discussion. it's a fine line, and i agree that it's not uncommon to see overzealousness with the anti-canvassing guideline, but i do think this crosses into problematic territory. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not have phrased the notification with words like "going for the kill," nor would I have made any reference to "trolling." However, much of what was said on the user talkpage could equally have been said in the deletion discussion itself, which the "canvassed" editor would have looked at anyway, so I don't see why the location of the comments should make a big difference. And a comment suggesting that "if A is deleted, then by that logic B, C, and D could be deleted on the same grounds, which would damage our coverage of such-and-such topic-area" is hardly outside the limits of normal XfD discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're assuming that Deacon knew the canvassed editor would see the AfD anyway, which is contradicted by the mere fact that they posted that notice. This is exacerbated by the uncivil responses both before and after the canvassing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually assuming that even if the canvassed editor might have missed the AfD notice to begin with, once it was mentioned to her, she would then have looked at the contents of the AFD discussion regardless of how the notice was phrased. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying this isn't canvassing because a non-neutral notice posted to a friendly editor's talk page might spur the friendly editor to look at the discussion and then get involved? That is canvassing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I took Brad to be saying that this is ideally how the canvassing rules should be interpreted or rewritten (but please correct me if I'm wrong Brad). I'm agnostic on that point and could be persuaded either way, but as of this moment, I don't think the community interprets CANVAS this way. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) I understand your point, which has some validity under the guideline. But the point I'm making is that the effect of a "neutral" notification and a "non-neutral" notification, at least in this instance, would have been exactly the same, so whether or not the notice was "canvassing" strikes me as a peripheral aspect of the discussion. Put differently, if the editor posted "ABCD" in the notification, as opposed to posting "A" in the notification and "BCD" in the AfD itself, would that have changed the analysis? (And with that I may bow out of the discussion, lest I give too much attention to what I've just said should be a minor aspect of the thread.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, this makes sense. I think I disagree with you on the idea that a neutral notice has the same effect as a non-neutral one (especially when it is only sent to a single friendly editor), but I can fully see why you might feel otherwise. Thanks for taking the time to rephrase that for me! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not really a fan of bringing to a noticeboard every example of someone getting upset that the article they've created is at AFD, but ... DoP is being so pointlessly aggressive, unfair, and patronizing here (and it's likely to end up being counter-productive to keeping the article), that I guess I can't really fault it too much. I suppose I'll say (a) DoP and his adversaries (for lack of a better word) should minimize contact outside the AFD, including here; and (b) if his aggression continues in the AFD, I'll just partially block him from participating there further. I've got it watchlisted now. The non-neutral canvassing, while not great, is less of a concern to me, both for reasons outlined by NYB, and because not every single policy violation needs to be admonished/punished. I know @Deacon of Pndapetzim: asked not to be pinged unnecessarily, but since I'm warning him that I might block him from the AFD, I guess I need to. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've created over 1000 articles, I don't actually mind if an article I created is deleted per se, esp. one that short, you're speculating inaccurately. The users in question were making historical points based on some serious misunderstandings, I could've spent more time explaining if I wasn't so busy earlier today (honestly thought it would be nipped in the bud earlier) and if I'd been nicer there wouldn't have been so much escalation on their part, but it's neither here not there as far as the Dachuna discussion is concerned. I'm not going to participate in that discussion any more because I have been threatened by yourself and based on your assessment above I don't trust you to be judicious. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further assumptions of bad faith, despite several comments encouraging others to assume good faith in the last day or so... Hey man im josh (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • New Proposal: A solid trouting Both of y'all take a fish and let's settle down. Make your point in the AfD regarding the article, not each other and move on. I'm not saying either of you do/don't have valid points, but it would serve everyone well to acknowledge they could behave better and back down. If not, I think a block is warranted per Floq. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not really sure anybody but Deacon deserves a trouting in this situating.... but it was already essentially calmed down since the last response was ~8 days ago. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was referring to Deacon & Pbritti. If it's calmer than then, I'm fine with a smack of a light goldfish. Buffs (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      a) it's not really clear who "both of y'all" is referring to. i nominated the article for deletion and Pbritti started this thread. b) as josh already said, this has settled down. i've even taken the AfD off of my watchlist. c) i have made all of my points at the AfD about the article and its sourcing. i'd like to see what you're referring to. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then a trouting will serve it's purpose well. Let's grab some fish and move along...hell, you can even swing a trout my way. I'm sure I deserve it for something :-) Buffs (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal for Lifting Topic Ban

    There is consensus against lifting the topic ban. Editor is cautioned against repeating the 2023 edits which, had they been noticed at the time, they would have been blocked for. Star Mississippi 15:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Subject: Appeal for Lifting Topic Ban

    Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

    I am writing to formally request a reconsideration of the topic ban imposed on my account three years ago due to discussions on the English Wikipedia talk pages. I acknowledge that my use of language at the time was inappropriate and that I made amateurish mistakes. These errors stemmed from a lack of experience and familiarity with Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. Over the past three years, I have actively worked on improving my skills in both editing and communication, as well as my proficiency in English. During this time, I have consistently contributed to the Turkish Wikipedia, adhering to its standards and guidelines. This experience has not only enhanced my understanding of Wikipedia’s expectations but also reinforced my commitment to respectful and constructive collaboration. I genuinely believe that I can now contribute positively and meaningfully to the English Wikipedia. I am fully committed to abiding by Wikipedia’s principles of civility, neutrality, and verifiability. If given the opportunity, I will ensure that my contributions align with these standards and add value to the community. I kindly request you to reconsider my topic ban and allow me to demonstrate my commitment to these principles through constructive edits. I am open to further discussion and willing to comply with any additional conditions to regain editing privileges. Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal. I appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response.

    Sincerely, Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The notification is still on this page;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1025564072#Cengizsogutlu Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Leaning decline - no activity on en.wiki since 2023 and their last edits here were violations of the tban. Edits at tr.wiki look fine but unremarkable, and they haven't been very active there either: essentially no talk page discussions, some decent translations but they haven't even reached EC yet. Meanwhile, the appeal here doesn't even come close to fully acknowledging the issues that led first to their ban and then to repeated blocks due to violations of the ban. signed, Rosguill talk
    • Cengizsogutlu, you haven't done much editing on the English Wikipedia since your topic ban so it's hard to judge whether or not it has affected your editing here. Have you made any substantial contributions to other WikiMedia projects? Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My current interests include military equipment, the defense industry, military history, culture, and architecture of Belgium (the country I live in). Due to a topic ban related to Turkey and the Turkish Armed Forces, I am currently unable to edit on these subjects. Additionally, Belgian-related topics are often edited by Dutch authors, even in areas where I have substantial expertise.
      I have contributed to Turkish Wikipedia in these areas and continue to do so. Having completed my education recently, my English has improved significantly, and I’ve also developed a hobby in photography. What I want to express is that, if given a chance, I would like to contribute edits in these fields and upload my photographs to Wikimedia.
      To be honest, I feel that I’ve matured with age and assure you that I will avoid engaging in childish disputes. In the near future, I plan to travel to Cyprus and Turkey, where I will attend military parades and would be grateful if I am allowed to upload historical and military-related photos from these events.
      Apart from this, I am also interested in participating in several WikiProjects to further contribute to Wikipedia.I intend to focus solely on technological and cultural topics without engaging in ethnic or controversial discussions. If you wish, you can monitor my future edits in these areas, and based on that, you can decide on a permanent solution.
      Kind regardsCengizsogutlu (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning decline I blocked Cengizsogutlu for topic ban violations in 2021, but pretty much every one of the 30-odd edits they made in 2023 were also topic ban violations which no-one noticed at the time, or I suspect they would have been indefinitely blocked. Now they have returned after a year and want to edit on those topics? I would suggest we need to see continued evidence of productive editing in other areas first. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for your feedback. As I mentioned above, I have very little interest or knowledge in other areas, so I can mostly contribute to Wikipedia in these specific fields. Regards. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • After being topic-banned from Turkey-related topics on 28 May 2021, the editor made a number of edits prohibited by the ban. They appear to have misunderstood the scope of their topic ban, a misunderstanding which was corrected in August 2023. That was their first breach of the ban and we should assume that it was a legitimate mistake. However, they have scarcely edited since, so this appeal is coming very soon and with very little fresh editing to assess. There is no evidence that the problems with competence, unsound sourcing, and pro-Turkish POV have been addressed. It is asserted in the appeal that the user has gained a fresh understanding of our policies and that their language and editing skills have improved. However, to support that, the only edits we have are this appeal, one reply in this thread, and one translated new article. I wouldn't be comfortable overturning with just that. Decline for now. arcticocean ■ 15:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Most active administrators

    Just to remark that in the list of most active administrators of all times we now only have three four current human administrators, and one of those three has not edited for four months. No action yet required at this point, just FYI, since this is, well, Administrators' noticeboard. Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fastily contributed a lot to reviewing PERM requests and FFD. We could honestly use quite a few more admins who were comfortable reviewing files and answering questions about their copyright status. I can only think of a handful of admins who work in this area of the project. Liz Read! Talk! 09:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Way back when I did some work in this area. I might return to it, but a way to watchlist the WP:FFD subpages as they are made would be helpful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FFD pages are per day, one would need to wacthlist once per day, but I would not know how to automatize this. Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone interested, Fastily handled most of the requests for rollback at WP:PERM/Rollback. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For a long time, Fastily handled PERMS virtually by himself. Recently, a few more admin bods have assisted with requests. I'm assuming it is a time consuming task as it requires looking at edits and assessing their merits and asking applicants questions. He did such a good job with PERMS and obviously had a good routine. He was polite but firm about asking applicants to do more work towards PERMS.
    Hopefully someone will step into the void. Knitsey (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FastilyBot did a load of work too, hopefully someone else will take on some of its tasks. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems prudent to direct anyone interested in this to WP:BOTR#Replacing FastilyBot. WindTempos they (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm just overly optimistic, but the CSD queue cratered since we got the admin election admins and hasn't gone up since. Seems fine, at least for now. -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a good idea for admins to go through a list of all the non-admins who are likely to pass an RfA and offer to nominate them (something admins should probably be doing anyway). That would be the most efficient way to address these admin backlogs. And apparently it needs to be clearer that requesting adminship means agreeing to WP:ADMINACCT; hopefully making that clear will limit the number of times that admins make appalling decisions, refuse to acknowledge them, get way too many chances, and then get recalled (current count: 2). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not, especially since these requests would tend to fall on deaf ears. (mine especially.) You have a fair number of people who would meet those requirements but are not interested in a Hell Week. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The recent admin election results, where only 1/3 of candidates were elected and only one had more than 80% support, seems to indicate there are a not-insignificant number of editors that outright do not want there to be more admins. Whether they simply have standards that don't match the actual pool of eligible candidates, or actually want fewer people with the mop, is not clear. We're going to have to have some kind of cultural change - either convincing those editors, or reaching consensus to overrule them - in order to have a larger and more sustainable number of admins.
    (For the record, I voted about 60% support / 30% abstain / 10% oppose, and was estimating I would be on the more cynical side. The actual totals were 37% / 37% / 26%, for an average percentage of 58%.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the data could be analyzed in other ways. For instance, if I'm counting right, every candidate who had a nominator succeeded. That compares favorably to RfA. Valereee (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it was harder to have the confidence to vote "support" under the time limitations that come from reviewing 30+ candidates simultaneously. But still a good idea to let folks run in a group.North8000 (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we have enough data on which to base firm conclusion about the admin elections. If the experiment were re-done with some of the teething problems fixed, we would be on sturdier ground. I think the large candidate pool, while encouraging in some ways, made things more difficult but I think a re-run would have a naturally smaller pool, especially if it becomes a regular thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely believe some of the reason for the high number of candidates was pent-up demand. People who for the last five or ten years might have been interested, but not via RfA. Valereee (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned this on the election talk page at the time: I opposed a large number of candidates who I (probably) wouldn't have opposed in a normal RfA because I was concerned about the lack of scrutiny being applied in that election. Nobody else admitted it, but given how more than 600 people voted, I would be surprised if I was the only person. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The best candidates at both Ace and aelect only had 80% support. To me, this says that there is a -20% support penalty when using secret voting. I don't think the reason is particularly important. I think we should just work around this by lowering the pass threshold. The aelect candidates in the 60 to 70 range were good, and we should make it so that they can pass in the future. An RFC for this is in the pipeline. Stay tuned. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I suspect is more likely that if an RfA is at 95%+ Support, people don't bother to oppose, because (a) they know it's not going to make any difference, and (b) they'll probably get harangued for it by supporters. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean, "Human administrators"? Aren't all administrators human? GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoodDay No, there are also a load of adminbots. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The two all-time most active administrators are actually bots. Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of them might also be dogs. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Radiant!/Classification of admins * Pppery * it has begun... 06:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin stats only counts the times you did something, not the times you refused to block someone, delete a page that wasn't a problem etc. We're not robots. If anything saying no is more important. Secretlondon (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Admin actions aren't everything and it's difficult to quantify a number of tasks that some great admins work at. For example, the number of unblock requests that someone like 331dot declines or replies to prior to unblocking, or ARBCOM time spent writing significant text or analyzing long conversations and evidence, or the admins working at WP:CFDS to process category renaming requests. Never the less, there is some value in admin actions, it's just not the only way to evaluate someone's contributions and we should be mindful of that. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, too, Josh. I think of the time some admins spend talking to new editors or blocked editors, trying to explain Wikipedia's processes to them, and I think those are invaluable activities. But personal conversations, one-on-one discussions, are not quantified and don't have a "leaderboard". Or time spend on noticeboards or DRN or the Teahouse, working to resolve and deescalate disputes. Of course, many of these discussions are also done by editors, too, but I know some admins who will spend their time trying to guide confused or frustrated editors into being productive contributors and I think those actions are some of the most important that admins can take on because they can lead to more constructive editors. Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin stats are a good way of determining how many (and which) admins are doing the high-volume, tedious, repetitive stuff. It takes a special workhorse of a person to do that stuff day-in and day-out for years. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks!

    Hello all Wikipedia Admins! I am just here writing to thank you all for the great work you do, and how you all make this an amazing place to be and contribute. I couldn't love more, the feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction I get from editing here and I plan to stay for as long as possible! Please keep up the good work. Have a wonderful day! Completely Random Guy (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Completely Random Guy,
    Speaking for admins, we don't hear a lot of "thank you"s on this noticeboard. It looked like you had a rocky start as an editor on this project but luckily, you stayed around and continued to contribute. Admins are really just here to remove disruptions to allow content creators to get to work. So thank you for your contributions! Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for editing wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AnubisIbizu requesting an unblock

    Two years ago, I blocked User:AnubisIbizu pursuant to the ANI discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1110#AnubisIbizu. The editor has today requested an unblock, expressing remorse for their prior conduct, while vehemently denying that they also engaged in sockpuppetry. Although I don't specifically remember the discussion, the sockpuppetry denial seems dubious to me, but not impossible. I would therefore prefer the input of this board before acting on this request. BD2412 T 03:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BD2412, if I remember rightly, unblock appeals are typically posted on WP:AN, not ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: You are correct; so moved. BD2412 T 03:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems there was an SPI about the socks, after the block: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnubisIbizu/Archive - found after reading User talk:ZimZalaBim/Archive 12#Alt account?, where @Zzuuzz had previously also commented about the socks.
    That's all I'm going to comment on as a curious user. – user in a ::/32 range, currently 2804:F14:80BF:B801:8C35:ECA9:E927:764A (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This SPI seems pretty relevant to the sockpuppetry concerns with the CheckUser comment: Traynreck and ZimAlakaZam are  Confirmed to each other. AnubisIbizu is  Unlikely or at best  Inconclusive to those two: different devices and different regions of the same country (though possibly could be explained by having a corporate VPN of some kind, but my confidence in that possibility is not high). I didn't find any other accounts. Honestly, could this be a joe job? Someone at the ANI thread linked above even suggested the possibility. [...] Mz7 (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC) and it was later closed without tagging. Retro (talk | contribs) 05:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the SPI evidence, it looks like we ought to be unblocking, though given the ANI, some reminders about what AGF means and how to sort out content disputes wouldn't go amiss. -- asilvering (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Commenting because I was pinged and previously commented. In the absence of other facts (which I haven't looked for) my previous comments should not get in the way of any unblock. My comments were not so different to the conclusions of the SPI, but were perhaps a bit more committed. The comments are what they are and I have no subsequent amendments to them, but that was like two years ago and as far as I know the only such incident. Courtesy pings for Spicy and Mz7. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no immediately obvious recent block evasion from this user, based on technical evidence. Looks clear from that perspective. --Yamla (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocking now, then. BD2412 T 17:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WickedFanAccount "outing" and digging through my social media

    NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
    User has been indefinitely blocked. BOTTO (T•C) 20:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=1258483252&oldid=1258483166

    User:WickedFanAccount has dug through my social media post and made disparaging comments about me saying I'm "foaming at the mouth" at having met the cast of the Wicked play.

    As @Trailblazer101 mentioned this could be a form of WP:OUTING.

    Please WP:PING me if there's a reply as I'm not watching this page. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the point in reporting a user if you're not even watching the page? Anyway, this presumably involves off-wiki evidence so you should email the arbitration committee. Or find a pliable admin  :) Cheers, SerialNumber54129 10:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I occasionally check beck but not watching it.
    But as @Happily888 mentions "I'd agree with above too. I believe this user just doesn't want to edit WP:CIVILly and that they think all their edits are factual, right and correct, even when they are not, and are instead disregarding policies like WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:CON, WP:OWN and WP:EW. "
    Anyway, an admin seems to have expunged the edit mentioning my Reddit account. But the other concerns still remain.
    Edit: Ooo it seems I can subscribe to one topic only. That's great!Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit the editor seems unlikely to enjoy a long career here. SerialNumber54129 11:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that on-wiki outing should go through Special:EmailUser/Oversight as that team has more members and a faster response time than ArbCom. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah course, I was thinking of a Case. SerialNumber54129 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have the same username. You accused me of not being allowed to edit articles of things I am a fan of when you yourself proved you are a mega fan. I was simply stating what I noticed in the pictures. WickedFanAccount (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You accused me of "foaming at the mouth." Plus I don't go around digging your social accounts.
    Plus it isn't just me who have a concern with you. @Happily888 does too. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having the same username isn't enough. Unless someone explicitly connects the identity to external accounts or their real name, it isn't permitted. And using language like "foaming at the mouth" is a violation of WP:NPA. Guettarda (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I disagree with the basis for the COI concerns and understand your frustration, you stepped way over the line by doxxing another editor. If you aren't blocked for this, my hope is that you'll know better so you won't do this again. BOTTO (T•C) 21:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it doxing if they are using the same username on a public account with similar interests that line up exactly with their contributions on Wikipedia? WickedFanAccount (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    YES WP:OUTING Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the SAME username. He literally put his username ON Wikipedia and matched that with his PUBLIC profiles. WickedFanAccount (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's WP:OUTING. It's critically important you understand this. It's WP:OUTING. --Yamla (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus it's Ad hominem and Tu quoque arguments. I thought it was a partial conflict of interest based on the name and the fact that you're frequently editing articles related to Wicked. Then you went ahead and made a personal ad hominem attack and use tu quoque to deflect my concern. And as other said you went ahead and linked to my Reddit account, meaning you were stalking me since that post was probably on the second page of my profile. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also note a match like this isn't conclusive. I literally blocked someone today for a username indicating they were Megan Thee Stallion. But even if it was conclusive, it's WP:OUTING and you must not do it. --Yamla (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don’t understand this basic protection for users, then you should be blocked to prevent you from outing other users in the future. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently the user has now stuck a "retired" notice on their user page with the message "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia ~~ Everyone here is soft and does not appreciate my truthful edits. I used this site a lot 10 years ago. I returned just this month, and I realized why I left. It's worse then than it is now. I am leaving this site for good.." Based on that comment, I suspect they maybe a puppet or have another account as this account only start editing on November 10, 2024. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid ANI flu issues, I have blocked for harassment indefinitely. I invite review by other admins as I am new to the mop. Alterations or reversion of the block is fine. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious, what's ANI flu issues? Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ANIFLU — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    rsjaffe, my only comment is that, as I understand this situation, they were blocked for one instance of outing on one noticeboard. One very, VERY inappropriate edit. "Harrassment" implies more extensive editing focused on intentionally annoying a fellow editor and interfering with their editing which I don't see here. If anything, I think they were unnecessarily bothered with a totally ludicrous COIN case that argued that because they were a fan of a musical, they shouldn't be editing an article about it without disclosing they had a COI. If that's the case, then we should inform all of the Doctor Who fans who are editors that they are banned from editing any articles connected with that TV series. This was a frivolous noticeboard dispute and if it hadn't happened, the editor probably wouldn't have outed the filing editor and they wouldn't be blocked right now. I'm not defending what they did, outing is a red line none of us can cross without severe consequences, but this whole situation didn't have to happen. I think we have to do more to discourage editors from bringing minor disputes to the public forum of noticeboards. Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more their name that I was thinking that might have a conflict of interest. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any mops may want to close the thread at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard too Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Enable the mergehistory permission for importers

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Enable the mergehistory permission for importers. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cut-and-paste move and draftification; unclear how to proceed

    MD Hydrogen 123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did a cut-and-paste move of 2024–25 Federation Cup (Bangladesh) group A to Template:2024–25 Federation Cup (Bangladesh) group A following a message placed on their talk page asking if they meant to create the article there. I then requested a history merge on the latter page, but withdrew this request after reading WP:NOTHISTMERGE, since MD was the only significant contributor to either page. Between the request and withdrawal, Cooldudeseven7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), unaware of the C&P move, draftified the page, meaning that the original page and the moved page now had diverging histories. I was going to nominate the now draft for G6 deletion, but I don't think that applies, because it is not holding up a clean move. JJPMaster (she/they) 02:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted the draft per G6 as it was created in the incorrect namespace and no other substantive edits were made to the page requiring a HISTMERGE. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! JJPMaster (she/they) 03:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is WP:RECALL a policy?

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    There is a consensus that Wikipedia:Administrator recall should not be marked as policy. Some editors noted that the discussion adopting it as policy was widely advertised and disapproved of this discussion being a basis to undo that. Other editors countered that said discussion was not a sufficiently robust basis to establish Wikipedia:Administrator recall as policy because many were nevertheless unaware of the discussion, some people did not participate because the question was confusing, and the RfC was not specifically about whether the procedure should be policy (rather, it was about whether to have a process). Many editors find it idiosyncratic that a procedure like recall could have binding force but not be policy, but other editors noted that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is the same way; editors also noted that Wikipedia:Policy defines a policy by wide acceptance among editors, which the turmoil from the recent recall petitions shows that Wikipedia:Administrator recall does not yet have. Overall, the arguments that the discussion did not establish the high level of consensus from the entire community (WP:PROPOSAL) required to adopt it as such were stronger than the arguments that it did.
    Nothing about this closure should be construed as disestablishing the recall process, which remains in force. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In her otherwise decent close of Special:PermanentLink/1253547916#Administrator Recall, Maddy from Celeste specified that Wikipedia:Administrator recall shall be marked as a policy and then did so. The problem is that the RfC did not ask if the page should be upgraded to a policy nor did anyone in the discussion subsequently propose it, making this aspect of the close a supervote. This perhaps happened because Maddy mistook the discussion for a change to an existing policy (On the English Wikipedia, there are no formal requirements for policy changes [...] this RfC is a valid way of figuring out where we want to set the threshold for this particular policy amendment) and/or, as they acknowledged when I asked about it on their talk page, because they forgot that we have an explicit process for proposing new policies. Nevertheless Maddy has said that given the significant developments these last two days, [they] do not feel comfortable making any unilateral changes [to the close] at this point.

    So as a partial challenge of that close, I'm asking: is Wikipedia:Administrator recall a policy page? – Joe (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I refer to my comments on my talk page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the third (for now) active discussion about RECALL live at AN - shows that it's totally not a controversial idea at all! GiantSnowman 19:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    I am currently running a pool on when RECALL will be brought to ArbCom. Squares are filling up fast. Contact me for information on how to bet, and how to send me the money for safekeeping in the mean time. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    • Per WP:POLICIES, "Policies have wide acceptance among editors". It seems clear to me that this is not the case with this recall process. Sandstein 19:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's probably no one who argued more strongly than me against making this trainwreck into a policy. But Maddy correctly read the consensus as saying that this should be adopted and put into effect (and not simply as a trial). So if the community has reached a consensus to put something into effect, that can lead to a desysop, I cannot see how that would be anything other than a policy. If other editors are just now waking up to the fact that they should have joined me in speaking up earlier, well, it's too late now. At some point, we will have to have an RfC to revoke this policy, but for the time being, it's a policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This should be adopted and put into effect – I agree with that, it's the "policy" designation that seems unwarranted, given the lack of an explicit proposal to adopt it as one. I want to avoid on the one hand watering down the definition of a policy as those guidelines and processes which have the highest level of consensus on the project (because come on, this is clearly not that!) and on the other making it harder to improve the current process through normal editing and consensus-building. Pretty much everyone seems to agree that this process needs amendment, but usually the way to make non-trivial amendments to a policy is through an RfC, and pretty much everyone also agrees that we don't want more RfCs on this... – Joe (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I see that distinction as wikilawyering. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We would have done if we had been aware of it! (see previous section re:lack of notice). GiantSnowman 20:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that's an issue. But the people who pushed this through insisted that they did everything required in order to publicize the discussions, and they have a point. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it matter if it's a policy vs. a procedure? Is RFA a policy? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, in practice it's considerably harder to change a page tagged as a policy; and nope. – Joe (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a process (or policy) it's far from ready, as the Graham87 petition and all the various discussions around the project-space are showing. It's not a case of ironing out small details; the very fundamentals are being questioned and challenged. More workshopping is needed. WP:AR should be returned to draft policy status and discussion centralised on its talk page. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What parts are far from ready? What aspects of admin recall that haven't already been discussed during phases I and II of the RfA 2024 discussion and subsequently still need to be hashed out? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, within the last 48 hours alone, questions posed on WT:AR have included timing of petition closures, the structure of the petition page and naming of its sections, the maximum runtime for petitions, early closure rules (or lack thereof), and the applicability of WP:SNOW (now at WP:VPP). Valid, key questions. I think a large part of why they're being asked now is because up until now, no one had much idea of how the policy/process would actually work in practice. As currently presented, the content of WP:AR feels scant, hardly a solid foundation for launching petitions. And the attempted early close and subsequent re-opening of the Graham87 petition further damage the process's credibility. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Policies have wide acceptance among editors". This policy/procedure does not have that level of support, as has been evident over the past 48 hours. Per SuperMarioMan above, this policy/procedure should be temporarily put on hold and then workshopped extensively to make it better. Daniel (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with this take, assuming it can even be made better, which I'm not sold on. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Opposition largely seems to be coming from admins, which makes sense but is hardly representative of editors at large. I would advise admins to take a step back and accept the wider community's opinion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I kind of have to agree? I know it's a surprise that the policy made it through but it appears to have done so on a legitimate basis? To those folks challenging the close, is there any example of irregularity or a flawed read of consensus? Andre🚐 20:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      While it is true that because this involves admins and thus admins shouldn't try to discourage the process, it still is a matter that this recall process will need to be managed by admins and thus has to confirm within the framework of other processes across the board, and that's where the debate seems to be happening, that as currently written and executed, it leaves a lot of missteps that need to be addressed with the help of admins to make sure the process is able to actually work. I don't see this as admins opposing any recall process, just that this one does not have the rigor thst admins experienced in P&G writing can bring to tighten it up and avoid the pitfalls happening now. — Masem (t) 13:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, process not policy. The original proposal didn't include listing it as a policy, most of the !voters didn't opine on whether it should be a policy, and similar pages like WP:RFA are not policies. The policy is Wikipedia:Administrators, which links to WP:RECALL. That's all we need. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Adding: This isn't to say it shouldn't have the same "force" as WP:RFA. And regarding notice, being an RfC at VPP and linked from CENT checks enough boxes. IMO the RfC was presented in a confusing way (consensus-for-consensus with a handful of lengthy, fragmented discussions summarized in the background section), but that might just be me, and neither I nor others adequately objected on "this is confusing" grounds to constitute a real obstacle to consensus [about consensus] forming. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 to both of these comments by Rhododendrites. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who's going to be the first non-admin blocked for the lèse-majesté of seeking to recall an admin, per this policy? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those editors who say that they didn't know that this was being discussed, I expressed my concerns to theleekycauldron, the admin who oversaw the process, months ago, and you can see that discussion here: link. Here's a link to a discussion where I tried to get a better process for deciding whether or not it would be policy: link. At that time, I think editors really were looking to conduct the decision process more carefully. But that got short-circuited by the RfC here: link, which established the present consensus (however one wants to characterize that). You will see me arguing strenuously, but to little effect, that this was going to go badly. I and others argued that it was premature to hold that RfC, but Barkeep49 insisted that the time was right. That discussion was at Village pump (policy), and was advertised on CENT, so I really do think editors should have been aware of this earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was aware of RFC3 thanks to T:CENT, but the wording of the question in RFC3 was confusing to me, and led me not to comment. I thought it wanted me to read an old RFC and summarize what the consensus was in that, rather than coming to a fresh consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe Maddy's closure was appropriate. However, the first application of the policy left a lot to be desired. I would like to see the normal editing called out in the close to refine the policy become a lot more vigorous as a result. In particular, we need to decide if petitions are allowed to devolve into a RRFA prequel (in which case 30 days is ridiculous) or if they are not (in which case stricter guidance on commentary and discussion is sorely missing).Tazerdadog (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If editors believe that admin recall should not have the force of policy, at this point there are two options as I see it: close review of the RfC or start a new RfC seeking to strip admin recall of its status. Demanding that the policy status of admin recall be immediately stripped and that it be sent back to the drawing board is not how we establish and maintain consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's what this is. A close review. – Joe (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If only people read a little past the heading before commenting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops. My bad. trout Self-trout. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CONLEVEL is pretty clear that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. It's overwhelmingly clear from the response to the recall attempt on Graham that there's not actually a favorable community consensus on a wider scale than the couple of dozen editors who happened to respond to that not-particularly well-publicized RFC. Instead of demanding that we force through a bad process, perhaps consider that the original close was not reflective of what the broader community actually feels about this. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're conflating two different things; I oppose the recall attempt but generally support the process, even though it's not perfect. (I haven't reviewed the discussion and don't have an opinion on the policy or not question yet.) Legoktm (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As someone who also opposes the specific recall, I'll add my much more noncommittal +1 to that. I don't really care too much about the specifics of the process and I'm supportive of considering it much more fluid and amendable than typical until a few months and/or recall petitions have passed, but I am overall supportive of having a process even if it's one that needs to be worked on (and even if I do believe we have another community initiated process that's sufficient, albeit only as a side effect and with likely a much higher... "activation energy", so to speak). Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This (and a bunch of other comments here) seem to be a back-channel way to revert the consensus process rather than any of the official ways to revert an RFC. Everyone agrees that this has been an incredibly rocky start for the process, other people are trying to fix it. But a bunch of editors suddenly complaining about the process, no matter how respected, does not suddenly revert consensus. In these three threads, editors who have concerns about this project are (rightfully) way more likely to comment now than the editors who already agree with calling it a policy. I encourage the former to follow the proper way instead of claiming lack of consensus without proof. Soni (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It was well advertised, I was aware of it but didn't comment or read much of it. If a well-publicised well-attended RfC closed less than a week ago is 'limited consensus at one place and time' then I have no clue what the wider community consensus ever could be.
      If you didn't participate in an RfC for whatever reason and disagree with the result there are ways to go about it, citing CONLEVEL isn't one of them. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The distinction between policy and procedure in this case may well be worth diggin into, but the idea that this has to stop because "admins didn't know about it" is the fault of those admins, as it was on CENT and in the last issue of the admin newsletter, and the overall RFA 2024 process has been going on for.... I dunno feels like forever. I didn't think it would pass, and I think this first attempt at using it has thrown some serious issues with it into the public eye, but this wasn't snuck in any back door. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is policy and enjoys consensus. The whole process was well advertised and had a lot of participation. Could it of been more? Sure, but it was sufficient. There are things that can be worked out with the process as shown, but there is no question that there is consensus to have a process. So basically, since this is a close review, Endorse the close. PackMecEng (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy modified is primarily Wikipedia:Administrators, WP:RECALL is really just the procedures for how to follow the policy. — xaosflux Talk 13:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fourth time is the charm huh? Yes, it is a policy. How many times do we need to ask this question before we accept it as such? fanfanboy (block talk) 13:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This question has not been asked before. Please read the top of the section if you have not already. – Joe (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the actual question Joe is asking, namely "should WP:RECALL have a {{policy}} tag, my response is that I don't especially care one way or the other; the tag at the top of the page doesn't change what actually matters, which is that the process has teeth (i.e. if an RRFA is failed, a bureaucrat will actually desysop the admin in question). But since at least Joe cares, sure, remove the tag, it was never authorized to be there. Mach61 14:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maddy's close was correct. I happen to think it's more process than policy because it's a process Admin X goes through to keep or lose their Admin flag. It's not a policy because there's no clear X/Y outcome. It's petition pass/fail, RRFA pass/fail. As both of those are subjective, it is not a policy situation. However it is a policy in that (using the current example) Graham cannot close Diletantte's petition because they filed it per the framework established. It has bugs as any new process does. Let it run and sort it out before the next. Disclosure, current petition opposer but not involved in RFCs as far as I can recall Star Mississippi 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is WP:RFA a policy? No. Is WP:ADMINELECT a policy? No. Is WP:RECALL a policy? Also no. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, admin recall is a policy: it has wide acceptance ("global consensus") and was thoroughly vetted by the community. Three separate RFCs over the course of a year, with over 100 editors participating, advertised at the Village Pump, AN, CENT, the Admin Newsletter, user talk page notices, and watchlist notices. If that doesn't count as thorough vetting and wide acceptance, then nothing will. Admin recall is a standard that must be followed (subject to IAR)--bureaucrats shall desysop following a successful recall--so it's not like a guideline or essay. And anyway, the mechanism by which advanced permissions like sysop are added and removed obviously must be done by policy and not by any lower level of consensus. The reason WP:RECALL should have a {{policy}} tag is because it's the page that documents the policy. To the extent this is a close review (I'm not sure about that), endorse and (involved). Levivich (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another reason it's policy: the third RFC was held at VPP, which is the page for changing policies. AFAIK nobody at any point suggested this was the wrong page. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not a policy This is blatantly obvious. The RfC that was concluded indicating it is a policy did NOT include any mention whatsoever of asking if it should be policy. None. Nada. Zip. Nothing. In fact, several people who commented on the RfC noted that details of the policy still needed to be hashed out. The fact is, there was no vote to make this policy. User:Maddy from Celeste, I appreciate the effort you put into making this close, but this close is a mistake in making this a policy. The question was whether the recall process has consensus, NOT if the recall process should be policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really mind whether the contents of WP:RRfA are moved into WP:ADMIN instead, but that particular sub-section I think has the status of a procedural policy. I also don't feel all policies have the same barrier to change, if that's the main concern. Changing a fundamental part of WP:NPOV requires a very different level of consensus compared to a policy with 15 talk page watchers. There are things with admin recall that will likely need tweaking; I think reasonably advertised talk page discussion has the ability to make such change. Re procedure: I don't think procedural policies need an explicit vote to that effect. Many current procedural policies didn't, eg AFAICT WP:File mover was promoted after xaosflux noticed felt it shouldn't be tagged as an essay, and nobody objected. Ditto with WP:IPBE per [1][2].
      Ultimately, WP:RRFA details procedure on a process that many in the community likely care about the details of, and said thing is built up by defined rules approved by consensus, as opposed to fuzzy conventions built up over time by trial-and-error. I think these are the some of the hallmarks of procedural policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:File mover was promoted after xaosflux noticed felt it shouldn't be tagged as an essay, and nobody objected. WP:FMR appears to still be an essay. If you read the box at the top of the page carefully, I don't think it's claiming to be a policy or guideline. Instead, someone wrote a custom ombox that seems to be rather unclear, instead of using the standard {{Information page}} tag. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's categorised under Category:Wikipedia procedural policies and listed at Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Procedural. In any case, there's WP:IPBE and these are just the first two I checked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I suspect all the userright procedural policies fall under the same bucket. The RfC behind them usually just asked if such a userright should be created / unbundled. The creation of a procedural policy page was either done by a single editor, or said by the closer to be done as in page mover's case, but was not the RfC question explicitly, and until the closer mentioned it, nobody else did afaict. My point being, I suspect very few of the current procedural policies had explicit confirmation votes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've started Wikipedia_talk:File_mover#Is_this_page_a_policy? to work on fixing these odd pages that have a policy category but no policy template and little original talk page discussion about promoting them to policies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a rule, but it's not ready to be policy yet. Let the procedure evolve into a more final form and let the naysayers finish processing their defeat. Then hold a RfC about promoting it to policy.—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaving aside the questions of whether it has consensus or not (I personally think the final version of the procedure should have been put to an up or down discussion rather than having a weird RfC to determine if a previous RfC had consensus, which would’ve avoided the issues we have now), I don’t see how we can ask crats to desysop admins under this procedure without it having the force of policy. Galobtter (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a very good, and important, point. If, hypothetically, an admin has a petition that reaches the required number, and either refuses to engage in a new RfA or fails to pass it, there could be a real question as to whether any bureaucrat has the authority to take action. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the RfC wasn't worded to ask to make it policy, the answer is no. There is no policy that supports a bureaucrat having the authority to remove the flag based on this procedure. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a nonsense! GiantSnowman 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked the 'crats. Levivich (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that will be up to the crats. One of their roles is to provide a final sanity check on sysops/desysops, so I don't think it's a bad thing to allow them some discretion during the first few runs of this new process. – Joe (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove the "policy" designation I think that the close was a pretty good one for it's narrow scope in the chain of events that led to this, albeit requiring some expert derivation because the question was not clearly in the RFC making it what I would call an edge case regarding being the right close. But in the big picture (including that chain of events), a high impact policy should be something which had every sentence in it carefully reviewed, has been optimized, and has had wide advertisement/participation to adopt it, and where considering it to be policy a clear part of the question. IMO none or hardly none of those criteria has been satisfied. Further, the initial general decision (in essence saying that there shall be a recall process) was only the starting point of what should have been a thorough process that included all of the above and which in my opinion it wasn't and didn't include all of the above. Let's just take a little extra time to do all of the above instead of having this cloud eternally hanging over the recall process. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The ship has been launched, so let it sail for a whole year. Than review it. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fingers crossed there's an iceberg soon... GiantSnowman 21:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the current petition could well be described that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What an interesting mixed metaphor ... * Pppery * it has begun... 03:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well despite some initial doubt over the wisdom of the first recall including by me, things have turned out different so the process whatever you want to call it is actually being tested quite a bit. We'll see what happens next, I think our initial doubts have shown it's a mistake to jump to hasty conclusions so I'll leave it at that. Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you raise an interesting point. For me, it's more like bad cases make bad law, because I think the new developments would have quickly come under scrutiny under the old processes as well. I don't really believe that the recall petition brought forth anything that would not have come forth just as quickly without it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You volunteering as Captain Smith, GiantSnowman :D (Orig. sig: User:Serial Number 54129, 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)) SerialNumber54129 14:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Notification of a request for transwiki importer rights

    A request for the assignment of transwiki importer rights is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page importation#Request for transwiki-importer - EggRoll97. To participate, please see the linked section. EggRoll97 (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ReflexSpray violating General sanctions

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

    User:ReflexSpray has violated general sanctions numerous times (in fact, their entire contrib history is entirely GS-violating content) imposed on Russo-Ukrainian War and related topics, despite formal notification [3]. WP:RUSUKR dictates that "non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area". Notwithstanding WP:RUSUKR, ReflexSpray has been commenting on edit requests and an RfC. ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 03:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC), made non-material changes on 04:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That does appear to be the case. One could simply strike their comments from the discussion via strike-through tags with a note that they violate RUSUKR. The user was given the RUSUKR notice, and continued to make edits. If they have questions about why their edits are being struck (or, if not, since they don't seem to understand this), then we should probably explicitly highlight the restriction to them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikizilla

    Wikizilla is basically wikipedia, but based on Godzilla, Mothra and King Kong related stuff. What I've noticed is that people claim that the text from Wikizilla is copyrighted, though per CactusWriter's claim on this revision on Tiamat shows that Wikizilla licenses text under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). GojiraFan1954 (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikizilla:Copyrights is what CactusWriter probably used as the source. Nobody (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they claim that Wikizilla's text and many of its images are co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA), although there seem to be a couple of caveats which I don't know whether have been adhered to as I can't see the deleted material (and of course, per Bastun's edit-summary, the main condition—that it was attributed (i.e. sourced)—was not met). I think more importantly, why are we using it as any kind or source—perhaps excepting on itself—at all? It's a wiki, a fansite, with no editorial oversight and like WP, it admits to not being a reliable source. SerialNumber54129 10:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering how I could gain said consensus to get it off the copyvios list. If Fandom doesn't give us copyright strikes, then what about Wikizilla? GojiraFan1954 (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It won't go off the copyvios list because it still needs to be checked if the right attribution was added. Nobody (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what the copyvios list is. I'm also not sure what copyright strikes are. But if you mean, what are the circumstances under which we can re-use Wikizilla material then, as IaN24 says, it will only be after their criteria for re-use, and our policy of attribution, is adhered to. But as to whether we would ever want to use their material, regardless of attribution: I'm wholly unconvinced of the necessity to do so. If we want to write about Godzilla et al., there must be plenty of non-fansites AKA actual reliable, independent third-part sources available. SerialNumber54129 12:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The copyvios list is technically any link that's not on the Url Ignore List. Copyright strike sounds like the youtube thing. Nobody (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find any evidencde that Wikizilla is licensed. I checked when CactusWriter declined the G12 and checked again now: the website has no copyright notice, no terms of use page, no licensing info anywhere. That means it is copyright and we can't copy it there. Diannaa (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Diannaa: Sorry if I'm missing something; but their page ("Wikizila:Copyrights") was linked a couple of times above? SerialNumber54129 13:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see it now. Sorry for the mistake. I have struck my comment.Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. I was worried I was completely losing it, which is always on the cards  :) SerialNumber54129 13:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I did decline the G12 CSD on Tiamat (Godzilla) by investigating the source and finding Wikizilla is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, that was only in response to the CSD tag, not on the value of the text. I really should have tagged the article for the reliability and sourcing issues. And informed the article editor, as well. I agree that no Wiki should be used as a reliable source -- but rather only as a basis for finding possible good sources referenced by the article -- just like we do Wikipedia. Perhaps we can include an entry about Wikizilla at WP:RSP? — CactusWriter (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @CactusWriter: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikizilla... ready and waiting  :) SerialNumber54129 16:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. Thanks, SN. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CactusWriter, When copying from licensed material, attribution is required. So if you are going to decline a G12 because the copied material is compatibly licensed, it would be a good idea to add the required attribution template. I attempted to do that on Tiamat (Godzilla) but someone subsequently removed it. Diannaa (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    G12 is for material we are not legally allowed, with our licensing, to host, or which we have no means to verify that we are. Compatible unattributed material should get attributed, not G12-deleted. Of course, this doesn't exclude any other deletion reason, speedy or otherwise. Animal lover |666| 00:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MissionWar123

    User:MissionWar123, a recently opened account, may be the same editor who has been posting barely coherent diatribes about plot holes in Indian TV soap operas from Indian IP addresses for some time. See [4] and [5] for a couple of recent examples. These posts have been reverted by concerned editors. Now the same kind of posts have begun appearing on the entertainment ref desk under the given account name. They have also been posting abusive messages on my and other editors' talk pages, see here for example. Can an administrator assist, please? Many thanks. --Viennese Waltz 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    History merge

    Last night an LTA moved my user and talk page around a bunch and my talk page history got deleted in the mess. Could someone find out where it ended up and merge it back into the proper page? Thanks. C F A 14:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @CFA: I am working on this now. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFA:  Done. Let me know if anything looks out of place. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request for protected page

    User:Example and its talk page are protected.

    On the former, please change: 

    == See also ==
* [[Wikipedia:User pages]]

    to: 

    == See also ==
* [[User:Red link example]]
* [[Wikipedia:User pages]]

    -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note for you in the future: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page also works for this sort of request. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-reporting rollback

    hi i rolled back user:RJJ4y7's most recent contribs, as talk page spam, apologies if this was excessive. (Albeit I've just realised I missed half of them—no idea why how, but will leave em.) SerialNumber54129 14:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think both the reversions and your decision to stop for now were good. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Block/unblock review scifaxEditor

    My actions have stirred up controversy, so wanted them reviewed here. An editor, ScifaxEditor, who had predeclared their COI, wrote a draft on Scifax Publishing. I soft blocked for promotional name. I was later persuaded that it did not designate a role account, but rather a person at Scifax, and unblocked. Special:Permalink/1259131871#User-reported Shows the ensuing conversation. (Later addition) see Special:Permalink/1258413577#Changing username which had the opposite conclusion for another ambiguous possible role name. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't handled any UAA blocks yet, but ScifaxEditor, coupled with the disclosure of the COI, implies to me that this is an account that is being used by a single person at Scifax to write about the company and thus does not run afoul of the promotional username policy.
    I do not believe that the draft should have been deleted. This editor did what we instruct COI editors to do: declared their COI, wrote in draftspace, and submitted for AfC review. This editor was not being disruptive, nor were they trying to push the draft through to mainspace. Looking at the draft that was deleted, I highly doubt that this company is notable, but there's no harm in letting it get rejected a few times and then having it get deleted after 6 months when the COI editor gets the message. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This conversation regarding an earlier block of mine, where the name is ambiguous (rep sr) I took to mean senior rep), colored my thinking. Special:Permalink/1258413577#Changing username — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be a bit concerned that "ScifaxEditor" is a position and that the account is a role account, one that can be handed off to a successor. But as of now I'd probably just let it be. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I (eventually) understood how this can not be a role account (I thought for sure it was before reading the arguments), 'editor' IS a role at Scifax [6] (under "Scientific Publishing Services").
    I'd say it's at least ambiguous, in this specific case, given that fact. – 2804:F1...AF:F143 (::/32) (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure looks like a role account to me. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    UAA is there to deal with blatant violations of the username policy and literally nothing else. I think this falls under what has been called the "Mark at Alcoa" exemption to the policy, in that it appears to identify an individual rather than a group. If there is concern that it may be a role account, that can be discussed but the username on its own is not a violation. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Deb: blocked OxervEditor (a user in this same shoe) for a username policy violation earlier today, even though I pointed out earlier that it isn't a literal username policy violation. Just wanted to point out as I think Deb is not aware of this situation too. Although, it appears OxervEditor is already asking for a rename as a result of the block. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are reasonable people who disagree on this particular name pattern, and context matters, as this pattern could represent a role account for some. Also, if you mention the actions of another editor, you must notify them. I’ll take care of the notification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rsjaffe Whoops, thank you for handling that! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. To me, this username strongly implies a role account, and I would not be surprised if I've blocked others with this same username pattern. If the company has any kind of "editor" position then I'd lean heavily towards it being a violation; if the company doesn't, it still screams "role account" to me. I think this pattern is uniquely confusing because the term "editor" in this context can be overloaded. I think there is enough room for interpretation here that if another admin reviewed a UAA report as "not a violation" I would not object; likewise, I'd not expect a block (especially a soft one) to generate this level of controversy. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a name is very much a role account, one that could be passed on to another editor or shared by everybody who has the job of editor there. "Fred at Scifax" or "Scifax' First Wiki-editor" might pass muster, but not something so obviously a role rather than an identity. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're looking at this slightly wrong. It doesn't really matter if it's a rôle account or not, what counts is whether it is "... clearly intended to denote an individual person ..." (the exception to Wikipedia:Username policy#Usernames implying shared use). And one thing that's certain in this discussion is that it isn't clear that this is an account for individual use. The block was correct, I think – if it's a single good-faith editor it's easy to request a rename. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did, and yes, I do disagree with the way the guidelines are being interpreted, and I would certainly have deleted the promotional content in ScifaxEditor's user page, which almost amounts to a CV. One difference between the two cases, however, is that OxervEditor, in addition to creating a spammy article, admitted to being the owner of the company (and did not post a COI notice on his/her user page). Deb (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, thanks for alerting me to the fact that OxervEditor has now added to his "appeal" by including yet another promotional blurb about himself and his company - which I'll be removing as soon as I've finished writing this. Deb (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disclaimer

    Closing this to prevent further time being wasted on likely trolling. GiantSnowman 14:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, I sent this message to a few Wikipedia admins to make sure it gets seen, and now I am putting it here. My brother, who lives with me, has mentioned that he intends on vandalizing Wikipedia articles. He hasn't specified (to the best of my knowledge) what articles he intends to vandalize. Knowing him, it's likely to be anything relating to Donald Trump, and other things relating to the republican party. I wanted to bring this to your attention in part because he and I live together and share an IP address (I don't want to be stuck with the blame), and because I value the integrity of Wikipedia. Thank you. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If he does, you will be blocked. See WP:BROTHER. You could still prevent this. SerialNumber54129 00:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe me, I am trying, but you don't quite know him like I do. He goes out of his way to do the exact opposite of almost anything I ask of him. If he does get me banned, I'll instantly request it to be undone, but it is obviously not the preferred outcome. I'm aware that it is a widely used excuse, which is unfortunate for those of us who are actually encountering this issue. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One important thing to do is to be absolutely sure he has no access to your account. Never leave any computer he has access to logged in, nor allow it to have your password saved. Do not use any password he would be likely to guess. You may be able to convince someone that your IP address is shared and that you are not responsible for all its actions, but certainly not your account. Animal lover |666| 01:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure my account is secure from him (I made sure, since I know that's the kind of thing he's likely to do), and I plan on changing my password once a month for extra security. I'll still do what I can to keep him away. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Recommended using 2FA (see WP:2FA) on all of your accounts. Never use your phone number as 2FA. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it bother anyone if I blocked this troll now? Or do we need to let him screw with us for longer first? Floquenbeam (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They have made several good-faith edits to article space; they haven't only posted about this disclaimer, and they have responded productively to feedback on their talk page. It seems like we should Wikipedia:Assume good faith unless there is a compelling reason not to. 03:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Jackattack1597 (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I was thinking as well. WP:BROTHER is intended for cases where someone vandalized, got caught, and is trying to make an excuse. OP's situation seems plausible, and they haven't vandalized (that I can see). If OP owns the residence I'd probably be trying to ensure they can't use my Internet connection, but if OP doesn't then they don't have any power in this situation. This doesn't seem too different from someone editing from a school using an account (which we allow), except that they're related to the potential vandal. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my remark above, when I said "you could still stop this" I meant: "there's still time to avoid being blocked". I don't believe a word, and Floquenbeam has the size of it. A five day old account suddenly wants to warn us about future vandalism coming from their IP? No. A (probably somewhat immature) attempt to get us all chasing our tails and bending over ourselves to show good faith? Yes. Now they know that now they don't even need to vandalize; we've wasted more time on the suggestion than we would have done on the actuality. Trolls vandalize for the attention; how much cleverer it is not to have to vandalize at all but still achieve the same result. DFTT. SerialNumber54129 14:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block request

    Hello, can an admin please block the IP 58.120.141.78. It's a sockpuppet of User:Dopenguins, a user who has been previously banned on 100s of occasions. I have raised this the proper way at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, but it has not been dealt with quickly enough to prevent damage. In the last half hour alone, the IP has undone over 100 of my own edits, and if I didn't have to manually go through them one by one to restore content it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Jkaharper (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. blocked as proxy and mass reverted the edits done in the last hour. – robertsky (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! --Jkaharper (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unnamed anon Topic Ban appeal

    Six months ago (in May), I was topic banned from GENSEX topics due to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior surrounding said contentious topic. The closing admin was theleekycauldron (who has offered to "see me on the other side"), and the discussion to Tban me was here. As for how I have been editing since being topic banned, and how I plan on editing when my topic ban is lifted:

    • Since being topic banned, I have made about 600-700 edits surrounding a large variety of topics, though the most common I think was media (tv, books, movies, games). In the very few content disputes I have been in since the topic ban (which were all very innocuous, with no disputes related to sourcing; only to minor things like phrasing), I have made sure to resolve the discussion collegially, rather than snapping back or adding the proposed edit to the page with minimal discussion (an old tendency to use one talk page comment as a cue to add an edit was cited as a problem with my editing, which I have fixed). If an edit was reverted, I made sure to discuss with the other party. I've mostly made sure to make my comments as concise as possible, though inevitably a few were long so as to properly address multiple points. Said discussions always ended both amicably and calmly, usually with both me and the other party thanking each other. I think this properly shows that I won't return to any sort of BATTLEGROUND behavior.
    • I have also made a decent amount of edits into the events leading to and after the 2024 US presidential election, such as the multiple assassination attempts against Trump, Biden's withdrawal, Harris becoming the Democratic candidate, and Trump's victory. I've been very productive in this area with little no problems. Post-1992 American politics is a separate contentious topic. I believe my problem-free edits about major recent events regarding American politics can show that I will not act in a tendentious manner assuming I do return to a different contentious topic such as GENSEX.
    • Once my topic ban is lifted, I will continue following the WP:NEGOTIATE guidelines whenever I get into a content dispute, including anything related to GENSEX (which I have no immediate plans to return to, but would like to fully remove the topic ban from it so I don't have to second guess if a page is related to the topic or not). I will work with other editors for compromises, will refrain from POV pushing, and make sure a contested edit has an actual consensus before putting it through. Thanks, Unnamed anon (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Since my lack of immediate plans to return to GENSEX seems to be a major point against lifting it, I should explain that I mean that I'm only talking about pages fully dedicated to the topic. But I would like to no longer have to avoid pages that tangentially mention anything queer-related, as it has legitimately stopped me from continuing productive edits that I had made across related pages that don't mention anything GENSEX related. I was also reading through what I need to do to get back in the community's good graces, and here the late NosebagBear told an appellant do you plan on editing in the area after removal (not a trick, TBAN removal could be warranted either way) and if so, what types of editing would you be doing that are currently prohibited? See my reply to Cullen below for the specific examples where my Tban has stopped me from making legitimately productive edits to pages I was unsure would breach the Tban.Unnamed anon (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by uninvolved editors

    Per WP:CTOP, this appeal will succeed if "a clear consensus of uninvolved editors" supports it.

    • Support - The only way to know for sure if you're able to edit in this topic area? Is to give you that chance to prove that you're able to do so. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support relaxation to 1RR. Per Simonm223 and the commitments made there, and because I am satisfied the risk is limited. As for lifting it after 6 months to a year, I understand there's not much of a procedure for this but I'd be OK with deferring to the judgement of an individual admin, either the closer of this appeal or any uninvolved admin, instead of having another community appeal. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At AE we've previously granted reductions that could be fully lifted by any uninvolved admin after a certain period of time. See for instance the case of 3Kingdoms. (No opinion on this case; just saying there's precedent.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 19:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was also thinking of the Princess of Ara case, where her topic ban was replaced by a 6 month 1RR restriction on the same subject. In my case, I'm fine with anywhere between 6 months to a year for my 1RR restriction; I just do not want to waste mine or anybody else's time on a second appeal. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And I am aware that most contentious topics, including GENSEX, have a topic-wide 1RR, which I will abide by even after my own 1RR restriction expires. And I realize my past disruption is worth some extra caution for some extra time. But at a certain point, I'd like to no longer be under the extra scrutiny, and don't want to waste mine or anyone's time getting my name fully off of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by involved editors

    • Oppose - This thread on your talk page from just over a month ago appears to indicate that you are still engaged in disruptive editing and not actually engaging in consensus building with other editors - "I'm sorry to have to say that your edits - even if made in good faith - are consistently poor and have become increasingly disruptive. You have been asked to make edits one by one, for discussion, but you have ignored that request, and the vast majority of your contributions are having to be reverted or re-written by other editors." by @MichaelMaggs. Comments such as these that appear in a non-contentious topic area, do not bode well for what may happen in more contentious areas. As you said yourself, you don't actually plan to return to the topic banned WP:GENSEX area and the block for it appeared to have happened exactly 6 months ago, so maybe some more time is needed to show you are editing without disruption outside of contentious (or non-contentious as above) topics for 6 months and then come back and we can revisit this again. Almost 10% of your edits appear to have been reverted, many of which were after the CTOP ban from GENSEX in May, including some in the AMPOL area. Raladic (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Raladic: Please read further down in the thread, because I actually am participating in consensus building. I can see how you made that mistake from the first comment, but I really am trying to work on building consensuses with other users. MichaelMaggs replies Thank you for responding here. Following the suggestion of the IP editor, let's continue to work from where we are. Also read his talk page, where he gives further advice, he gives his reasoning, and I actually accept his reasoning and apply it to edits on another page. Thank you for letting me know what would be good practice in this situation. I noticed that the plot summary of Inside Out (2015 film) needed some cleanup, and although that page doesn't seem like it's under collaborative development, and decided to heed your advice by making multiple but more incremental edits. What had happened what that I misunderstood "one by one" as one edit total until another user comes in, rather than one change per edit, which I fixed after the latter discussion. Also, please read the second bullet point about my participation in events surrounding the election, which is a separate contentious topic where I have not been in any major disputes in. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your thanks and apologies happened after the user deemed it was necessary to come to your talk page and alert you to your disruption. When assessing a topic ban lift, we are looking at general conduct including disruption that is not recognized by the user in question by themself ahead of time. That's why I mentioned above, the best course of action is probably to come back in another several months of time where no user had to come to alert you to disruptive editing, since that was also part of the reason for the GENSEX ban. Raladic (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    About that And Then There Were None discussion, a third person reverted it back to a similar version to mine here. Reverts are simply a natural part of WP:BRD, and as I said in this very appeal, the discussion ended amicably and calmly. In fact, I specifically kept the discussion on my talk page as an example of me learning to work collegially, so it's disappointing to see only the negativity focused on. As for some of the other reverts, some were reverted back to my version by a third user, with this one I properly set up a discussion rather than edit warring, and many of the others were self-reverts (including to my own talk page) because I quickly realized I made a mistake. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Raladic: If you're focusing on one discussion that started negatively (but still ended positively), I'd like to highlight the discussions where my contributions were positive pretty much the whole way through. See my comments on Talk:Darkstalkers, Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida, Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, and Talk:2024 United States presidential election. I would also be willing to lift the Tban and replace it with a 1RR restriction on GENSEX topics. Preferably one that expires in anywhere between six months to a year (that way I wouldn't need to ask again to be removed from the partial blacklist on the wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Active_editing_restrictions list, as my username being there gives me a lot of stress), but if my appeal can only pass if it is replaced by an indefinite 1RR restriction specifically on GENSEX topics, so be it. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnamed anon, only one editor has weighed in yet on the prospect of lifting your topic ban. Wait until more admins have commented before offering counter-proposals. You need to be patient. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I am disclosing that I was the blocking adminstrator during the incident that ultimately led to the topic ban. In general, I oppose lifting topic bans when an editor asks for a topic ban to be lifted while simultaneously saying that they have no interest in or plans to edit in that topic area. In my opinion, such requests come off as disingenuous and are a waste of time of other editors who need to spend valuable volunteer time evaluating the appeal. Which brings to mind a comment I made on May 21, 2024 on the editor's talk page: The one thing that I will say now is that I am very concerned about this editor's tendency to waste other editors time. I feel the same today. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cullen328: I guess I do owe an explanation for why I'm even asking for the Tban to be lifted (or loosened to 1RR). Like I said, I don't want to have to second-guess if any edit to certain pages would be a breach of my topic ban, even if said edit is entirely unrelated to anything GENSEX. To mind currently, four events led to this realization.
      1. I was adding redirects of full names for characters from Overwatch for those who were missing such redirects (i.e. I added the missing Brigitte Lindholm redirect for Brigitte (Overwatch)). One of the characters with a missing redirect, Zarya (Overwatch) (missing redirect Aleksandra Zaryanova), has the lede say Despite her sexuality not being explicitly discussed by Blizzard, many Western fans have viewed her as a lesbian, and said content takes up quite a bit of the reception section. I have no idea of creating the real name redirect on such a page would have been a breach of my topic ban, and in the long term it would save everyone's time, including my own, to just get the Tban lifted instead of needing to ask or second-guess if a minor edit is okay.
      2. The other was on Talk:Twitter, where a user invited others to Talk:StoneToss#Twitter or X regarding whether to call the site Twitter or X. I could productively contribute to the discussion there about what to call Twitter/X, as I had been doing on the main Twitter page, but StoneToss's article's lede mentions it including transphobic and homophobic views. I have no idea whether contributing to the Stonetoss talk page about Twitter, even if I wasn't going to comment about related to Stonetoss or their content at all, would be a breach of the Topic Ban.
      3. Liko (Pokémon) says that She has also been highlighted for her status as the series' first female main character, which is only partially true (there were plenty of previous female main characters), and I was considering changing "main character" to "protagonist". The page is completely unrelated to anything queer-related, but WP:GENSEX says that discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects, so even though misogyny was never something I have been on the hot seat for, I didn't want to risk breaking any terms of the Tban.
      4. In June, I was considering !voting keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morrigan Aensland. However, at the time, said character had categories saying she was bisexual (which were recently removed by another user as unsourced), so I didn't know if commenting on that AfD would breach my topic ban. Even without that, part of the character's notability comes from fan-made pornography and sex appeal, so again, I didn't want to risk breaching my Topic Ban if non-queer sexualization applied to GENSEX.
      Unnamed anon (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the fence I remember the furor over the queerphobia essay and some of the statements Unnamed anon made at that time were alarming, to say the least. However bans are supposed to be preventative and not punative. With that in mind, as much as I was personally appalled by what they said then, this shouldn't be entirely what guides us now. I would like to know how they intend to respond if they find themselves in a similar situation in the future should their tban be ended. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Simonm223: Thank you for giving me a chance. If I find myself in a similar situation in the future, I will refrain from the following:
      1. grouping or stereotyping editors by their sexuality in a debate. Under no circumstances was that okay of me to do that.
      2. offensive statements such as sexual deviancy (which I had already disavowed back in May and still disavow). If I suspect a statement is offensive, I will stop, and either strike or ask if it's offensive.
      3. using a single talk page comment as a cue to add an edit. If you look at most discussions I have been a part of since the Tban, I have refrained from adding the edit to the page until there was a clear consensus.
      4. In a WP:COMPLICATEDTALK situation, or in other words I lack the full knowledge of a situation (such as when I wrongly thought 7 year olds were getting genital surgeries), i will stay out of the situation, or, if I am asked to reply back, will acknowledge my lack of knowledge.
      5. If I even suspect that any comment of mine has a chilling effect on queer users or is otherwise disruptive, I will immediately stop, and likely strike the comment.
      6. I will no longer assume any lgbt editor of a conflict of interest in any situation.
      7. To prevent any sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND coming up again, I will always assume good faith, and if another user's comment feels out-of-line, I will not snap back at all, and simply reply calmly
      8. I will not introduce any less-than neutral language into GENSEX articles. If I suspect that an edit is less than neutral, I will stop, and likely revert or directly ask somebody else if my edit was non-neutral, or in some cases both.
      9. If a gender or sexuality is under dispute for a BLP or a fictional character and I am somehow involved, I will not bring my own personal views into the discussion; I will simply look at the sources about the BLP/character and whatever comment I make will be based entirely off of said sources.
      10. In contexts of a trans character/BLP pre-transition using current pronouns/names, I will no longer state nor imply that it is history revisionism. Per MOS:GENDERID, these pages must use current names/pronouns aside from a single mention if notable.
      11. In discussions, I will refrain from replying on every single reply that holds a different opinion. I'll acknowledge this is an exception right now because I want to prove that my views have changed and I won't repeat my alarming statements. But in normal discussions, I have learned that replying to every single opposing comment is disruptive and WP:BLUDGEON. You can look at my comments on Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania and Talk: Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida as examples of me being productive in discussions.
      I hope I explained thoroughly how I have changed and will not repeat the mistakes, disruption, and chilling effect statements that led to my topic ban. If you have or anybody else have any more questions, feel free to ask. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In light of the above commitment I would Support a relaxation of thd t-ban to a 1RR restriction. Simonm223 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support relaxing the t-ban to a 1RR. While I see some comments from Unnamed anon that tread a little close to WP:TEXTWALL and WP:BLUDGEONING, I'm not seeing the attitude that caused me to support the t-ban back in May. Based on this response, I think UA gets what led to the t-ban, and has a good understanding of how to avoid repeating their mistakes. CambrianCrab (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Unnamed anon is probably thoroughly aware of my views on their approach, etc., a couple of years ago. but while it's a bit soon to lifting the restriction completely, a reduction to 1RR should stop edit-warring, and I don't see the belligerence or battleground behavior that was so prevalent back then. I think they've been working away diligently and avoiding major pitfalls. What more can we ask for—or expect? SerialNumber54129 13:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry if this is a bit hasty, but I've noticed a group of new editors that seem to have a good-faith interest in improving the site; unfortunately, almost all of their edits need to be reverted, and they do not respond to talk page communications. They seem to have registered around the same time and edit the same pages (e.g. Education in Africa, African art, Victor Ochei, Relationship Quality) making many of the same errors. One of them—Ekipnse1.0 (talk · contribs)—has already been blocked for disruptive editing, and their reply shows no understanding of why but does seemingly reveal they're working IRL with others in some manner.

    This is a bit overwhelming to deal with, and I don't want to overreach in the clean-up here, but I need some help at bare minimum. Here are all the accounts I'm pretty sure are members, though there are likely more if there is indeed such a group:

    Remsense ‥ 论 06:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Remsense, you might want to notify WP:EDUN, in case this is related to some kind of class project. -- asilvering (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Remsense ‥ 论 06:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to UTRS appeal #97183, it's an Edit-a-thon. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is a group focusing on improving wikipedia articles from Nigeria. Our major area of edit is copyedit. Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know how to say this in the most polite way since I know everyone is trying to improve the site, but I have needed to revert almost all of the edits made by members of this group. Almost all of them are introducing errors of some kind. If I am being honest, I have to state plainly that this is not helping the site, but is in fact creating much more clean-up work for editors to do. I do not feel like I have the right to tell an edit-a-thon to stop, but it seems like this would be the ideal result for the wiki as it stands. Apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 07:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this. While some edits are a matter of English variety, many others just plain violate the WP:MOS, MOS:LINK, and other elements of the MOS, which must be fixed. I documented a few at User_talk:FavourErusiac18#November_2024, but anyone taking a look at the contributions of involved editors can see a clear pattern. Editor outreach is important, but the output has to at least be a net positive. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if these are mobile editors than WP:ICANTHEARYOU might apply to get them to engage with these concerns. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nnamdi Kinghenry: Wikipedia exists in many languages, including Hausa (link), Igbo (link), and Yoruba (link). If the people in your group lack the proficiency to copy-edit in English (which there is no shame in! I speak fluent French but can't easily copy-edit in it), perhaps they would be able to help more on one of those Wikipedias, which, besides, are in much greater need of new editors. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 07:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I perfectly understand your point. My group and I have discussed and we've realized where we went wrong. Some of the team members failed to consult our instructors (team leads) before publishing edits. Trust me, we are going to work to ensure this mistake is not repeated. Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The last thing I want to do is discourage editors whose inclusion would make our community more diverse, so I hope my concerns are being taken in good faith here. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论 08:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We truly appreciate your corrections, and we take your concerns to heart. Please accept our sincere apologies, and thank you very much for your understanding. Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I would also suggest is participants always reference our WP:Manual of Style, which is pretty easily searchable as well. Thank you for being receptive. Remsense ‥ 论 08:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nnamdi Kinghenry, if you are in a organizing position in this edit-a-thon, I must confess that seeing edits like this one makes me suspect the supervisors are themselves not adequately well-versed in English grammar and style to be able to contribute constructively. Remsense ‥ 论 09:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What worries me is that they intend continuing to create problems until 2 December [7] - I really think this should be shut down now. - Arjayay (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I've just spent time correcting egregious editing mistakes made by one of these editors, who is clearly not competent to be editing English WP. Their project here should be shut down immediately. Carlstak (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for your observation. As I mentioned earlier, my team and I are strictly adhering to Wiki's guidelines to ensure that all edits we make are error-free. I can also assure you that all the editors on the team are proficient in the English language.
    In regards to this, I humbly request that you explain some of the errors you have seen in our work/edits. This will also help us stay on the right track and prevent further complications.
    Thank you so much for your concern and understanding. Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit linked by Remsense adds "who is", which is unnecessary, and "way", also unnecessary and less formal. Changing "and" to "that is" shifted the subject of the later text in a way that changed the meaning of the sentence. CMD (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please just stop the unwanted edit-a-thon and save us all a lot of work? Apparently you have a team, but we don't see that team reverting the poor edits made by many people in this edit-a-thon, instead placing this burden on other editors here. The few improvements made through this project don't justify the large costs, and your assurances sound very hollow. Fram (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you don't need us to "explain some of the errors" you produced here, they should be rather obvious. Fram (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, but while I know you intend to adhere to our guidelines, you simply are not doing so in practice. While the edits have gotten better, more are still errors for others to undo or clean up than are actual improvements. I really dislike the idea of dictating terms, but perhaps whatever group this is can call off the edit-a-thon for now, spend a bit of time studying our Manual of Style, and then maybe try again once all the participants feel they have a solid grasp of it. There are too many errors of diverse kinds for this endeavor to be viable, please understand that. Most of the participants' time is being wasted as well, since most of their edits have been reverted.Remsense ‥ 论 16:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nnamdi Kinghenry: I believe you that everyone is proficient in English. But proficiency is not the same thing as competence to copy-edit. Like I said, I am proficient in French—to the extent that you could drop me in the middle of France and forbid me from ever speaking English again, and I would be able to communicate perfectly... And yet, on the very rare occasions that I copy-edit the French Wikipedia, I do so very very cautiously, repeatedly checking their style guide, because I understand that my day-to-day proficiency doesn't make me a good copy-editor. Your participants are writing things like "In 1940s, the educational history started in Abeokuta". That is not proficient English. It's close enough to proficient English that, if it were a first draft of an article, it might not be an issue, but it's an issue when that's a change away from the previous "The 1940s were the start of educational history in Abeokuta" (which is problematic for other reasons, but at least better in relative terms). Please understand, this isn't purely an issue with English as a learned language, or a matter of any particular dialect of English. As someone who occasionally freelances as a copy-editor in English, I can tell you, I'd be out of work if not for the many native English speakers who don't know how to use commas, tenses, capital letters, etc. Still, I'll reiterate my suggestion that your participants may be better at copy-editing in other languages. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 18:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I came here to say that I have also had to manually revert several good-faith-but-disruptive edits by some of these editors, and that I think something should be done to stop this group. Also: I suspect — in fact, I would even say that I am fairly confident about this — that some of the edits I reverted might have been AI suggestions.
    @Nnamdi Kinghenry: look at the contributions of a user such as @Olamide Sharon. They are all good-faith, but pretty much all of them have had to be reverted (this is not immediately apparent from this user's list of contributions, because some of their edits have had to be reverted manually; but even then, looking at the proportion of "reverted" tags should tell you there is a problem). This is wasting everyone's time. Please make it stop. Malparti (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at things like this from today, I agree that this is yet another problematic Nigerian editing project and that it would be best if it was shut down and some of the editors warned and if necessary blocked per WP:CIR. Fram (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If any of the above accounts have been warned and continue to edit disruptively, let us know - I am happy to block to prevent further disruption. GiantSnowman 16:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nnamdi Kinghenry: You asked above for an explanation of some of the errors in your group's edits, so that you can improve them. The edit at Bangladeshi English literature by Edifyhub linked above by Fram begins with a change from is also now referred to to is referrers' to, a gross syntax error. The change from He is more remembered for his social reforms, but also contributed to to He was remembered for his social reforms, also contributed to breaks the syntax less seriously—"contributed" is left without a subject by breakage of the parallel structure—but reduces the meaning by removing "more" and changes it by implying he is no longer remembered. Not a matter of grammar or meaning but of protocol in quotation, the removal of the brackets from [h]e at the start of a quotation misrepresents the quote as not having been the start of a new sentence in the original. This copyedit degraded rather than improved the article. Furthermore, Fram could usefully have linked to the previous edit, by Alexjos1858. That edit began by confusing the syntax of the opening sentence, changing refers to the body of literary work written in the English language in Bangladesh and the Bangladeshi diaspora to refers to the body of literary works written in English language, Bangladesh and Bangladeshi diaspora, where the omission of "the" is an error and the new comma is required to do altogether too much work; the change from "work" to "works" mentioned in the edit summary is more a matter of taste, but "body of work" is a fixed phrase so better left that way. The change from is a writer, translator and academic to is a writer, translator and an academic breaks grammatical parallelism. Most seriously, the edit introduced numerous subject–verb agreement errors: Early prominent Bengali writers in English includes; Modern writers of the Bangladeshi diaspora includes; The following lists shows; Notable works includes; ecstasies and frustrations engulfs; His works includes, Her pangs of separation adds; The contemporary Bangladeshi English writers ... who represents; diaspora generations who are living abroad and feels; the first-generation Bangladeshi immigrants who feels (the last one produced by pluralisation of the subject rather than sticking an -s on the verb, 2 instances of which the editor listed in their edit summary as if they thought it required for plural subjects). Overall, that was a very bad edit. (It did, however, fix one agreement error, changing the narrative of the stories entangle to the narrative of the stories entangles, add the missing indefinite article to still virgin, and remove an erroneous space between full stop/period and reference. Both editors missed 2 instances of Hindu college.) Both edits degraded the article and have now been reverted by Remsense; editors who introduce those kinds of errors, especially the agreement errors, should not be copyediting in English. In addition, Alexjos1858's edit is tagged "Newcomer task" and "Newcomer task: copyedit", but the only maintenance tag I see on the article relates to its referencing. Is this task force/editathon misinterpreting inclusion in the suggested tasks list as meaning the article needs copyediting? There's a specific category for that. "Copyediting" articles that haven't been flagged as needing it—and usually have been looked over by several editors with native or near-native English competency—is at best a wasted effort, and finding so many things to change in an article like that should have been a signal that maybe your group is doing copyediting wrong. This effort should be scrapped and rethought. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And this is the latest edit from the person leading this editathon. Little added value, and at least two clear errors (changing "In" to "n" and changing "the operation and the other" to "the operation, while and the other"). Enough already. Fram (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think copyediting is working here. We undeniably need more material on west African topics, perhaps focus on that rather than English corrections as people are not understanding the tone and are making things worse. Secretlondon (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Example: yesterday, 3 editors from this project descended on one article, resulting in an article which was clearly worse in many respects: [8]. This comes after all assurances that things would get stopped, improved, checked, ... Fram (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For some reason (to avoid scrutiny?) they have now switched from the newcomer tasks to editing other articles in the same vein. I already gave the example below of Kinghenry editing a featured article, but Akujobi Chimezie Blessed, Alexjos1858, FavourErusiac18, Giddy001, Ojemba24 and Olamide Sharon have all suddenly today started editing outside the newcomer tasks. I doubt it is an improvement to let these editors loose on articles like Literature, Guinness World Records or Jeff Bezos... Fram (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mainspace block for Nnamdi Kinghenry

    Can someone please mainspace block User:Nnamdi Kinghenry? After all the above, they now changed "The company also engages in the manufacturing, installation, wholesale, and retail of various types of electrical and mechanical equipment" into "The company also manufactures, installs, wholesales and retails, and wide range of electrical and mechanical equipment"[9]. Coupled with the copyvio warnings from Diannaa, and the problematic results when they try anything more than just copy-editing (e.g. this from yesterday), and we are left with a net negative. With a mainspace block, they can perhaps finally start with the projectspace edits to coordinate and improve this project they are leading. Fram (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fram Also: to me, the edit summary "The text was refined for clarity, conciseness, and consistency. "Established" was replaced with "founded" for a more direct tone, and operations were described as "globally expanded" with an 8% market share for brevity. "Representing" was adjusted to "accounting for" to enhance flow. The second paragraph was streamlined by replacing "various types of" with "a wide range of" and improving specificity by changing "telecommunication equipment" to "telecommunication devices."" screams ChatGPT (or some other LLM)... Malparti (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please @Asilvering, Is it wrong to use AI in writing edit summary? Once or twice, i think i have used AI to refine my edit summaries to make sure they are well constructed and readable for other editors.
    I feel like there is nothing wrong with that. @Asilvering Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Using AI in edit summaries is discouraged as it might not know why you made specific changes, and doesn't always have a good grasp of Wikipedia policies and of the Manual of Style. Using wording like "globally expanded" can sometimes add a promotional tone and isn't necessarily recommended, while switching "various types of" to "a wide range of" doesn't really "streamline" anything and only replaces an expression by a mildly more promotional synonym. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nnamdi Kinghenry, there's nothing about using AI to write an edit summary that is against the rules - to be honest, this is probably one of the least bad ways to use generative AI on Wikipedia. But along with what Chaotic Enby has said, the problem with using AI is that it makes you look incompetent. When other editors are already raising concerns about your ability to do copy-editing work, using AI is a really bad look. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also add, now that I'm looking at everyone else's contributions to figure out if everyone involved needs a time out, these AI-generated summaries are really annoying. -- asilvering (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nnamdi Kinghenry Using AI to improve phrasing / correct spelling mistakes in edit summaries is fine, although completely unnecessary: no one cares how beautifully edit summaries are written as long as they are clear. Moreover, I would assume that when you decide to change something in an article, you know exactly why and are be able to explain it without the need for an AI (which can only give a factual description of the changes and a guess as to what they try to achieve — something other editors could also come-up with simply by looking at the diff).
    The problem is that, in the case of your group (where many of edits were "change for the sake of change" — or, as ChatGPT would put it "rewording of for clarity, conciseness, and structural consistency"), it also suggests that some of the edits themselves were done using AI. As, as a matter of fact, I'm convinced I came across a few instances where the editor simply pasted a paragraph in ChatGPT, asking it to correct mistakes and improve it; and then copied the output in Wikipedia.
    Also: "Once or twice, i think i have used AI to refine my edit summaries" → I believe you are lying and that a few hours prior to writing this you had been using some AI to write way more more than two edit summaries; and same thing the day before that. So, unless I am mistaken, "Yes, I have used AI to refine my edit summaries several times" would have been a more honest reply. Being dishonest is not helping your cause. Malparti (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pblocked. Sheesh. -- asilvering (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that he's responded on his talk page, but I've encouraged him to participate in this thread and address the concerns of editors here. I have no objection to any other admin lifting this block if it's judged to no longer be necessary. -- asilvering (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Fram. I understand your concern in ensuring all edits made on this space follows the standards. But i humbly do not see reasons why you made a reference on the edit i made on this article. Comparing the initial article to what i edited it to, one can see that there is nothing wrong with the edit. What i did there was simply copy editing.
    Correct me if I'm wrong; "Copy editing encompasses a wide range of tasks. Copy editors not only correct spelling and grammar errors but also improve sentence structure, eliminate jargon, and ensure consistency in style and tone. They verify facts, conduct research to fill any knowledge gaps, and suggest changes to enhance clarity and impact". What i did in that article was carefully improving the sentence structure, ensuring consistency of the style and tone.
    I feel it's rather too personal that you suggested my account to be mainspace blocked; all editors cannot have the same understanding about an article. I think is rather more ethical that you simply call my attention when you don't agree with my edits while we put heads together to come up with something better. We all have just one aim here; to contribute to improving wikipedia community
    I humbly seek that you see reasons with me...
    Thank you so much. Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You changed a sentence to this: The company also manufactures, installs, wholesales and retails, and wide range of electrical and mechanical equipment, including telecommunication devices and home appliances. That is not grammatically correct English. It's one thing to make an error once in a while, everyone does. But if you do not understand what is wrong with that even after someone points out the edit as a problem, you should not be copy editing. MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much @MrOllie. I think i understand now the mistake.
    Thank you. Nnamdi Kinghenry (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MrOllie beat me to it: You are wrong. If you can't see what's wrong with: "The company also manufactures, installs, wholesales and retails, and wide range of electrical and mechanical equipment, including...", you should not be "copyediting" anything. You and your crew are messing up articles. Please cease and desist. Carlstak (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For some reason, they today tried their copy-editing skills with the featured article(!) Michael Jordan: this changed e.g. "Citing physical and mental exhaustion from basketball and superstardom, Jordan abruptly retired from basketball before the 1993–94 NBA season" to "In [[1993 NBA Finals|1993,]] citing physical and mental exhaustion from basketball and superstardom, Jordan retired before 1993–94 NBA season" (nowiki added by me to show the easter egg piping, including the comma within the link, linking to the final for no good reason at all as that was not when this happened: note also the missing "the" near the end). Fram (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nnamdi Kinghenry: If you have to use ChatGPT or something to ensure your edit summary is clear—when all it is is a summary of what you did—that in itself indicates you should not be copyediting articles for clarity. I wrote a lengthy comment above, laying out the English errors in two edits by different participants in your editathon. I see you continuing to thank people for explaining, here and on your talk page, but you have not said you understand that the grammar and syntax in the edits by the group are not good enough, and are not improvements but make the articles worse. I made the point that if an article is not tagged as needing copyedit, it probably doesn't need a copyedit anyway, and the fact that editors in your group—including you—see a need to make copyediting changes is a sign that your judgement of what is and is not good and clear English is poor. Since the disruption has continued and indeed has spread to articles recognised as among our best, the whole group should be p-blocked from article space, not just you. It's a pity, because en.wiki badly needs more articles on Nigerian topics, and more references to reliable sources in those we have. (Indeed both of those are needs not just in Nigerian topics.) But it does not need copyedits from people whose English is not up to the task.

    I'm also disturbed by the middle paragraph of the passage at the top of User talk:Alexjos1858 (added by the editor on 29 October to start the page): I am always open to collaborate with you reading this. I will be breaking a Guinness World Record which is the longest Edit-a-thon Nigeria, next month. I'm going to work a lot for those days of marathon editing. Is that the reason for this editathon, attempting to break a Guinness World Record? If so, I object to en.wiki being disrupted as a quasi-sport. P-block the whole group, please. (In any case, Nnamdi Kinghenry has at least been engaging with us, albeit apparently via an LLM.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, so the "Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1239 § Longest Edit-a-thon official Guinness World Record attempt on Wikipedia" question comes from the same group. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to engage in good faith so far, but if that's the real aim here that is an incredibly egregious waste of our time and that of the editors. Remsense ‥ 论 01:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm working my way through the list blocking the worst offenders. So far I've observed that not all of them have been equally warned, so in some cases I'll just be leaving a final warning for now. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering, I leave it to you if you think Danielehisaiguokhian (OP of the above Teahouse post) should be part of the list. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rotideypoc41352, thanks for the reminder. I've added them to the list and left a note on their talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Things editathon participants can do that aren't copyediting

    Okay. So you're blocked from editing or worried about being blocked from editing and you still want to take part in this editathon. If this describes you, I'm honestly pretty impressed with your persistence and I'd like you to keep editing. But I really, really do not want you to keep making copyedits that drive everyone else crazy. Here are some other things you can do:

    I'm sure other editors can give other suggestions, too. Just lay off the copy edits, please. -- asilvering (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're blocked for 31 hours, please spend the time you'd have spent editing reading guides like WP:V and WP:RS. If you're blocked from mainspace, you can still engage on article talk pages and elsewhere in the project. -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your message. The notifications shows that we're both in same thought to improve articles on Wikipedia. But I'd like to draw your attention to something important. The idea of discouraging "good-faith editors" from the platform is alarming. I've hardly seen where editors are praised for contributing well. Its been from one criticism to another when they mistakenly do something wrong. I think editors at all levels need to be encouraged to do better as most experts were once there.
    This is my observation honestly. We can do better. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have offered plenty of constructive advice and guidance to editors attempting to improve the encyclopedia here. Frankly, your criticism is totally unwarranted. The edit-a-thon has produced a sizable mess, and we've been very patient so far. It should've been stopped or reconsidered earlier, and these are merely the minimum necessary measures we need to take to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. That is the only reason why blocks are given, which you would know if you've consulted any of the links posted so far.
    Given repeated warnings were given to editors beforehand and the competitive nature of why they are editing, it is totally expected that continued disruption would earn a temporary block, regardless of whether they were editing in good faith. Remsense ‥ 论 04:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your patience. I understand your point. So, what's the way forward now? Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been many points of advice already offered to editors in this thread. Remsense ‥ 论 04:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay. We'll work with it. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Great, yet another one states "my team are currently working on our mistakes" (and the previous message, "we made a few mistakes"), but is now threatening Remsense in a rather over the top fashion: "It was Remsense that defamed us and that is sacrilegious." and "If other experienced editors from those countries mentioned above sees this, Remsense won't find it funny again." This from an editor who has had countless of his recent edits reverted (not just the ones tagged as reverted, but also things like this or this or this dreadful one, changing "wire fence" to "wired fence" "because the tone there is a past tense."). This feels more and more like an elaborate group trolling us, instead of an actual effort to improve Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    PIA shizzle

    Hi, is there an appropriate warning template for a newish (non ec) editor adding PIA content to an article that isn't itself tagged as PIA? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think just {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} suffices, right? Remsense ‥ 论 11:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably can add {{welcome-arbpia}} as well (friendly version of alert/first that uses the language "prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict"). Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) :@Remsense: Yes, that looks like it. I nearly fell off my chair when I got the big scary warning about warning people you get when you try to warn someone with it though. There should be some kind of warning. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Moderator Tools newsletter - Issue #2

    Welcome to issue #2 of the Moderator Tools newsletter! It's been about a year since the first one (sorry for the delay), but we're excited to tell you what our team has been working on since then, and where you can guide our ongoing and upcoming work.

    Automoderator

    Automoderator's configuration page as of September 2024.

    Automoderator is now feature-complete for its initial release! Automoderator is a highly configurable automated anti-vandalism tool which reverts edits that a machine learning model determines to be vandalism. It can be enabled, disabled, and configured at any time by administrators via a Community Configuration form. Automoderator is now in use on Indonesian, Turkish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese Wikipedias, with other projects at various stages of discussion and setup. You can track data about Automoderator's activity so far via a Superset dashboard. To request Automoderator on your Wikimedia project, please refer to the deployment steps.

    We are wrapping up our focused time developing Automoderator while we review data and feedback about its impact. We also still plan to provide support for small Wikimedia projects with few/no administrators (T372280), and integrate the multilingual revert risk model, which is an improved version of the model currently in use, with support for 47 language Wikipedias. We're looking for support testing the multilingual model to better understand its behaviour - please check out the testing process and review some edits!

    Nuke extension ('Mass delete')

    During the 2024-2025 Wikimedia Foundation fiscal year, our team wants to make improvements to the software that moderators (patrollers, administrators, stewards, etc.) are using today, rather than focusing on building new tools. Although it's valuable to build new features, it's also important that we continue maintaining the important tools that are already being used to maintain and improve Wikipedia's quality.

    Nuke search interface.

    One such project is to make usability and feature improvements to the Nuke extension (known as 'mass delete' on some projects). We have contracted a community developer, Chlod, who has worked on the extension in the past, to help us with this! With the Nuke project, we hope to make a number of improvements, including additional filters, increasing the deletion time range, automated deletion of related pages, and bug fixes. Read more about this project, and provide feedback, at Extension:Nuke/2024 Moderator Tools project.

    Recent Changes

    As part of our efforts to improve existing impactful moderator tooling, we are working on a project for a few months to make improvements to Special:RecentChanges and related workflows. We will be prioritizing work for this project on an ongoing basis, but have some larger projects that we will solicit input for via our project page. We have a brief survey at Moderator Tools/Survey:Recent Changes to gather input for this project - please answer the questions if you're interested.

    Task prioritization

    Finally, looking to the future, we plan to research and work on tasks identified as part of the Community Wishlist focus area titled 'task prioritization'. We'll be looking for opportunities to speak with editors about how they decide what needs their attention, and in particular will be investigating the Watchlist to see where we might be able to make usability and feature improvements. If you have thoughts about opportunities in this focus area please share them on the task prioritization talk page, or file a new wish!

    Although we have active engineering projects ongoing, we're always happy to chat about your community's content moderation tool needs - feel free to get in contact at Talk:Moderator Tools to let us know where you think we should focus our efforts. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unban appeal of User:Baqiyah

    Seeing as the requester just had a confirmed sock blocked earlier today, closing this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The following is the appeal of Baqiyah, who is requesting that their 3X ban be removed. I am bringing this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Mods!

    First and foremost, I want to offer my sincere apologies for my past mistakes. I recognize the harm I caused, and I am committed to facing my actions and working to regain the trust of this community. It has been around eight months or so since I was last blocked, and during this time, I deeply reflected on my actions and fully understood the gravity of my past violations. I also took the time to further educate myself on the do's and don'ts of Wikipedia in order to never repeat any of the same mistakes again. After waiting more than the mandatory six-month period since my block, I am now requesting the opportunity to appeal my ban through the WP:UNBAN process.

    To provide some context and clarity, I’d like to explain how things went wrong. I began editing with my main account, YousefSW07 , without a clear focus or understanding of Wikipedia's policies. My edits were indiscriminate, and I lacked knowledge about the topics I was editing. As a result, I made many mistakes, including engaging in edit wars and arguing with administrators, unaware that these actions were violations of community guidelines. When that account was blocked, I created S Molecular in an attempt to bypass the restrictions, stupidly thinking I could continue editing undetected. I engaged in more edit warring and was eventually banned and caught for sock puppetry. I now fully understand that I should not have done this whatsoever and there is no justification for what I did.

    Instead of learning from my mistakes, I created several other accounts—Burhim, Lybcarian, Walgart, and FazeTK—thinking I could simply avoid violating the guidelines and escape detection. But I was wrong, and I was banned on all of these accounts as well. After a short period of time, I created Baqiyah, stupidly thinking that if I started fresh and followed the guidelines, I should be fine. I worked on creating new pages and made efforts to abide by the rules, but I was still a sockpuppet, I was then caught again, as I should have.

    At this point, I took a break from editing and waited out the mandatory six-month period before appealing. Since then, I have spent additional time reflecting on the harm I caused and disciplining myself. I fully understand why I was banned multiple times, and I sincerely apologize for my actions and the disruption they caused to the community.

    I now realize that true contribution to Wikipedia requires a commitment to the community's values (collaboration, transparency, and respect for policies). I am truly sorry for betraying those values in the past, and I am asking for the chance to prove that I can contribute constructively moving forward. I want to be an active, positive part of Wikipedia, working alongside other editors and adhering strictly to the rules. I also very much understand if there is any concern regarding my unban and am willing to answer any questions you may have.

    I humbly ask for the opportunity to rejoin the community and contribute in a way that reflects the integrity and spirit of Wikipedia.

    Thank you for considering my appeal. Sincerely Baqiyah 331dot (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They are  Confirmed to Syria4you and Skibidy rizz. So nope. Spicy (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was easy I guess. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yousefsw07 is the SPI if you want to add that to the record. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More like Ohio rizz. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Issue with reverting major vandalism

    There has been vandalism on the Age of consent article by User:Nhwr, however it cannot be reverted since a url is one of the citations he removed is blocked. Please see the article and you will stright away see the vandalism. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the blacklisted source, reverted the edit, and warned Nhwr. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that the edit in question was made by User:Nhwj, not User:Nhwr. The latter editor hasn't been active for many years. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I warned Nhwj despite typing Nhwr above. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts: I don't get it, Nhwj didn't remove the blacklisted source (you removed it), why was Terrainman's revert setting the blacklist off? – 2804:F1...F1:29EC (::/32) (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    voorts reverted manually and removed the source when they restored the edit. Terrainman was not able to use undo/revert because of the blacklist. At least I think that's what happened, I don't see any filter log entries. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. I tried to revert as well but couldn't because of the blacklist, so I undid the edit and then manually removed the citation to faqs.org. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like @ActivelyDisinterested has fixed the issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah I see, Nhwj's edit broke a reference, which turned the entire By Continents section (and more) into a reference error, this 'removed' the blacklist link (by transforming the part of the text where it was in into the error) which in turn made the algorithm think the revert was 'readding' it.
    It now makes much more sense why Terrainman called it major vandalism, despite it looking like a small change. – 2804:F1...F1:29EC (::/32) (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For future reference in cases like this you can use rollback which ignores the blacklist. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially tried using UltraViolet, which should have used rollback, but that didn't work. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience, some UltraViolet edits are tagged (and presumably use) Undo, while some are tagged Rollback... No idea how it decides between the two, though it seems to show up in the edit summary as well. I mostly use Twinkle myself, and I don't think I've ever seen reverts made from that be tagged as Rollback instead of Undo. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Determining consensus

    Over nine months ago at Talk:Internet_celebrity#Splitting_article I proposed splitting Internet celebrity and Influencer with User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Influencer. No determination has been made. Should I seek administrator action or an WP:RFC or some other process? The topic has already been at WP:RM/TR ([10].-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just at a glance, it isn't clear to me what admin actions you would be looking for. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can admin determine if there is a consensus to split? Can someone give me advice on the propriety of an RFC?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to point this out, this is nine months ago. Frankly, I don't think anyone is going to necessarily feel comfortable closing a discussion that old with any reliable measure of confidence in the outcome. EggRoll97 (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) IMO you can probably WP:JUSTDOIT, since CommunityNotesContributor is the only other contributor to that sandbox article it's probably easier just to copy and paste it into mainspace and note that CommunityNotesContributor also made edits, with or without linking to the diffs. If anyone objects they can do the R and D parts of BRD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why a cut and paste would be better than a move that would preserve the history. The move would require an admin though since the target of the move is already a redirect.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting a page ban for Aearthrise (talk · contribs)

    In under two years, Aearthrise (talk · contribs) has completely dominated the Pennsylvania Dutch-article, contributing over 75% of its content and making 80% of all edits [11][12]. During this period, his personal and professional conduct concerning this article has been highly problematic up to the present: Aearthrise has repeatedly disregarded WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV, shows clear signs of WP:OWN and has made repeated personal attacks and involved himself in edit-warring. Examples of this behavior includes a disregard for using reliable sources and showing bullying behavior [13][14][15] [16][17][18][19][20], pushing personal preferences (demanding a different font be used for the article), edit warring and making insulting remarks [21][22][23][24][25][26][27], spamming (RFC-)discussions with Ai-generated text, trying to remove alternative views and using unreliable and/or unsuitable sources [28][29][30] [31][32][33][34], including this survey [35] on the first 50 references added by Aearthrise, of which nearly half were found to be either untrustworthy, self published and/or more than a century old.

    To put it very bluntly: this user is trying to turn a Wikipedia-article in to a personal page about his own claimed heritage [36]) and is trying to shape this heritage to his own preferences. Users who doubt him or disagree, are either spammed or bullied into submission, or ignored altogether.

    In June 2024, I alerted the admins to much of this behavior (see here), but this request was quickly spammed with text; and although other users did get involved and confirmed Aearthrise's behavior as being highly problematic, no formal action was taken. Despite this, Aearthrise subsequently left the article alone for some time; which essentially froze the conflict. Recently however, Aearthrise has resumed editing the article and immediately started removing all of the cite- and request-for-sources-tags that had been added previously to his remaining and highly dubious sources [37], is once again trying to include wording like "German Pennsylvania" [38] (an article he previously created, which then got deleted for being OR [39]) [40], adding OR [41] and by adding images taken from news sites and uploaded (by Aearthrise himself) to Wikimedia Commons under a false public domain-license.[42]. In other words: he's again repeating his disruptive and damaging MO.

    He has been repeatedly asked to stop his behavior [43][44][45]; but simply refuses to adhere to Wikipedia policy, instead insisting that his outdated/unreliable sources are fine and that others should 'prove him wrong' [46][47].

    In the previous request for intervention here, @SnowFire: made a very poignant analyses of Aearthrise's behavior [48] which he ended with the following remark: "If Aearthrise is satisfied that they can do better and is willing to commit to working collegially forward, and understands that not every random old source they find is necessarily that usable for Wikipedia, there's nothing that needs to be done other than perhaps a warning. If Aearthrise plans on just restarting the edit war, and plans on snidely replying to newbie questions while being wrong himself, then a page ban from Pennsylvania Dutch & Pennsylvania Dutch language may be in order. But I'm hoping that isn't necessary.".

    In light of all that happened a few months ago and all that's seemingly about to repeat itself, I'd like to now formally request for this page ban.

    In my opinion this page ban doesn't need to be permanent, but long enough for (the sources involved with) this article to be thoroughly examined by other users without them being harassed, bullied or spammed while doing so: the pattern of toxicity which has surrounded this article for the past two years, needs to be broken. I kindly ask the admins here to intervene. Vlaemink (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have fully protected the article for one week while this is evaluated further. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Voorts. Unfortunately Vlaemink has been trying to bully me by threatening to complain to administration to get his way. I've told him that he is abusing of the Administration notification system, as he has tried to get me banned from the page before.
    He claimed then that I am doing WP:OWN, but he had no evidence to show that, and indeed I stepped from the article for a half year. Especially now, this is a baseless accusation.
    He is now trying to ban me again because he claims that sources that have an older publish date are automatically unreliable, which responded that it's not the case and that reliable sources are those can be verified, and that he should read WP:AGEMATTERS to understand what categories are time sensitive.
    Vlaemink recently removed content from the page from a source from the United States Government, claiming that it was WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and that it was unreliable, only based on the fact that it was published in 1883. I asked him is the United States Government an unreliable source? And he didn't respond.
    The problem here is a lack of willingness to cooperate or to understand the policies of Wikipedia better.
    Anyhow, you can read the whole history on Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch, and you can see what has happened over time. Aearthrise (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vlaemink: could you please condense this down into about one paragraph, preferably with diffs bulleted and a brief explanation as to how each diff is problematic. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aerthrise's edits at California Cantonese (formerly Chinese Americans in the California gold rush) are also extremely problematic. I have never heard of this term, and none of the sources added use it. Google Scholar has 12 hits for the phrase, and most are splices (... and the news of the Gold Rush of California. Cantonese communities later memorized this large wave of migration). This seems to be either incompetence or synthesis. This is similar to earlier edits (note an AFD from June) and they have no other edits; if no suitable explanation is forthcoming the action should be an indef block and not just a pageban. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to wait for Aerthrise to respond here and for Vlaemink to condense their complaint before I take any action, but another admin should obviously feel free to take any action they see fit. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still looking at the Pennsylvania Dutch article; the two easiest-to-understand complaints (that Aearthrise has made a lot of edits, and that some of the sources are over a century old) are not problematic on their own. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are five citations for California Cantonese:
    "Using the Words that Were Theirs Dialect, Accented Speech and Languages Other Than English in Asian American and American Indian Literature, Barbara Downs Hodne, 1995, pg.18": Through the narrator's perspective, we see California Cantonese as defining a complex and disjunctive linguistic identity.
    "The Story Behind the Dish Classic American Foods, Mark McWilliams, 2012, pg.142": ...the cookies growth from Japanese traditions; another confidently asserts that they are a "true California Cantonese tradition".
    "Departing Tong-Shaan: The Organization and Operation of Cantonese Overseas Emigration to America (1850-1900)
    Volume 4 The Gum-Shaan Chronicles: The Early History of Cantonese-Chinese America, 1850-1900, Douglas W. Lee, PhD, 2024, pg.301": ...Hakka totals, while small, remained somewhat consistent, even as their "market share" declined steadily in the period 1860-1889. The slight change in this group's numbers over the decades is generally insignificant because its totals remained the smallest in nineteenth-century California's Cantonese community.
    "California Magazine - Volume 7, Issues 1-4, University of California, 1982, pg. 91": California's Cantonese considered anything outside of Canton as North. Aearthrise (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Assignment Peking, Issues 1-4, Edward S. Aarons, 1989, pg. 33": She spoke unnaturally, in English. "I can only speak California Cantonese..."
    The California Cantoense name is more recent, as historically this community was usually called "California Chinese", but recent immigration since the reopening of China in the 1970's has made the term also include recent Mandarin speakers, who don't represent the scope of the article. For that reason the more specific was chosen for the sake of clarity. Aearthrise (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also this speech from Walsh90210 about California Cantonese has nothing to do with the complaint Vlaemink is launching now, so lets focus on that instead of opening a separate can of worms. Aearthrise (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is relevant because any problems are not isolated to a single article. That said, there is already a very long discussion about this at Talk:California#California name header, where several other editors have pointed out these issues. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This charge from Vlaemink is isolated to a single article, Pennsylvania Dutch, which has nothing to do with any other articles. You're saying it does, but that's just an opinion. We should stay on track with the issue at hand, not open another can of worms. Aearthrise (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your conduct is at issue here, and your edits regarding other ethnic groups are relevant to your conduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the talk page archives, I see a few possible concerns from the past 18 months at Pennsylvania Dutch:

    • Aearthrise wants certain quotes to be in the Fraktur font. No other editor has supported this, and I do not see any recent edit-warring on the issue.
    • There are disagreements on how to explain that "Dutch" has a shared etymology with "Deutsch". This is a normal part of the editing process; if any Vlaemink's behavior here is more problematic.
    • Poor use of sourcing. This might be where there is a pattern of problematic editing. But the use of quotes from 19th century diaries, etc. isn't necessarily problematic, and Aearthrise doesn't seem hostile towards replacing content sourced to defunct blogs etc.

    Overall, the behavior at Pennsylvania Dutch should be cause for increased scrutiny (and the edit-warring justifies the temporary protection), but I don't see the case for an indef-block based solely on behavior at that article. I am more concerned about the tendentious behavior related to California Cantonese than any diff I have seen at Pennsylvania Dutch. If there are specific diffs I missed among the 38 diffs listed from the past 18 months which are relevant, somebody (ideally Vlaemink) should identify them. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for this summary Walsh90210; as for the Fraktur font, it has already been removed, as we've come to a consensus on the talk page through an RFC post. Aearthrise (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My findings:

    • Aearthrise's incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and dismissive attitude toward other editors appears to be part of a long-term pattern of behavior (see this discussion from August 2023 and this discussion from March 2024).
    • Some examples of Aearthrise's incivility, assumptions of bad faith, casting of aspersions, and personalizing disputes with Vlaemink:
      • Your commentary makes you seem like the type who doesn't like learning, nor wants to learn (the whole purpose of Wikipedia), and is evident based on all of the thin arguments you've proposed. (19 June 2024)
      • This is your problem- you want to operate on ignorance and your emotions rather than from evidence and knowledge, and you've shown that time and time again. Even now, you're showing how your feelings were hurt and trying to use that to win the argument. You have a bruised ego. (20 June 2024)
      • Your actions show that you don't understand Wikipedia policy, instead you follow only what your emotions tell you. Your actions have neither been constructive, nor cooperative. You are just being belligerent for no reason, and you continue to threaten to abuse the Administrator notification system. (26 November 2024)
    • Aearthrise has bludgeoned this ongoing discussion and exhibited an IDHT attitude towards editors who have told him that consensus for his addition is not developing.
    • In terms of content, I'm concerned that Aearthrise thinks that self-published books (Special:Diff/1230587470) and websites (Special:Diff/1230718720) are reliable sources. I'm also concerned with their conflation of historical research and writing (Special:Diff/1259009121), which does value original research of primary sources, with writing an encyclopedic article that summarizes the secondary historical literature.

    I am formally warning Aearthrise that this method of communicating with others is not acceptable. I also think a one-way indefinite IBAN toward Vlaemink would be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your summary voorts.
    I don't understand the terminology "IDHT attitude" nor "IBAN", if that means what you call "bludgeoning" (giving an answer to most responses), but I try to do everything in the best interests of Wikipedia readers, i.e. to give the best quality articles.
    I don't believe self-published books are reliable, as I mentioned about Yorgey's book, "I agree that Yorgey's book should be paired with another quote". It was a personal memoir published from a Pennsylvania Dutchman who lived and faced discrimination during World War 2, and unfortunately has passed away, and I found his memoirs to be a relevant view for the article.
    I don't believe random websites are reliable sources either; I do however attempt to get as many as possible sources to give information to an article- 99% being peer reviewed books (from Google Books) pertinent to the article.
    I understand the importance of reliablity, I also understand the importance of cooperation, and I do cooperate with any community consensus.
    Again I thank you for the effort you put into this investigation, and I wish you all the best voorts. Aearthrise (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aearthrise, you've had an account on Wikipedia for 11 years now. You don't have to be familiar with every policy or guideline acronym but you should know how to look them up: WP:IDNHT and WP:IBAN will inform you of what is being referred to.
    Instead of attacking Vlaemink, did you have a response to all of the diffs/edits he shared in his report on your editing? It would help you if you could respond to any of these personal insults he noted in his complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    About the "diffs that he added, is that he's dredging old posts from early June and July; there was already a consensus we came to on on the older Admin talk page where he reported me earlier.
    I have tried to work very calmly and peacefully with Vlaemink ever since July, and I don't see how any of our new interactions could be considered "toxic". I left the article for him, for half a year, and as soon as I returned to start editing, he didn't want to cooperate at all, and has reverted content on sole basis that it was from older publication date.
    I don't think that it's right that the older diffs are being repeated here, as if this continued behavior since then, it's not.
    I made a pledge to be kinder and not bring ego into the discussions. I used to get frustrated and angry, and all of those diffs that Vlaemink has added are from that older time before July.
    As for the sentence "Your actions show that you don't understand Wikipedia policy, instead you follow only what your emotions tell you. Your actions have neither been constructive, nor cooperative. You are just being belligerent for no reason, and you continue to threaten to abuse the Administrator notification system.", this is in regards to repeatedly claiming that a source from the US government was WP:OR and unreliable only because it had an older publishing date 1883.
    The quote was The High Dutch Pennsylvania Journal, a weekly German newspaper, was founded by Joseph Crellius as early as 1743...., as this was being added for a citation about the High Dutch Pennsylvania being an early newspaper from 1743 on the Pennsylvania Dutch page.
    This is in direct response to an earlier attempt to reason and cooperate with him:
    This is social history, and the social history doesn't change like physics or an applied science. Indeed, the older sources are the best for this culture, as its cultural height was written about mostly before World War 1 and 2.
    Sources don't need to be contemporary to be valid. They only need to be true, so you need to prove that they're untrue or unreliable; just making a claim from them having an older publication date is not a valid reason to say they're unreliable.
    I recommend you read WP:AGE MATTERS to understand what categories are time-sensitive.
    He didn't want to listen to it, and instead acted belligerently, threatening me with complaining to administration for even speaking to him about why sources from older publications in this case are fine.
    I let him know that firmly, but not in disrepectful way- and I explained exactly how I interpreted his actions.
    Now he has complained to the administration, and he's trying very hard to get me banned from editing a page that I have contributed greatly to; all I care about is providing a good article, and if he can help me in that, I am more than grateful for it. Aearthrise (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Thank you for adding the WPs Liz, I appreciate it. Espescially with WP:IDHT, I see that when I do try answer every response, it could be seen as hearing but not listening.
    I'll work on that, and again I thank you. Aearthrise (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I said my piece in the previous discussion. I hope that people do not overly fault Vlaemink for long ANI posts. Just because someone is long-winded doesn't mean they are "wrong", and when I investigated the last time I found that Vlaemink was largely correct in everything they brought up. I remain concerned that Aearthrise's style of analysis and citation is simply not in keeping with Wikipedia expectations, in addition to the attitude and conduct issues. I will hesitantly suggest that Wikisource (for transcribing old books) and Wikibooks (for publishing "heritage" style history works) may be worth an investigation as an alternate place to apply this zeal for the kind of stuff that Aearthrise is interested in? But at the end of the day, if Aearthrise is on Wikipedia, he needs to comply with Wikipedia standards, which means using stuff like old historical documents very carefully, and working collaboratively with others. (Disclaimer: I have not closely examined Aerathrise's more recent conduct, so the above should be taken as related to Vlaemink's previous report + a few diffs from above. I could be convinced if someone wants to argue a deeper dive says otherwise.) SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello again SnowFire, it's good to hear from you; I hope you've been well. I appreciate what you did for me back in July.
      You helped get over a big ego problem after that period, and I took a break from Wikipedia to breathe and get connected with the world.
      Your last message indeed touched me very much:
      I am making one more short comment here so that this thread isn't archived without action. Vlaemink was not very concise in raising the problem, but that doesn't mean it isn't a real problem, IMO. I've posted my own tl;dr analysis above and would encourage at least some admin to wade through the mud to provide some semblance of a way forward for these feuding editors, even the "bad" kind of a-curse-on-both-your-houses.
      You helped me see the light here:
      Thank you SnowFire; I don't want to be cursed, and I don't want Vlaemink to be cursed either: we've had a discussion with very heavy emotions, and lot of mudslinging- the only result of that kind of behavior being a big mess.
      A good Wikipedian should be able to edit without bringing in such strong emotion; in my final words, this whole experience has been a lesson on why it's important to manage frustration and anger.
      Frustration and anger shouldn't be present in article management, and I still hold to that. Perhaps I do make a lot of responses out of habit, but they're not out of anger nor frustration anymore, and I thank you for helping me to get to that understanding.
      That whole ordeal earlier this year meant a lot more to me than you can imagine. Aearthrise (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since another editor got accused of being long winded, I will try my best to be concise. Aearthrise's behavior at Talk: California#California name header has been bizarre, aggressive and incomprehensible. The editor has gotten the notion in their head that there is a non-existent ethnic group in California called the "California Cantonese" and a non-existent language also called "California Cantonese". The fact is that Cantonese immigrants and their descendants in California are not a separate group from similar Cantonese communities in Nevada, New York, New England or British Columbia. Although a search of the entire internet yields a few occasions when the words "California" and "Cantonese" exist side by side, the concept of "California Cantonese" as a distinct ethnic group or language exists only in Aearthrise's mind but not in the scholarly literature. It is synthesis that this editor bludgeoned ad nauseum at Talk:California in recent days. Cullen328 (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Cullen328, I know you're frustrated, but this culture is indeed notable to California, and it is distinct from Cantonese in Modern China.
    Historically this culture has been called "California Chinese", but in recent times this term has also evolved to include foreign Chinese, the majority being Mandarin Speakers, muddying the terms meaning. California Cantonese also exists as a term, and is more specific to this historic ethnicity.
    Here are some citations for this ethnicity under the "California Chinese" name:
    • 25 Events That Shaped Asian American History: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic, Lan Dong, 2019, Bloomsbury Publishing USA, pg. 52:
    "By 1868, many California Chinese had left mining areas in favor of the railroad construction, and more were needed to fulfill labor demands. Most of the Chinese laborers hail from impoverished Cantonese areas, primarily Sunwui and Toishan in the Sze Yup area."
    • From Canton to California: The Epic of Chinese Immigration, Corinne K. Hoexter, 1976, Four Winds Press, pg. 15:
    ...Chinese students. Moreover, he had the ability, unusual for an American, to speak the Cantonese dialect spoken by most California Chinese.
    • Trees in Paradise: A California History, Jared Farmer, 2013, W. W. Norton & Company, pg. 258:
    ...California's Chinese came from a subtropical region (Guangdong Province) with a long history of citriculture, they knew more about oranges than most colonists, who started their orchards in ignorance.
    • Labor Immigration under Capitalism: Asian Workers in the United States Before World War II, Lucie Cheng, Edna Bonacich, 2023, University of California Press, pg. 224, pg. 226:
    ...most of them in turn came from Guangdong province. Largescale Chinese emigration to the United States began shortly after the California gold rush started in 1849...
    The overwhelming majority of the California Chinese came from the Pearl River delta region...
    • California Folklore Quarterly, Volume 7, 1948, University of California Press, pg. 123:
    A Chinese Roman Catholic priest had been imported to San Francisco, and Kip often met him on the street. However, his work was unsuccessful, for he spoke a different dialect from the Cantonese majority.
    • California: An Illustrated History, Robert Joseph Chandler, 2004, Hippocrene Books, pg. 51:
    California's Chinese came from southern China, around Canton.
    • Agriculture and Rural Connections in the Pacific, Lei Guang, 2017, Routledge, pg. 35:
    The majority of California Chinese came from the Pearl River delta region, with four rural districts around Canton accounting for the largest number of emigrants in the 19th century. Aearthrise (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    @Voorts: Per your request I've tried to condense the problem into one paragraph and provide some context/examples for the diffs mentioned above. Please let me know if you feel this matter is too big for the Administrators Noticeboard and should maybe be taken to the Arbitration Committee instead.

    The problem: Aearthrise's use of older material or share of total editing aren't problematic in and of themselves, but they are incredibly toxic and damaging to the article within the broader context. He doesn't use an older source incidentally, he uses these constantly; often with falsified publishing dates. When people (rightly) question his personal views and/or sources, he resorts to demeaning comments, spamming talk pages with what appear to be Ai-generated 'citations' (examples of which can be found in the discussion above), ignores Wikipedia policy and habitually resorts edit warring; driving away users who could have substantially improved this already niche-article. He's been doing this for about 2 years, basically unopposed until June of this year, when his behavior was called out. Instead of changing his ways, as many users implored him to do, he stopped editing the article for several months, only to return over the past days and continuing his disruptive and harmful MO as if nothing happened. Other users have pointed out his behavior isn't limited to the Pennsylvania Dutch article, but this is my primary concern and I would request that he be banned from editing this article; either permanently or at least until the article's reliability (as it is now) can be thoroughly evaluated, without Aearthrise being able to edit-war or spam other users while this is going on.

    Diffs and examples:

    Problematic use of (unreliable, outdated and/or primary) sources, WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and WP:NPOV.
    • 47thPennVols (talk · contribs) expresses her concern about 5 sources that Aearthrise has provided, explaining that the publisher of some of these sources (Stackpole Books) are not considered to meet Wikipedia quality standards and going on to cite an academic review of one of the sources, which explicitly stated that it contained ″numerous errors″, ″interpretive and rhetorical overstatements″ and needed ″to be handled with care″ [49].
      • Aearthrise's reply is ″You are continually waffling and nitpicking, but you have not yet provided ONE source for your claim. I've already provided 5 sources both historic and recent that demonstrate the usage of Dutchman in regards to the Pennsylvania Dutch community″, i.e. displaying incivility and completely ignoring the serious issues raised.
    • 47thPennVols asks to Aearthrise to stop edit-warring and being uncivil and repeats the problems (irrelevance, self publication, age) with the sources Aearthrise has provided, concluding that despite all the evidence provided, Aearthrise remains unwilling to consider any perspective on the matter other than his own.[50]
      • Aearthrise's reply is: ″Your "perspective", i.e. original research, is invalid; the only citation you've provided is a weak Dictionary.com entry that is not at all related to the Pennsylvania Dutch. There is nothing to "agree to disagree"- you have not provided sufficient proof for your claim, and your attempts to remove "Pennsylvania Dutchman" from this article are completely unjustified. I shall roll back your last edit.″ [51]
    • After this, 47thPennVols makes one final attempt to change the article, which Aearthrise reverts. He then added to the talk page: ″You undid my reversion of your post claiming "Ther term "Dutchman" is considered to be a slur by many in the Pennsylvania Dutch community"; either produce reasonable evidence of your claim now, or I shall revert it again.″ [52], after which 47thPennVols (understandably) abandons her attempts to improve the article.
    • In a NPOV-dispute concerning the etymology of ″Dutch″ in ″Pennsylvania Dutch″, there seem to be two main trains of thought. Both views have reputable academic publications behind them and are widespread among scholars and per WP:NPOV, both views should be represented in the article, as they had been prior to Aearthrise involvement. Aearthrise opposed this, considering one view to be ″the truth″ [53] and the other nonsense and again and again [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] removed the alternative view from the article.
    • An RfC was made to resolve the matter, which Aearthrise subsequently spammed, thereby deterring other participants.[59][60][61][62][63][64]
    • In June, an extensive and thorough survey was made of the first 50 sources listed in the article [65], which showed that almost half of the sources listed were either outdated (we're talking over a century, sometimes over 150 years old), personal webpages, sources copied form existing articles (but now read/checked, and not supportive of claims made), (defunct) tourists websites or autobiographies. In most cases, the publication dates of the sources provided had been changed to make them seem far more recent. [66]. As a result of this, an unreliable-sources-template was added to the article.[67]
    • In the subsequent report to the AN, numerous users voiced their deep concern about Aearthrise's behavior and use of sources:[68][69][70][71]
    • Later in June, a made up article "German Pennsylvania" (created by Aearthrise)was deleted for being WP:Synth/WP:OR.[72]
    Making uncivil, derogatory and demeaning remarks.
    • Theodore Christopher (talk · contribs) expresses his concerns about the relevance and reliability of a long bilingual quote (longer than the section its in) that Aearthrise wants to be in article. Additionally Aearthrise insists that this quote should use the Fraktur font (𝔴𝔥𝔦𝔠𝔥 𝔩𝔬𝔬𝔨𝔰 𝔩𝔦𝔨𝔢 𝔱𝔥𝔦𝔰), which is not only unnessary but goes against Wikipedias manual of style. Aearthrise subsequently barrages Theodore Christophe with derogatory and uncivil remarks:
    • ″Although I already answered this question in an edit, which you choose to ignore now, I shall entertain the question with this response.″ [73]
    • ″You speak on that the usage of Hebrew and Greek are irrelevant to Palatine German- this is another statement without a thought.″ [74]
    • ″Your inability to comprehend that is telling of your mindset; you ignore sound arguments and prefer to just waffle and blather.″ [75]
    • ″Your words are based in ignorance, coming and from an outsider to Pennsylvania Dutch culture, you who don't even speak the language nor know our cultural traits.″ [76]
    • ″As I said in my previous post: "your thoughts are not worth very much.″ [77]
    • ″Lastly, your (...) quote is completely incorrect, and it shows you lack knowledge of Pennsylvania Dutch culture or basic understanding of the message.″[78]
    • ″Your arguments and words are all vapid nonsense (...)″ [79]
    • Theodore Christophers edit were repeatedly reverted by Aearthrise and he (once again, regrettably but understandably) stopped engaging with the article. When I joined this discussion some time later and wrote I fully supported Theodore Christophers changes and argumentation, this too was ignored or waved away and edits reverted multiple times.
    • ″This is your problem- you want to operate on ignorance and your emotions rather than from evidence and knowledge, and you've shown that time and time again. Even now, you're showing how your feelings were hurt and trying to use that to win the argument. You have a bruised ego.″ [80]
    • ″Your commentary makes you seem like the type who doesn't like learning, nor wants to learn″ [81]
    • ″You deleted my responsse here earlier for making a discussion here, but yet, as a hypocrite, you started a discussion here yourself!″ [82]
    • ″You are hypocrite and are playing a game to get your way.″ [83]
    • Directed at an anonymous IP:
    • ″It takes a "special" person to ignore the citation that's already present on the article, and a lazy person to not take it upon himself to make quick a google search. [84]
    Immediately resuming problematic behavior after Wiki-pause.
    • The very first thing that Aearthrise does after returning to this article after several months is to remove the unreliable-sources-template: [85]. Marked as a 'minor' edit, he provided the following rationale: Removed tags: ″Previous editor posted multiple unreliable citations tags, saying claiming citations were "outdated"; months later, after discussion on talk page, still hasn't proven how the citations our outdated.″ — thereby showing the exact same ″Sources/Wikipedia policy doesn't matter, you need to convince me″-attitude as before.
    • He then commenced to removing all of the individual cite- and request-for-sources-tags and tried to re-add information which had previously been removed for lacking reliable and valid sources.[86].
    • He again tried to include wording like "German Pennsylvania" [87] despite this being previously deleted for being OR [88].
    • He tried adding images again taken from news sites and uploaded (by Aearthrise himself) to Wikimedia Commons under a false public domain-license.[89]
    • On the talk page, his replies to urgent requests to stop edit-warring and stop (re)-adding untrustworthy material, were met with the same dismissive attitude and stubborn defense of using problematic sources.[90][91]

    Thank you for your trouble.Vlaemink (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your first two columns are just a dredging of content from earlier June and July; they're not pertinent to this discussion, because these have already been discussed on a separate complaint that you made.
    I haven't been rude to you or made a comment that demeans you at all, but you're acting like I did. I've only tried to reason with you about the type of content included on the page, of which you have said that only "proper, contemporary" sources are reliable and allowed.
    I've tried to speak to you about why that's not accurate for the Pennsylvania Dutch article's topic.
    Under the third column, you're making many different accusations:
    • I removed the unreliable tag citations, because you were guarding them under the premise of only "proper, contemporary" sources, claiming that all the older publications were unreliable without proving it; it is not problematic to use sources from older publications, as long as they are reliable and truthful, like the US Government from 1883 citation that I added. I recommend you read WP:AGEMATTERS to know what categories are time sensitive.
    • You claim I tried to include the word "German Pennsylvania", but following the page logs for November, that's easily refuted, so this not a valid accusation at all.
    • You're talking about licenses now, and I could use help if you see it could be improved; this is from 1931 Sunday Newspaper.
    • For the fourth point, you are talking about my responses to you, firstly of you saying I started an edit war, which is false. Secondly, that you launched a smear campaign against me in the attempt to ban me from editing the article earlier this year. That was wrong of you, because you weren't doing it because of behavior, but because you weren't getting your way on the article.
    This can be seen by the fact that I only made a reversion with a complete explanation on November 22, the second time, when you returned, you were very hostile with me on November 26th saying:
    You are [not] removing the unreliable sources tag until reliable sources are provided. You are also not going to add WP:OR by "corroborating" your preferred theories by adding primary sources instead of reliable scientific literature. - This is you calling the sentence "such as one of the oldest German newspapers in Pennsylvania being the High Dutch Pennsylvania Journal in 1743.", cited with an 1883 publication from the US Government as WP:OR, which is incorrect, unless you're saying that the US Government is an unreliable source.
    and
    You can call my insistence to adhere to Wikipedia policy "threats" all you want, it is not going to change the fact that the overwhelming majority of sources you've tried to add to this article and are now trying to pass as reliable by removing source-tags, are not acceptable. You can huff and puff all you want, it's not going to work. Revert my restoring of the cite- and source-tags again and you will be reported. - Again, you didn't prove that any of the sources you called outdated and unreliable were unreliable other than saying that they have an older publication date. If they are unreliable, then they should be removed; you have had half a year to show that the sources were unreliable, which I asked you to do.
    Your actions here, and especially writing "Page ban for Aearthrise" show your motivation to get me banned, and you're trying very hard with the administrators to do that. Aearthrise (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My request for a page ban is not meant as a 'witch hunt', as you've tried to frame it, but a last resort to safeguard the integrity and reliability of this article. Your edit-history consistently shows a blatant disregard for core tenets of Wikipedia as well uncivil or even bullying interaction with Wikipedians who disagree with you. The reasons why my request includes many of your statements and actions from the past two years, instead of merely the past few days is, I hope, obvious: to show both a history and a pattern. A pattern, which you have just now resumed without any noticeable changes. In fact, in mere days you've been involved in two conflicts: this one, which has been going on intermittently for two years now, and a new one concerning "Cantonese Californians" — both showing the same pattern of abusive behavior and highly questionable use of sources.
    The fact that some of the content has already been listed in my request for admin intervention in June is of little consequence as that request did not end in admin intervention. Instead you spammed the request, got a lot of negative feedback and then basically left Wikipedia for several months; after which the conflict seemed frozen and the request got archived: it is only logical for this second request to pick up where you left off. I'm confident the admins involved will see the logic in this as well, and I am hoping the combined total is cause enough for a lasting solution on this issue. Vlaemink (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DIVINE unban appeal

    DIVINE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is considered banned by the community because they unsucessfully appealed their block to the community. They are appealing this ban:

    I am requesting the unblocking administrator or the community to unblock me because I have understood the cause of my blockage. Why did I get blocked, and how would I have dealt with the situation calmly without providing legal threats already resolved long before, yeah more than six months if I recall it might be seven. I accepted that I was paid to vote for [AFD] and I revealed it myself which helped to block larger PR firms even after I got blocked I supplied information to concerned users and someone who claims to be an invisible administrator which I had submitted evidence long back to administrators.

    In the period, I get blocked, I haven't used multiple IDs nor have I edited from any IP or any new ID i.e. CU can verify this humble request first before anyone reviews my unblocking request because, in the past, I have faced many failed SPI requests against me.

    Within a pperiod of Six months after getting blocked, I have contributed to SimpleWiki which is kind of similar to Enwiki and I believe I have improved my English skills by learning and contributing via simple English.

    To make this request short:

    1) I understand why I was blocked and I will avoid those mistakes again and will only submit WP:BLP via WP:DRAFT and will follow further to get unblock from Mainspace WP:BLP in the future. 2) I won't vote in AFD for an additional Six months and request to community later 3) I love Wikipedia thus I have been here for 10 years and I still want to make an effective contribution and help Wikipedia as an individual volunteer once again 4)I have never doxed anyone's identity, but I was the victim of doxing before from few Nepali administrators which I will keep confidential and I have proof of how they misused their power.

    Thankyou for considering this request :) DIVINE 08:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

    They are active at Simple English Wikipedia (courtesy link to their simplewiki contribs), and PhilKnight found no CU evidence of evasion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am of two minds for this request. The previous appeal was a non-starter, and this one cannot be as easily dismissed; it has been six months per the standard offer and they have made positive contributions to a sister project. DIVINE's simplewiki contributions are alright, but they are almost exclusively using Twinkle to nominate things for quick deletion (the simplewiki equivalent of CSD). By my count, there are 17 bluelinks in their simple QD log, out of 261 nominations, which is an error rate of ~6.5%. Those would not be amazing numbers at enwiki; not sure about simplewiki.
      However, I am not seeing a lot which demonstrates their ability to communicate effectively, which brings me back to this block appeal. It is not the best appeal I have read, and I think that we need to see something better from someone blocked in part due to English proficiency issues. I find a time-limited topic ban from AFD to be wholly insufficient to address the UPE concerns (taking bribes to !vote a specific way is a massive no-no). I am not going to stand in the way of an appeal which comes with an indefinite topic ban from all XfDs, broadly construed; a six month AFD topic ban is a nonstarter and the fact that this was the offer from DIVINE is a reason to reject this appeal. Same thing with a only-BLP-via-draftspace restriction; I think we should be looking at an indefinite BLP topic ban, broadly construed. The "never doxed anyone's identity" appears to refer a comment of theirs which was partially suppressed.
      I think on balance I recommend declining; the limited fluency is a real issue for engaging productively at enwiki. I think that simplewiki is a great place for DIVINE to contribute, considering their limited fluency in English, and I would encourage DIVINE to continue to contribute there. If this appeal is to be accepted, I think it should come with:
      1. An indefinite topic ban from BLPs, broadly construed
      2. An indefinite topic ban from XfD, broadly construed
      3. An indefinite topic ban from editing topics with which DIVINE has a COI
    • But again, I think that considering the limited language fluency we should not spend more of our most previous resource – volunteer time – trying to coax DIVINE to edit within the rules. I am not sure we can get enough benefit to make it worthwhile. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd say six months of ban is enough time for reflection on how to edit Wikipedia better; if he returns to producing poor content, then of course a new ban would be in order.
      I lean on giving him a chance, accepting the reinstatement of his account. He can prove his better English through his new edits. Aearthrise (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgot to ping Ivanvector as the blocking admin. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm left wondering what an "invisible administrator" is. I think HouseBlaster's restrictions are reasonable if consensus is that an appeal is granted. As for me, I didn't know about the UPE on AFDs but I remember when DIVINE was originally indefinitely blocked, they went wild and several of their talk page comments had to be oversighted. We have to ensure they have the temperament to edit on the project where disputes are very common.
    Also, given their unsavory connection with AFDs, I think they should stay away from CSD-tagging completely because I don't trust their sense of what articles and pages should be deleted. I know our admins review all tagged articles but given the previous COI, I think their primary activity shouldn't be page deletion. Maybe improving articles, copy editing or vandal fighting would be more appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline Appellant has not adequately addressed the UPE concerns and I cannot support even with proposed restrictions on deletion matters and BLP. We could never be sure of their conflicts of interest.. Their best fit is SIMPLEWIKI.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline along similar lines as DFO. The appeal fails to engage meaningfully with the history of UPE; the fact that DIVINE sometimes reports their competition does little to convince me that they themselves have actually come to terms with the fact that abusing Wikipedia for financial gain is extremely high up on the list of the most harmful things one can do to this project. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Article moves, disregard for conventions and WP:REDACT

    This user has moved several articles to WP:OFFICIALNAMEs, with clear disregard for article naming convention, even deleting our discussion about it and branding it as "nonsense". Once this was brought up to RM, they committed multiple WP:REDACT offenses in the discussion—which should not have been in that section to begin with—and started an edit war over it. Blatant disregard for all editorial procedure and etiquette. Mb2437 (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1259864336"