Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} 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) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	37	37
TfD	0	0	0	11	11
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	58	58
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 17 sockpuppet investigations
• 2 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 54 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 12 requested closures
• 98 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 7 Copyright problems

Unban request for Wikiuser1314

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)

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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• Wikiuser1314: what do you plan to edit if unblocked? Articles, topic areas, etc... what are your interests? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  The user is blocked and thus unable to respond, but Special:Contributions/Wikiuser1314 gives us a pretty good idea of their interests. Once unblocked, their immediate plans are probably to finish off the draft in their sandbox that they were actively working on when their past caught up with them. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support There's every indication that the user is ready to be reintegrated into the Wikipedia community. They waited out the required six months patiently, made a perfectly reasonable unban request, and came clean about their past accounts. Their most recent account, User:Wikiuser1314, made over 1500 edits over a period of 1.5 years without causing any disruption. I don't see any value in preventing them from continuing to positively contribute to the project. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. A solid six-month wait and a strong value to future constructive contributions seem that the user will not repeat the same mistake he did before. Welcome back. The community might trust you again. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

There is a secret third option, if you are feeling brave.— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Super Goku V, I find this surprising. Do any examples come to mind right now? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Thanks. Consider this detective work, not homework. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Search results. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78 (Request) Taiwan/Archive 20[A] (Request) Notability (people)/Archive 2012 (Additional edit; Request) Pakistan/Archive 14 (Request) Talk:Circumcision/Archive 70 (Request) Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444[B] (Request) Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169(-1170?)[C] (Request) Other results: Request refers to an archive (of a archive?), but the closure does not appear to have been done within an archive. Request refers to an archive, but the closure does not appear to have been done within an archive. Later comments request multiple closures within archives, but it was declined. Request refers to an archive, but it was declined. Request refers to an archive, but it was not done. Notes: [A] Taiwan/Archive 20 is abnormal. Between 45 and 50 edits were made in March 2012 with the majority involving closing discussion. [B] Specifically un-archived when closed. [C] Discussion is abnormal. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169 has a version with the sub-topic closed and the original discussion still open when archived. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170 has a version with the sub-topic never closed and the original discussion closed. Unusual duplicate. 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)

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)

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)

Like charlotte ^👸♥📱 07:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• (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)

  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)

  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)

Deleted article question

The articles Max Israel and Y.Chroma were created by a new account yesterday, but I'm almost certain that they previously existed and ended up deleted for some reason. Is there any way to get a look at the page history of a deleted article that ends up being recreated under the same name? I'm also pretty sure the files used in the articles were previously uploaded and deleted too. I think the articles and files were created by this account but don't have the required permission to access the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have deleted the former as it was identical to the one previously deleted for reason G5. For obvious reasons, I have also indeffed the creator of this version (who also re-uploaded the same images). Equally, I toyed with the idea of draftifying the latter article but I've now deleted that as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for checking on this Black Kite. Is there any way a non-admin can "check" to see whether there were deleted files and articles which were subsequently recreated under the same name? I tried the Special:Log, but it seems as if the recreation of the pages somehow "removed" any record of their deletion from the log. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Marchjuly when you look at the history you can see it's deletion history up top under View Logs for this page. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. I didn't know about that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly, you can also search here, Special:Undelete, although it will only identify deleted pages with the exact title you are looking for. It will not help with variations on a page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that bit of info. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Non-admins can't use Special:Undelete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, I know it won't show deleted content but I thought it would show an editor that there had been a page at the specified target that had been deleted. It would show that a page had existed but was deleted, kind of like a page log would. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does not, but User:SD0001/deleted-metadata-link does something similar. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I was mistaken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• (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)

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)

Amen, brother. Amen. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, I think PC is the least bad option here. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Double amen on getting the proxies list. Ridiculous that we don't have it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Indeed. MAB gets frustrated quickly and moves along. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  Without going into detail, it's already being used. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  I do not recommend engagement. It proved counter productive. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I thought I saw your face come up in the header yesterday. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  And we don't care about the effect on established editors? Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  Do you think they have any money to spare? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• (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)

Proposal: Ask the WMF to evaluate legal remedies

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)

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)

Right—I've clarified that I would support whatever means of communication is considered best. Remsense ‥ 论 04:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

15.ai behavioral issues.

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

---

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

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

15.ai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article 15.ai has numerous issues which I have called attention to on the talkpage. [1] [2]. The article was recently subject to an edit war [3][4][5][6][7] which made it to DRN Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#15.ai, however, the process has ultimately failed as after the moderator instructed editors to implement the change[8] as User:HackerKnownAs a clear WP:SPA [9] who demonstrates WP:OWNBEHAVIOR behavior[10] toward the article arrived and has reverted the agreed upon edits [11] [12][13] as well as reintroduced multiple problems to the article in terms of misrepresented sources as well as sources which are considered unreliable. The editor in question has characterized my removal of unreliable sources[14][15][16] as removal of well-sourced content followed by claims of insufficient citations is particularly concerning despite the fact that the sources I removed were declared unreliable per WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED or in the case of Andrew Ng's The Batch, were marked as unreliable when the article was still a draft A large portion of the sources used are not reliable, notably The Batch, which appears to be the personal blog of Andrew Ng[17], but once the article was released from Draftspace the editor who is now vanished reinserted Andrew Ng as an erroneously flagged minor edit [18]. Likewise, at the recent request for protection the user has presented my conduct [19] as a large amount of nonconstructive edits. The AfD for the article was interfered with by WP:SPA vote-stuffing[20][21][22][23]. Other concerning events include the wholesale deletion of a talk page thread about potential WP:COI editing by a now-blocked IP editor [24]. Coupled with demonstrable evidence of off-site coordination in editing the article on 4chan (which is demonstrable in the archived 4chan thread used as a source in the article) and the apparent failure of the WP:DRN and the continued edit warring by User:RocketKnightX and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR from User:HackerKnownAs, I am raising this concern to the Admin Noticeboard. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I am currently away from my computer at the moment, but I would like to point out that it is very interesting that this user has conveniently omitted any mention of her accusatory, sanctimonious, and frankly alienating behavior (despite being a relatively new editor herself) that she has been called out for in the past. I will make a more detailed post when I get back, but I urge anyone reading this to take a look at the article’s edit history (and note the perennial participant of the persistent edit wars in the last few months) as well as her alienating comments on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1 and wonder why she neglected to mention how she refused to elaborate on her unfounded accusations based solely on circumstantial evidence. HackerKnownAs (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

RocketKnightX seems to lack the sufficient maturity to edit Wikipedia, judging by the comments like this one. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this situation is more relevant to ANI than AN if you would like to move it to that noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

+1. Thanks for summarizing the recent edit wars, the most recent seem to involve experienced trolling as well. Suitable for ANI. – SJ + 03:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, RocketKnightX and HackerKnownAs are tag-teaming to keep the article against consensus.

Note that all of HackerKnownAs edits are related to AI and 4chan, which is how this mess started in the first place.

See also SirGallantThe4th, the GAN reviewer, only edits are to chess topics and 15.ai. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not know this person and I have never interacted with them. What are you people on about? Do the admins not see that these people are actively discouraging people from contributing to Wikipedia with this dishonest conduct? This kind of harassment needs to stop. HackerKnownAs (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a tactic HackerKnownAs often engages in, accuse everyone of everything and see what sticks. (Also, you don't need to interact with someone to tag-team with them.) 180.129.92.142 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have always attempted to be cordial when interacting with editors on Wikipedia. I have also tried to always assume good faith as per WP:GOODFAITH, but the OP seems to not have the same courtesy, as she feels the need to throw out repeated baseless accusations of COI and SPA editing to multiple editors (WP:GOODFAITH), repeatedly bringing up other editors' contribution histories and patterns (WP:HOUND), and having an underlying hostile tone in repeatedly questioning others' credibility and motives (WP:CIVIL). Also, possibly a violation of WP:OUTING (or at least getting close to it) by extensively tracking and documenting other editors' patterns and suggesting connections to off-wiki groups?.

I do not know what incidents you are referring to when you say I "often engage" in accusatory and underhanded behavior. I really am bothered by this entire exchange.

And to repeat, I do not know who RocketKnightX is and I have never collaborated with them. I have interacted with SirGallantThe4th only when requesting a GA review, and have not interacted with him since other than when the article was under GA review, as was expected. HackerKnownAs (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

> Also, possibly a violation of WP:OUTING (or at least getting close to it) by extensively tracking and documenting other editors' patterns and suggesting connections to off-wiki groups?.

So you admit you've engaged in off-wiki co-ordination? 180.129.92.142 (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I have never engaged in off-wiki coordination; I invite anyone here to scrutinize my edit history. I mostly stay around articles that I find more comfortable writing about. There is nothing wrong with that.

I am frankly disturbed that this is even being suggested when I have made major contributions to several articles in my spare time. It seems hypocritical that OP dismisses IP editors' positions as inconsequential (as well as those of SPA editors), yet faces no backlash when these same "suspicious" editors support her position. There is a clear double standard happening here and I simply have not been paying enough attention to the politics of Wikipedia to point out every single time she has been doing this. HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

So, no violation of outing. Understood. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

180.129.92.142, this is the Administrators' Noticeboard. Just because this is an open discussion doesn't mean you can cast aspersions and accuse editors of misconduct without providing evidence. If this continues, you will be facing a block. Like a registered account, you must abide by Civility, even when discussing disagreements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, understood. I will look for evidence. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Like many disputes in Wikipedia, this is both a content dispute and a conduct dispute. I acted as the mediator for discussion of the content dispute at DRN. The content dispute concerned what should be listed as the status of the web site in the infobox. The DRN thread was Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_250#15.ai. (The filing editor was then indefinitely blocked for conduct unrelated to 15.ai, and I continued the mediation because there were still editors in good standing who had a content dispute.) RocketKnightX was listed as one of the editors, and made a brief opening statement, but did not take part in further discussions until the other editors reached an agreement to say that the web site had been abandoned. The article was revised as discussed. At this point RocketKnightX reverted the revision and disagreed. I asked RocketKnightX if they wanted to take part in moderated discussion, but they did not answer. Since there was disagreement as to content that could not be resolved by discussion, I first asked if I should start an RFC, and then launched an RFC. The RFC is currently in progress at Talk:15.ai#RFC_on_Status_of_Web_Site. The content dispute should be resolved by allowing the RFC to run for a month. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

good one brocade make the brigading more obvious

the gaslighting in this thread is insane yall are why i left the server lmfao its screwed up Rin6626 (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

See Editor Interaction Analyzer on 15.ai.

20:29, 11 November 2024, RocketKnightX reverts 15.ai one last time and disappears.

23:27, 13 November 2024, HackerKnownAs returns from 18 day absence (last edit before that was defending 15.ai) and requests page protection of 15.ai. Then reverts, 17:13, 14 November 2024.

These two edit 15.ai when the other is absent.

See Editor Interaction Analyzer on Talk:15.ai/GA1.

SirGallantThe4th reviews 15.ai in 1 hour and 24 minutes, after 1 response from HackerKnownAs.

(start, <51 minute gap>, response, <33 minute gap>, end)

This is insanely quick, and is a sign of co-ordination. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No, none of that is evidence. I've seen quicker GA reviews, start to finish—in fact, a recent one of mine, Talk:Checheyigen/GA1, took 29 minutes from opening to closing. I hope you're not accusing myself and the reviewer of off-wiki coordination? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course not. The difference being you're not a single purpose account. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

just so yall know, theres a discord server thats been trying to troll this community over the last half year trying to get this page removed by sockpuppeting and getting anyone who reverts it banned and the op (brocade) is in on it, notice the young account ages of the edit war actors and ip accs all over here Rin6626 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

im replying with my ip cause i want to prove im not on an alt btw 174.110.109.110 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe you for a second, but email your evidence to the Arbritration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org if you're telling the truth. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I did think it was especially peculiar that editors are acting so hostile and trying to discredit people who are just trying to help Wikipedia by spinning up accusations out of nowhere (for example, the above IP editor falsely claiming that I am a single purpose account when I've received multiple thanks from various other editors for my contributions). I am not surprised at all that there has been a coordinated effort behind this.

This article has been treated as a WP:BATTLEGROUND with only one side consistently being the aggressor. HackerKnownAs (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have found this: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=361116#p361116

It appears that this user in question (User:BrocadeRiverPoems) has a history of sockpuppeting/alting and virulently defending ideologically driven edits, particularly those related to Yasuke, while engaging in hostile and aggressive behavior towards other users who disagree with their position. I would very much like an admin to look into the disruptive editing patterns and possible sockpuppeting activities of this user, particularly in relation to the ongoing edit wars and harassment on the article.

This blatant dogpiling should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. HackerKnownAs (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You're really good at steering the topic away from yourself. Point is, you are still reverting against consensus on 15.ai. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I am certain you are part of the circle of sockpuppetry that was mentioned in the link above. You have been nothing but consistently hostile toward me and are happy to fabricate evidence if it means trying to discredit me, which is exactly what BrocadeRiverPoems has done as well. This behavior is appalling. HackerKnownAs (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Where have I fabricated evidence?

As for some mysterious "circle of sockpuppetry", bullshit. You mean to tell me that SuperStain, Thought 1915, Ltbdl, Brocade River Poems, Aaron Liu, North8000, Sj, BarrelProof, DrawWikiped, and Cooldudeseven7 are all socks? If anyone has a "circle of sockpuppetry" it's you and Rin6626, a 4 hour old account who's only edits have been to make wild claims about Brocade River Poems, which you also have been doing. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

InfoWars link

Could someone with the permission to add and edit these links please change the link at the bottom of the InfoWars article from infowars(dot)com/contributors to infowars(dot)com/, because the contributors page doesn't exist at the moment. Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You should make a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well that's ... not how I thought this works. I don't want it whitelisted everywhere. Guess that's not possible then. Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The /contributors link is whitelisted everywhere. We don't normally whitelist domain roots for reasons explained at MediaWiki talk:spam-whitelist/Common requests#The official homepage of the subject of a page * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Apparently we can use "a neutral landing page like the site's "about" or "information" page". Their /about page is online; I'll go ahead and request a whitelisting for that. Thanks Pppery. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Of note, there's currently a legal dispute over the new ownership of the site, so it may be a bit premature to make any changes to whitelisting anything. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Well we still need a link to the site and the current one is broken. Whitelisting one page briefly is easily reversed if needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Need an RFC closed

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

---

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline has been open for about a hundred days now, with no comments for the last couple of weeks. It's the oldest discussion listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests. It's a long discussion, but I don't think it's the most difficult, so please let me encourage you to write a nice summary for us. Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

How did it go unnoticed for so long? 118.104.245.6 (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's gone unnoticed. It takes a long time to read a long discussion, and not everyone can set aside a block of time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have ambitions to get to it eventually, but I committed to that mess of a discussion at Talk:International Churches of Christ, so that takes priority for me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin has closed this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Abusive message from ip user

Not sure if this is the right place to report a user, but I've just received an abusive message from this IP user –

There are no contributions on their page, so I can't figure out why they have done this?..

this was the message they left

Thanks – 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 L1amw90  (🗣️ talk to me 09:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The IP has only made a single edit but I blocked the 2600:1700:DF20:1A40:0:0:0:0/64 range for a month. People can change IPs and it does not matter who is behind the IP. Best to ignore them. The right place to report this is WP:ANI but here is fine. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Persistent IDHT and disruptive fabrication of Wikipedia policy

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianhistorian8 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Unban/unblock request for Albertpda

• Albertpda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albertpda/Archive
• Pinging @Yamla: UTRS checkuser-in-residence.
• UTRS appeal #94970
• Appellant is globally locked, which will make participation by appellant slow and cumbersome.

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)

• tentative and hope filled support unblock.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Is it confirmed that there has been no sockpuppetry recently? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  @Compassionate727: I cannot rationally articulate my tentative support, so we are even. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  @Compassionate727: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  I disabled the global block locally. Hopefully, that fixed it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Noting to hold the archival bot at bay that I'd hoped for greater participation. 😢 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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 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)

  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 carried over-

  @Chipmunkdavis: So may you support the appeal with the addition of this condition? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Weak support hold them to their word. You've got some rope...use it well. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy un-pblock for deceased user

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

---

Hey all. Back in July 2022, I partially blocked JohnClarknew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from three articles that he had been editing in violation of WP:COI, including his disclosed IRL identity, John Clark (English actor). I didn't love making that block, as Clark was one of our oldest active editors (89 at the time), but there was no way around it. It came to my attention today that Clark died about a year after that. While he's far from the first blocked user to die, in other cases where I've seen that happen it's been someone who was siteblocked and not really part of the community anymore. Clark, though, was still an editor in good standing at the time of his death, would even still have been eligible to vote in ArbCom elections if he hit activity requirements. So given his 3,000-plus mostly-positive edits and the fact that the block cannot any longer serve any purpose, would a current admin consider lifting the block I placed? Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Unblocked, will request glock. Is it norm to create a redlinked userpage for a deceased editor with {{deceased}}? charlotte ^👸♥ 22:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't actually recall a time I've dealt dealt with a deceased user with a redlinked userpage, but I've gone and created one with {{deceased}} and a link to his mainspace bio. I'll add something brief at least to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2023. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• (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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  What, exactly, was trollish? That seems like a pretty serious aspersion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  I don't interpret his comment about historians as saying 'do not participate in the AFD'. GiantSnowman 19:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

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)

This is astonishingly poor behaviour. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Appeal for Lifting Topic Ban

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

• In the block appeal from 2021, the replying admin stated very clearly that "If a topic has anything to do with Turkey at all, you cannot edit it", so they can't really say it was a misunderstanding. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Cengizsogutlu, your topic ban on the English Wikipedia does not apply to Wikimedia Commons. You can upload photos that you take on your upcoming trip to Cyprus and Turkey to Wikimedia Commons as long as you comply with their policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  After uploading the photos I take to Wikimedia, I also want to upload them to English Wikipedia to make edits and adjustments. That’s why the photos I upload will have such a connection. The main purpose is to upload photos to support editing. Just as buying paint and a canvas but not actually painting serves no purpose, these efforts would also be ineffective. However, other users can, of course, eventually use and edit these contributions. But I believe doing both simultaneously will prevent providing an impactful contribution. Best regards. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Cengizsogutlu, you can add those photos to the Turkish Wikipedia and other language versions as well. The English Wikipedia is not the "boss Wikipedia" or the "most important Wikipedia". If you establish a consistent track record of editing the English Wikipedia productively outside the areas of your topic ban, then you can come back here in six months or a year to appeal your topic ban again. Cullen328 (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• This appeal is clearly AI-generated. No. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not saying it is or isn't, but do you have evidence of that? Buffs (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've run it through four different AI detectors. All agree that it was AI-generated, with a high level of confidence. One detector thinks the first couple of sentences are not AI-generated. https://quillbot.com/ai-content-detector https://originality.ai/ai-checker https://app.gptzero.me/ https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for this list, rsjaffe, I've never known where to go to check and see if content is likely AI-generated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Likewise Buffs (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  I get help from AI on most topics, what's wrong with using AI when expressing myself in a language that is not my native one. Is there such a rule on Wikipedia not using AI? Cengizsogutlu (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  You are expressing an opinion that you "used language at the time was inappropriate and that I made amateurish mistakes". Using AI is a step down from having amateurish mistakes and will only compound them. You were topic banned for a reason, continued to dabble in that topic but no one caught you, and now you want to be unbanned. This isn't good logic and lends credence to the concerns to others that you aren't going to be productive. Cullen gives you a good path going forward. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest Decline. The appeal does not create confidence in this editor's ability to use the English language. I agree that the appeal feels AI-generated, but any other explanations for the tone and content of the appeal would also be worrisome. And, most of their recent edits were in violation of their TBAN. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Decline per Pppery's evidence of AI involvement and lack of acknowledgement of the problem. Buffs (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

TP:ACEMM not subbing properly

I'm currently multitasking a bunch of stuff right now, and it would appear {{ACEMM}} is not substituting properly. The Ivmbox is not rendering in substitutions. I would normally debug this myself, but my hands are full right now. Could someone take a look at why this isn't working? —CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Izno: since you work on this template mostly, can you check why it's not substing correctly?—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I had no issue substing it on User:Izno/Sandbox besides the image being squished that I am looking at right now. Izno (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I did a bit of under the wire tinkering. The subst was leaving out ALL styling information initially. I would appreciate it if you could maybe could push my attempted repairs over the finish line? —CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Revdel? (Can’t use oversight)

I read the big red box at the top, but I was directed here by people at the WP:TEAHOUSE. I’m requesting that all of my edits under this /64 range until the ones I made after my block expired get revdeled as I am ashamed of them and want to move on. I already emailed the oversight team and they said they would not do it under any circumstance. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2 (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If it helps IP, no-one here knows who is behind a particular IP, your IP keeps changing, and it is a vanishingly small number of people who will ever see the contributions from an IP range. The easiest way to move on is just to move on, nobody else will be thinking about the edits. CMD (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m really not sure. I know people have monitored my /64 in the past, and it is easily searchable by users (even if I don’t know how to do it myself). 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2 (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sure. The people who might look up the /64 edits to Wikipedia are a subset of editors who notice an edit, of which a subset would actually check other contributions from that single IP, and an even smaller subset who would think to and know how to check higher ranges. Even of those who check, they would not assume that the other contributions on the range are from the same person. Best, CMD (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2,

Are you the editor who was arguing about the Fictosexuality article? I was just looking at that ANI discussion from October the other day. First, I hope you are feeling better now. Secondly, if you hadn't specified an editing range, I never would have connected your current IP account with those previous edits. I doubt that you will be randomly assigned the same exact IP again. I think you can consider yourself anonymous. Finally, the Oversight team is correct, we don't revision delete edits that might be embarrassing later, only edits that are deeply offensive (racist, homophobic, etc.), violate our Biography of living persons guideline, like posting personal information or copyright infringements. I'm sure that ALL editors here have edits from their past that they wish they could erase but in the name of transparency, all of that information is logged and available for view.

But, as I said before, if you don't connect your present account to that IP range, like you did here, I doubt any editor or admin will be looking into edits from that IP range. If I were you, I'd consider this as a new start and wish you luck editing on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t really feel better, particularly about that topic you mentioned, but don’t worry about me.

Frankly I’m just glad the embarrassing block notice that shows up when you try to edit is gone, I have other family members who share my IP. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

• Sorry, I see now that I did not express correctly what I wanted. Out of 10 most active administrators, 4 are humans who are currently administrators, one of these 4 is inactive.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• And Fastily has just resigned, so the backlogs will be piling up there as well soon. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, the four (I have now corrected myself) current human admins in the top ten are Explicit, Liz, Materialscientist, NawlinWiki, the latter one being inactive. We should be watching backlogs in speedy deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Seems prudent to direct anyone interested in this to WP:BOTR#Replacing FastilyBot. WindTempos _they ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• It's only going to get worse with RECALL in place. GiantSnowman 19:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Human administrators"? Aren't all administrators human? GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay No, there are also a load of adminbots. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The two all-time most active administrators are actually bots. Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Some of them might also be dogs. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Radiant!/Classification of admins * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: can you link to where you got that stats please? :) Also, just noting that quantity is not the same as quality. Many admin actions are very easy, especially deletions (hence admin bots, hence the ability of several admins to rack up six-figure log counts) but I agree the bus factor is concerning, even accounting for the long tail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The awful scoreboard. —Cryptic 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  The one I am using is User:JamesR/AdminStats, there is a big table at the end which I sort by the total number of actions and count the position manually. Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  And, yes, sure, all metrics are imperfect, but usually they still provide some useful information. Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I knew about ADMINSTATS. I just don't tend to look at the table at the bottom because it takes too long to load on my computer! And yes, you're correct, there is still something useful we can glean from statistics but they should be taken with a pinch of salt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Request to Review and Remove "Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS"

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

---

I am requesting a review of the article "Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS" due to its explicit content and significant societal harm. The article describes a 1970s exploitation film featuring a Nazi officer engaging in sexual acts with prisoners. My concerns include:

1. **Promoting Harmful Ideologies**: The article glorifies sexual violence and Nazism, presenting these in a way that risks promoting unhealthy fantasies among immature male audiences.

2. **Stigmatization of Common Names**: The use of the name "Ilsa","Anata" and so on associates it with degrading depictions, causing real-world stigmatization and bullying for individuals with this name.

3. **Unsuitable for Public Platform**: This article is inappropriate for an open-access platform like Wikipedia, which is used by people of all ages, including minors.

4. **Timing of Creation**: The article was created decades after the film's release, in 2022, raising questions about the motivations behind its creation and its compliance with Wikipedia's policies on notability and neutrality.

5.

I strongly urge the administrators to review this article and consider its removal or severe content restrictions to uphold Wikipedia's responsibility as a neutral and appropriate public platform. Zaimingmingde (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zaimingmingde, you've commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS, which is the appropriate location. The discussion there will determine whether the article is kept or deleted. Schazjmd (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

You're welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for editing wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

BD2412, if I remember rightly, unblock appeals are typically posted on WP:AN, not ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: You are correct; so moved. BD2412 T 03:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Unblocking now, then. BD2412 T 17:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

WickedFanAccount "outing" and digging through my social media

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)

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)

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)

I admit the editor seems unlikely to enjoy a long career here. SerialNumber54129 11:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Yeah course, I was thinking of a Case. SerialNumber54129 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's WP:OUTING. It's critically important you understand this. It's WP:OUTING. --Yamla (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just curious, what's ANI flu issues? Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANIFLU — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Thank you! JJP_Master (she/they) 03:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  I see that distinction as wikilawyering. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• Does it matter if it's a policy vs. a procedure? Is RFA a policy? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• "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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
  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)

  +1 to both of these comments by Rhododendrites. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • CENT is a bit useless, though. If it had been advertised via a watchlist notice I think there would have been far more participation. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

    CENT is at the top of this page, right under "Open tasks". Why do we put a useless box at the top of AN and other noticeboards? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

    • Except it isn't very visible, because the AN templates at the top and the TOC pushes it way down below the fold. I tend to notice Watchlist and Sitenotice messages, but not CENT ones. It would probably be useful to transclude CENT to watchlists. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

      +1 to adding it to the top of watchlists (or at least someone creating a userscript that does that). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  That's what this is. A close review. – Joe (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  If only people read a little past the heading before commenting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oops. My bad.  Self-trout. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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 [25][26].
  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

It's a nonsense! GiantSnowman 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I've asked the 'crats. Levivich (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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

Fingers crossed there's an iceberg soon... GiantSnowman 21:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the current petition could well be described that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

What an interesting mixed metaphor ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [27]. 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)

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)

Wikizilla:Copyrights is what CactusWriter probably used as the source. Nobody (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Yes, I see it now. Sorry for the mistake. I have struck my comment.Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I was worried I was completely losing it, which is always on the cards  :) SerialNumber54129 13:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

@CactusWriter: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikizilla... ready and waiting  :) SerialNumber54129 16:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, SN. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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 [28] and [29] 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)

• Yeah, that's the very definition of NOTHERE, especially the talkpage abuse. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

@CFA: I am working on this now. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@CFA:  Done. Let me know if anything looks out of place. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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. JJP_Master (she/they) 15:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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