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	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	0	14	14
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	76	76
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 19 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 8 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 15 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 17 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 33 sockpuppet investigations
• 22 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 14 Fully protected edit requests
• 9 Candidates for history merging
• 5 requests for RD1 redaction
• 34 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 17 requested closures
• 134 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 26 Copyright problems

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ltbdl

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

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

ltbdl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ltbdl☃ (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

topic ban from post-1992 american politics and gender related disputes, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive334 § Ltbdl

Administrator imposing the sanction

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[1]

Statement by ltbdl

i wish for my topic bans to be lifted. the ban stems from comments i made during the telegraph rfc, disparaging springee. these were made in the heat of the moment, and i do apologize. i will not make those kinds of comments again. i want to continue to copyedit articles under these topics.

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

With the scant appeal and the recent violations it's a hard no from me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Springee

I find the explanation for the original behavior insufficient. As I noted in the original ARE discussion, I have no prior interaction with this editor. If I their original statement were the result of something, what was the offending comment? I think most of us can understand wanting to snipe at another editor if that other editor, for example, grossly insults and dismisses a logical argument you make. This, however, was out of the blue and non-specific. When other editor asked about the comment the response was to double down. Given they had time to think about their response, other editors asked them to retract the comment and finally they refused to explain the comment in the ARE, it's hard to accept "heat of the moment". What triggered that heated moment? What assurance do we have that such heat of the moment statements won't repeat? Why no explanation at the original ARE filing? Minor note: I was not notified about this filing. It does appear an attempt to ping me was part of the original request but probably failed due to the lack of a signature. Springee (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Ltbdl has already violated their TBAN. On 9 Oct they made a series of edits to Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election (exp [2]) as well as an earlier edit to 2024_United_States_presidential_debates (11 Sept [3]). Springee (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ltbdl

I'm going to first suggest say this is too soon from the topic ban being enforced to be lifted. This was less than 4 months ago. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is for sure my first impression as well. ltbdl declined to even participate in the discussion. If they want to do copyedits there are literally millions of articles not under the scope of the tban that could use it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

ltbdl, it's hard to even start saying anything about this. You made no statement when the sanctions were imposed, and now, 54 words. Give us something to work with. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

what do you want me to say? ltbdl☃ (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the violation of the topic ban as recently as 2 days ago: [4], can you tell me why I shouldn't block you immediately for this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, no clear case made for lifting coupled with the recent violation. Copyediting is welcome elsewhere and is not so needed that it merits lifting sanctions. Star Mississippi 21:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Recently violated the topic ban. C F A 💬 02:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The UCC (2.2) suggests we lend editors "a hand when they need support". Providing ltbdl incentives to explore adjacent interests beyond a specific topic area, when participation in said topic area puts their account at likely risk of restrictive protective actions, is consistent with that mandate. "Indefinite" should never be a synonym for "eternal," but four months may — perhaps — not provide sufficient time for an editor to complete their journey of reflection and exploration that a ban should, at least in part, help inspire. It would be unfair to ltbdl for us to lift the ban this year, and maybe even next year, and to do so would be a forfeiture of our aforementioned obligation to maximize opportunities for their success. I look forward to ltbdl returning to this topic at some undetermined point in the future and I can't wait to see what great contributions they'll make in other areas in the meantime. Chetsford (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and block [5] is very clearly a violation of your topic ban. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but I cannot fathom how you would think a reduction of restrictions would be appropriate at this time when you aren't abiding by it in the first place. Buffs (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting a topic ban on any editor who violated their topic ban in recent days. Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose given that they violated the topic ban just six days ago. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Merge close Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal

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

---

Coming here from ANI. This appears to be a controversial merge and the close of discussion was possibly a WP:BADNAC. The close was controversial because of off-wiki involvement, and an arb complaint against one of the voters, and then a close-call numerically. A discussion started immediately after the close, and the closer did not seem receptive to self-reverting. I would like to ask for an experienced administrator to close or reopen. The Merge closer was notified (Licks-rocks) and they only have just over 2000 edits. Merge discussion, article. Lightburst (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Involved editors

• Endorse, Licks-rocks close was well articulated. The claim that it is problematic merely because Licks-rocks only has 2,000 edits (it's actually 2,381 as of this comment, but that's irrelevant) is an argument completely lacking in policy. TarnishedPath^talk 00:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• No comment on the close, but would encourage action (here or ArbComm) to put this situation to rest as there have been many many bytes spilled over a camp/lake of very little significance (in real world speak, not notability) and old issues re-hashed at the various admin boards as well as potentially off site, apparently. Weighing in here as AfD closer, but neutral as to subject matter. It's clearly an issue that needs resolution Star Mississippi 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. As observed by @HighKing, many editors opposing the merge did not address how the sourcing -- including any new links -- actually satisfied NCORP to the extent that they should alleviate PAGEDECIDE concerns; in fact, many of them didn't even argue that the sources were IRS SIGCOV and instead just noted the article had "reliable sources". The claim that the current content was too detailed to be DUE in the target but also too encyclopedic to be deleted needed evidence those details were actually sufficiently well-supported in NCORP-level sourcing to belong anywhere, but this wasn't established. This was adequately reflected in the closer's statement there's just barely too little significant coverage for this company to have its own article, and the current Bent's Camp Resort article covers a lot of material about non-notable individuals and events as a result. This material would not survive a merge, and the remainder would not create too much of an issue being merged here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse a detailed rationale was given for the close, and a close-call numerically doesn't matter when the strength of the arguments is taken into consideration, as it was here. The AfD close stated "recommend discussing a merger on the Talk", which is exactly what happened, so allegations of off-wiki involvement are unfounded as the merge proposal was simply following the recommendation, and WP:BADNAC doesn't apply here either. Licks-rocks, please don't be discouraged from closing further discussions based on the OP's comments, you did nothing wrong here. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - Not a WP:BADNAC under any of the criteria. There was no breach of process for this 258 word article about a campsite by a lake. Not a contentious topic and no concerns were raised in the discussion that this was contentious. Indeed, Lightburst's revert of the completed merge and close discussion was done on the justification that it needs uninvolved close [6], which is exactly what it had. The close was entirely within closer discretion, and no argument has been made by Lightburst that the policy arguments were misjudged. Additionally, gidonb was uninvolved in the discussion but made the point in the post close discussion that Even IF true that the camp is notable on its own, merging was still a good idea. If and when a long and well-referenced article on the resort is developed, this can become a SPINOFF. Given the length of the lake and camp articles, and the camp being part of the lake, its shores and beaches, there is no justification to SPINOUT. Which ultimately is what this is all about. Appropriate presentation of limited material for the benefit of a reader. Because that is the first and most important role of an editor. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• EndorseSigh. It is clearly not a controversial topic: it is one non-notable camping site article being merged into an almost-as-non-notable lake article. And Lightburst reiterating how 'controverial' it is does not make it so. Thus BADNAC does not apply, either because of who made the close nor because of the nature of it. And per the close itself, it was reasoned, thought-through and accurate. If one thing comes out of this latest sojourn of Lightburst's to AN, it's that Licks-rocks should not stop closing discussions. SerialNumber54129 14:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. None of the criteria under WP:BADNAC have been met. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn WP:BADNAC 2 discussion is contentious... (multiple ways this is true) and 3 The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally... (2300 edits). All I ask is that an experienced closer - preferably an admin, assess and open or close this. This is also not a WP:SPINOUT issue as Sirfurboy has suggested, and I am also concerned that they are hanging on the "uninvolved" close words, because I later explained that I meant experience. Finally, merging a notable 100+ year old logging camp into a lake article does not help our readers and that is what this is really about. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  I later explained that I meant experience. Yes, and you also edited that word in to the answered talk page discussion here today,[7] which is a bit cheeky! BADNAC 3 is not meant to be applied to editors with five years on Wikipedia, and thousands of edits who have closed multiple discussions. It is for people who come in and don't understand what they are doing. It does not apply to Licks-rocks. BADNAC 2 is about recognising actual contentious closes, such as the telegraph RFC, for which Licks-rocks recognised that it was contentious and was attempting to form a panel close.[8] A 258 word article about a campsite on a lake is not contentious. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  This article has been discussed at ANI, WPO, AN, on several WP talk pages, in an AfD, in a Merge discussion, in this Merge review... but you say not contentious? Not-contentious per your examples but contentious causing or likely to cause an argument... - this is true of the article and having an inexperienced closer was likely to be controversial - this was shown by the immediate questioning of the close. I am wondering why this is so important to you. You have been pressing to diminish the visibility of this article - petitioning for a close, active in all discussion to diminish. Is it to protect the integrity of the project? I imagine someone who wants to learn about this historic place but they are directed to a lake? This helps our readers? And you say an editor with 2300 edits should close contentious discussions. What other contested merge discussions or other numerically divided discussions have they closed? I started in 2013 but made few edits until 2018, so if I started closing discussions in 2018 I would have five years on my account and not enough experience. Licks-Rocks had 19 edits in 2019, 256 in 2020, 285 in 2021, 192 in 2022, 1105 in 2023... 524 for 2024. They have started one article. They have only been involved in 20 AfDs. So I am not saying they are a bad editor, just that they do not have the experience and clout to close this discussion. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  A lack of clout also makes it a BADNAC now? TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  TP I would like to ask you to stop trolling me. You have trolled my talk page and nearly every comment I make here - please stop jabbing me. You have been very uncollegial for quite a long time. Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I note further mistruths, aspersions and incivility from you. I'd suggest you strike but I've come to expect that you have no intention of adhering to Wikipedia's behavioural guidelines. The irony here is that you started an ANI thread against ATG, largely on the basis of their incivility. TarnishedPath^talk 01:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• Weak overturn: The WP:BADNAC argument obviously doesn't work here, because WP:BADNAC explicitly says that closes shouldn't be challenged solely because the closer was not an admin. But I also don't like this close, because it was extremely close numerically and because more of the support arguments had no policy content than oppose arguments. I don't think it was completely unreasonable, but I do think this is a case of a closer trying to find any shred of consensus where no consensus actually exists. Loki (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I do not think finding consensus to merge was within the closer's discretion. I do not think the supporters sufficiently rebutted the notability arguments, and while I persoanlly agree that the merge would be good here, I didn't see a compelling argument under NOPAGE in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, most of the supporters' arguments were backed up further during the AfD, here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn pretty much per voorts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse The sourcing was insignificant and routine and did not justify a standalone article. Campgrounds and cabins are common on these lakes, and they should be covered in the context of the lake rather than as generic local businesses, if at all, and the close addresses the comments to this point appropriately. Reywas92^Talk 16:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. WP:BADNAC is just one big ad hominem. The merge discussion must be seen in the context of the AfD that preceded it and spurred its opening. In that discussion, the closer found the merge !votes to give a "slight edge" to retaining the information, either at the original article or in a merged form. Equally, the merge and delete !votes together suggest a clear majority at the AfD did not consider the topic notable enough for its own article. Therefore, I do not find the oppose !votes in the merge discussion, essentially seeking to rehash the notability question, solid enough, and support the close in favour of merging. It's hair-thin, and I'm not sure what I would have done, had I been forced at gunpoint to close this discussion, but I think that even if one does not find the above line of reasoning persuasive, one should apply some WP:IAR to let everyone move on from this historically unimportant quarrel. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse BADNAC's definition of experience is The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia. This seems to me like it's talking about brand new editors with edit counts in the low hundreds, especially those who are not extended confirmed. Applying that to an editor with 2300+ edits, 5 years experience, and long history of discussion participation is a stretch. I do agree that the discussion is controversial, but the controversy seems to be about longstanding grudges and not anything to do with Bent's Camp Resort or Marnie Lake. Pinguinn 🐧 23:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Close seems fine to me. I agree with everything Pinguinn writes, especially the last sentence. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - and I have to say that I'm really unimpressed with the conduct by Lightburst here. The seeming hyperfixation on Lick-rocks' edit count is a classic case of editcountitis, and it almost comes off as condescending. It almost comes across as "this editor must have X amount of edits before they can close merge discussions". How many? 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000? Also the appealing to administrators below is almost like asking the other parent. An often repeated axiom at RFA is that administrators are just editors with extra buttons, and their opinion doesn't hold any more special weight than a "normal" editor. Administrators don't need to "counsel" Lick-rocks on anything, seeing as many editors here agree with what he did. LB, you're fellow editors *can* have a different opinion from you without you "feeling bad" for them, whatever the hell that means. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. Really couldn't care less for any BADNAC complaints—small lake resorts aren't a contentious topic, that the discussion got a bit heated does not mean a NAC is ill-advised. I think no consensus results should be avoided when feasible, and this was feasible; a lot of "Oppose" arguments were rehash of the AfD notability debate, which is irrelevant per WP:NOPAGE. There were some bad votes on the "merge" side too, but the core argument that the amount of information that WP ought to have on the resort based on coverage is short enough for a merge to be desirable checks out. Mach61 01:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• If any admin feels this close was poorly executed, they are of course free to notify me and re-close with a different result. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Pinging @Sirfurboy, @Serial Number 54129, @AndyTheGrump, @Frank Anchor, @7&6=thirteen, @Silver seren, @Yngvadottir, @HighKing, @Isaidnoway, @Bruxton, @JoelleJay, @Cunard and @Homeostasis07 as involved editors. TarnishedPath^talk 23:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Not relevant to the merge close. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Clearly an issue that requires extensive admin attention, if not an ArbCom resolution to make sure this level of off-site WPO harassment never happens again to another user. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC) If you're implying that I'm part of a conspiracy of WPO harassment, such outlandish claims require correspondingly strong evidence to justify making them. Otherwise you're just straight up peddling mistruths. TarnishedPathtalk 00:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC) I agree with TarnishedPath, I don't appreciate the implication that I was involved in some alleged "off-site WPO harassment". If you have evidence against specific users, then be specific, and stop casting aspersions. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Where did I say either of you – or any of the pinged editors – were involved in off-site harassment? All I said was such harassment exists. Links to WPO discussions cannot be provided on-site because of an RfC that determined posting those links would constitute "outing", even in situations when WPO users themselves dox, harass, threaten and abuse on-site editors. That's the aspect to all this that requires @ArbCom: attention, unless admins here finally take a stand to address these issues beforehand. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Ok, here's the deal. If you think there is grounds for an ArbCom case, start one. Because making repeated accusations of wrongdoing while failing to provide the slightest bit of evidence is an abuse of WP:AN [9] and WP:ANI [10] noticeboards, and clearly also off-topic for any merge [11] discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC) An aside: Homeostasis07, if you can't post to WPO content, then please don't make allusions to that website when talking about other editors on Wikipedia. This is casting aspersions, whether or not you see it that way. Additionally, I am curious how you think admins or ArbCom can have any influence over the content posted there, whether it is idle gossip or harassment. I'm not sure of exactly what "stand" you want admins or arbitrators to take as many of the people who post there are already blocked on this project. I know that I'm not going to spend my time on WPO reading posts there when I could be doing productive work here. And if the content there upsets you, I suggest you steer clear of visiting that site. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC) @Liz: Please see the RfC that determined posting any links to WPO are prohibited. I certainly agree with you about the overall state of WPO. It's a cesspool that isn't worth any productive editor's time or effort. I'd love to post 50 different links to random WPO comments I have saved, but I can't. I've been going through those links, and have seen that several Wikipedia users have been deleting their uncivil comments on WPO. Thankfully, I saved most of them on webcite. This will certainly make one of the more interesting Arb cases, should they accept. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC) I thought WebCite had stopped accepting archiving requests over a year ago? Anyway, if you are going to start an ArbCom case, I suggest you stop muddying the waters further by making allegations here, when you can't post the evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Not if you have access via an academic membership. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC) This thread is supposed to be a review of the closure of a merge discussion. This off-topic stuff should be hatted or something. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 04:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Lightburst, there is absolutely nothing contentious about this subject. It is a boring location on a lake. Claiming that it is contentious does not make it so. Further your claim that Licks-rocks 2,388 edits (not 2,000 like you claim) entails has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally is without merit. Licks-rocks has been editing for at least 5 years. BADNAC does not apply and absolutely zero of your arguments address any inadequacies in the close itself. TarnishedPath^talk 14:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I hoped for an experienced closer because this discussion looked like a classic no-consensus. In coming to AN, I hoped that one of the administrators on the project would look at the merge discussion and assess. I feel bad that some of my colleagues have come here saying they believe this was a fair reading. I believe as Loki said above, it seems like

a case of a closer trying to find any shred of consensus where no consensus actually exists

. I also feel bad that two of my colleagues have encouraged Licks-rocks to continue to make more of these types of closes. I hope that an administrator will counsel Licks-rocks about that for the good of the project. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

The situation on the List of Nobel Laureates page

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

---

There are numerous disruptive edits going on, anonymous IP accounts en masse revert changes and promote nationalist agenda, the page is unsorted and the users refuse to discuss this issue on the Talk page. I've requested protection, but was refused, yet this keeps going on and on. What should I do? Athoremmes (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Athoremmes: I'm not seeing any problems at List of Nobel laureates (only 24 edits this calendar year...none seem especially controversial or inaccurate). I assume you mean List of Nobel laureates by country? Buffs (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I have meant List of Nobel Laureates by country Athoremmes (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

RFPP request posted for you. Expect it will be handled within about 3-6 hours (if not sooner). Don't fret :-) Buffs (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Athoremmes (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Burst of Joy.jpg

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

---

Hi, Please undelete the first version, so that it can be moved to Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Yann  Done – robertsky (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

2000editor

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

---

• 2000editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor was indefinitely blocked a little less than 24 hours ago by User:Star Mississippi for disruptive editing, consisting mostly of tendentiously trying to move a draft of Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18 from draft space into article space before it is ready. It appears that other editors want to work in a more deliberate fashion on the season, but that 2000editor was getting in their way with misguided enthusiasm. My first, unimportant comment is that I think that the block was in order. This editor has then made four unblock requests which say only that they want to be unblocked. Three of them have been declined by three administrators, and the fourth is open. I agree with the declines of the unblock requests that they didn't address the reasons for the block, but we already knew that.

I think that this editor has a competency problem, probably linguistic, and it is time to disable their user talk page. Can someone advise them, in Hindi that they might be better off editing the Hindi Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support removing TPA, which I will not do as original blocker. But there's nothing in any of the requests that makes me think 2000 will be a productive editor if unblocked. Star Mississippi 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• I’ve left them a couple of sentences about the Hindi Wikipedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

As with the many attempts to previously guide them, it does not seem to have worked. I think removal of TPA at this point would be appropriate. Their unblock requests (six of them) continue to demonstrate the amount of time editors have wasted. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. They flat out ignored good advice and kept repeating the same. Daniel (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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

ThecentreCZ unblock request

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

Copied from their user talk page:

Hello, I would like to ask administrator to put forward my request to the Administrators' noticeboard for unblock, according to WP:Standard offer. I have been contributing to other Wikimedia projects meanwhile as is recommended for users at unblock requests.

I would like to acknowledge my misconducts and mistakes like of inproper citations, especially that I did considered List of banned political parties and also other instances of lists as Stand-alone list, because I didn't take in consideration that there is also column which contains ideologies and year of occurance and I did not given proper citation in my first edits. I then reverted the edit more than once which let to the editor to report it as an incident there. Sadly, I didn't get a chance to properly repond to the most of the instances discussed and apologize again in the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, because I was blocked for a period of month on the same day that the incidents were raised, on 15 March 2024, and I couldn't respond anymore. Factically it was somehow connected to the instance of incident of other blocked user, who probably used his account for singe-issue editing, but he also did other benefitial contributions to Wikipedia so I just presented my concerns there. In the case of disruptive editing and and insults, I would like to say that I will no longer edit contentious topics and use such language I used. I would like to apologize for about 3 vulgar words in the last 5 years I used, which could have been rightfully taken as insults and about 8 edit disputes, where I wrongly accused someone of something they have not ment. I agree that vulgar-insulting words are unacceptable and it was proper reason for blocking. It was very bad of me, but as of my editing I many times got into situation that people removed sourced information and it is not always easy to keep cool thinking and distuinguish proper and inproper editing, as I did many sourced corrections in about 10,000 edits I've made. In the matter of what I will be participating in the future, as I created about 80 articles in the past on English Wikipedia, I will continue to create only sourced articles with proper information and I will not participate in any disputes and in disagreements in such disproportionate language I did in the past. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Final comment from ANI thread prior to block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• That is a pretty messed up discussion, and past. Still, I'm inclined to accept this with the understanding that there will be a short WP:rope for future incivility, and a low threshold for refusing to source content. For me, the saving grace is you also have a history of creating worthwhile articles. I don't care if your mind is "politically incorrect", however, I do mind when it comes out in your interactions with others here, which is disruptive. Honestly, that is why you got the indef block; not the sourcing; it was the comments re: autism/retard, and by community standards, it was a perfectly valid block. Editors here have a very low tolerance for that stuff, even when it is said in jest/hyperbole/as slang. If you can restrain yourself, then I'm fine with an unblock. My guess is that not everyone would agree, but we aren't here to punish "wrongthink" (as a lot of people use terms in RL that wouldn't be acceptable in this public forum). We do need to enforce a reasonable level of civility which this clearly breached, in order to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• It's fine to unblock TCCZ, but certain restrictions might apply. Insulting other editors is a huge mistake, TCCZ. I consider weak support for the unblocking. I hope TCCZ will not repeat the same mistake he did before. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblocking as editor seems to understand why they were blocked and that what they did was wrong. It must be understood that such unblock is on pain of swift redoing should further offences occur, but let's at least give a chance here. Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I'll leave an opinion on this soon but just want to point out the AN/I thread that got them indeffed. It's important to understand what this user had actually done that resulted in them getting blocked. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure why the user is mentioning the amount of uncivil comments they've left over the years. They certainly deserved an indefinite block for their actions but considering that they seemed to have apologised for that and have promised to not do it anymore, I agree with Dennis Brown on giving them another chance to see if they have improved their behavior. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Rosguill had already posted this above, so I'm assuming everyone opining had already read through. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

IBAN appeal

I would like to request an appeal of the two-way involuntary interaction ban between myself and MaranoFan. It was imposed by the community a year ago in October 2023. The conflict originated in the context of nomination pages like FAC. I wouldn't interact with them at those types of venues in the future anyways, and I don't see why replying to one another in a WikiProject discussion or something similarly low-stakes would lead to further conflict. To my knowledge there have been no violations of the IBAN in the year since it was active. I genuinely believe it has served its purpose; let's move on. Heartfox (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support - As long as those two people are moving on for a long, it is not useful to let IBAN in place. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - The IBAN discussion was reopened and reinstated after being closed once, because some thought it was also necessary to prevent drama on noticeboards and stop the wastage of community time. The fact that this has not been acknowledged in the opening statement looks to me like dodging blame and does not instill me with confidence that that behavior would be avoided. I would have appreciated being reached out to through email or something else but, alas, ANI has been taken as the venue directly without reaching out to me or any individual admin to waste less community time. IBAN remains necessary.--NØ 07:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Since my participation on the Carey article has been brought up, it is related to efforts to save it from losing FA status (I stumbled upon the FARC since Carey came up while I was doing research for another article). I started helping there because the comments there were not being engaged with. Authorship is looked at to determine major contributors, and Heartfox's shows up as 2.8% which doesn't really qualify (even I have 1.1%). Anyways, on the topic of the IBAN itself, since there is no admission of wrongdoing and they feel the necessity to assert that their original escalation to ANI was "valid", it is absolutely still necessary.--NØ 01:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I said above that "I genuinely believe it has served its purpose". This was me saying I am acknowledging my responsibility; ie the IBAN had a purpose. The second ANI was unquestionably valid as it led to the exact thing I suggested and this was later affirmed at AN, so it was not a waste of time even though I understand your point of view. MaranoFan, you are one of the rare people on Wikipedia who actually improve the project by writing quality articles. I respect you more than 99% of other editors and wish we could move past this era. Sincerely, Heartfox (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• I would have appreciated being reached out to through email or something else but, alas, ANI has been taken as the venue directly without reaching out to me I don't think this is a reasonable expectation (without comment on the merits of your other thoughts), because it would be a de facto breach of the IBAN. We don't expect IBAN appeals to be preceded by an IBAN violation. Grandpallama (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't know all the history of this, but it doesn't seem wise to lift an IBAN if one of the parties objects. We've got 6,898,024 articles; surely there's enough room for both parties to find stuff they're interested in without having to be editing the same pages. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well right now anytime I edit Mariah Carey in the future, which is an article to which I am one of the top-ten authors and is one of my top-ten most-edited articles, I have to go back to the 30 edits MaranoFan made yesterday every time and ensure I don't change anything that they happened to add or get potentially blocked for IBAN violations. This is very discouraging to my activity on Wikipedia. Heartfox (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  So it seems like the solution there is to p-block both of you from that article. RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  There's no history of edit warring or content disputes so that seems completely excessive. Both users are members at WP:MIMI, so "We've got 6,898,024 articles" doesn't apply here. The IBAN is preventing improvements to articles when both editors have to tread over eggshells when editing even though the IBAN had nothing to do with content. MaranoFan should be able to fix a typo or a misplaced link in an article I wrote so articles can be improved, and vice versa. To continue an IBAN in part because I opened a valid ANI thread over a year ago and because I am appealing the IBAN to the community instead of an individual admin (which is not even the process?) is unjustified. Heartfox (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  What would that accomplish? McYeee (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Let's give such interactions a chance. It's been a year and he seems to have learned his lesson. We can always re-enable the iban. Buffs (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to see recent evidence where either of the two users have violated the IBAN, otherwise I support this request. >>> Extorc.talk 16:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Come on, guys. Heartfox said he would "be certain to avoid [me] in the future" in November 2022 and ended up starting two ANI threads about me after that. They also called me "someone so insecure in real life or online, it is low-key scary. Due to their insecurity they see everything I do as a form of competition against them and go to FAC coordinator and Did You Know talk pages to spew nonsense about how I am trying to 'take them out'", which they were just allowed to get away with even though I had been blocked at the time. After the IBAN had formally been enacted, they joined an RfC I had started, a mere 15 minutes after I was having a heated argument there and took the opposite side. They have also gone to an FAC a mere few days after I reviewed it, to "agree" with two of my comments ("I would agree that People's Daily does not seem to be a high-quality source", "I would agree that claiming "crisper and warmer" to be a paraphrase when it also happens to be verbatim from one of the citations attributed to the consensus is problematic") but making sure to indicate that they did not agree the work had to be done outside the FAC process. Anyways, this is my last comment here. All I am saying is, they have some trouble staying away from me and it is well documented.--NØ 18:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

IP talk page with extensive history of warnings hijacked for a draft

212.219.59.241 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

I'm not sure what the appropriate procedure would be here. If the content of User talk:212.219.59.241 appeared in an article I would probably tag it for G3 (I don't think this person is real), but the history shows warnings being issued from 2005 to 2022. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the content and advised the user to request an account. If they try to write a hoax, we can deal with it then. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that this Barry Winston chap exists, but even if he does the achievements (such as "wildly successful") are exaggerated and he is almost certainly not notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the history, and it seems to be AI Generated Content as well as completely made up, just in case anyone was wondering about it. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree, it was ringing my AI alarm too. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Assistance Desired

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

---

Hi,

I am a participant in this article, which seems to have been subject to intermittent vandalism – involving unjustified mass deletions of well-sourced content – especially by a registered user (113 edits) who exhibits continuous WP:NPA and WP:HA violations across several pages, to show but a few: I, II, III and IV.

In one of those messages, I was dehumanised by the user as an “entity” and “[not being able to talk as] a mature Wikipedian [human being]”.

So far, I have been extremely polite and restraint in dealing with all the aggressive correspondence from the user, alongside my willingness to remove a tremendous number of entries undesired by the user – against my will – which hasn’t apparently appeased the user. Rather, I’ve sensed considerable intimidation from the user’s persistent refusal to be respectful.

I do not want to deem this an urgent matter, but the user doesn’t seem to be interested in good-faith participation. May I ask what would be the best course of action?

I wasn’t active on Wikipedia until recent months and ain’t familiar with the handling of such situations.

Steven1991 (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991: report their vandalism at the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard; that usually gets a pretty swift response (but check WP:VAN to make sure their edits are "blatant vandalism"). If they attack you or make egregious policy violations in other ways (as they seem to have done here), then that warrants a report to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (but note that's for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems). If you want to make a career oput of it, get a few weeks decent vandal hunting under your belt and then apply for the WP:ROLLBACK permission. The Counter-vandalism unit is a good training ground. You should probably be extended confirmed by now? Refresh yourself on contentious topics, designated by the arbitration commitee, and be aware of the restrictions on edit warring. Hope this helps! ((Non-administrator comment)) SerialNumber54129 17:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am an extended confirmed user. Steven1991 (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Those edits aren't vandalism; this is a routine content dispute over inclusion, where WP:ONUS applies, especially given that there are WP:BLP concerns. If anything, repeatedly re-adding contested material without consensus is the most problematic behavior here. Anyone reviewing this should also be aware of OP's recent history. [12][13] Grandpallama (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, right... That'll teach me to AGF. D'oh! Guess I haven't had the brutal upbringing required to post an ANI  :)

@Steven1991: On consideration, I suggest that you find other, less controversial topocs to edit. You will find it easier. So will others, I imagine. SerialNumber54129 17:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. Steven1991 (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to note that, while trying to mediate between @Wikipedious1 & @Steven1991, Steven had opened a sockpuppet investigation against Wikipedious & 2 other editors who had disagreed with them in the past. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The CheckUser staff concluded that there’s nothing wrong and closed the case. I feel that it’s not relevant to the current issue. Steven1991 (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those mistakes were made by me before and I already apologised for them. I don’t see the purpose of casting aspersions on me over here and selectively considering facts when I presented evidence of the user’s repeated aggression which constitutes a totally different case?

Regarding some of the reverts, the primary instance was a result of the user’s vandalism in which the user engaged in mass deletions without reason (either blank or Lol in several editing summaries) for which the user was blocked for 48 hours, so those reversals were justified as per Wikipedia guidelines on vandalism. I don’t see how it can be trivialised as “content dispute” ? Steven1991 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC

In looking at the article talkpage, there are numerous editors expressing concerns about content you are pushing to include. And you are repeatedly personalizing the dispute and casting plenty of aspersions of your own--to an unwise degree given your own recent block history (three in the past month), and made doubly so by your decision to call admin attention to this dispute. My best advice to you is to withdraw this filing, show more good faith at the talkpage, and make sure you understand WP:ONUS, WP:BLP, and WP:BLPCRIME; your hands are far from clean here. Grandpallama (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I already accepted the highly subjective judgment of certain users including the one repeatedly using charged words, and removed most of the poorly sourced or allegedly irrelevant content from the list within that article as per the Talk page discussion. What am I further expected to do when significant compromise has already been made? Throughout those discussions, I have been extremely polite, patient and humble regardless of the tone of that user. And as explained, some of the reverts were made pursuant to guidelines concerning mass deletions of well-sourced content without reason, i.e. vandalism. It is nowhere “personalizing” to point out offensive word usage or manner, including being referred to as an “entity” rather than a human with a username. I don’t see how you can paint me as an aggressor, based on some past wrongdoings I have already taken responsibility for or issues I cannot agree with as a matter of principle, when I have been at the receiving end of all those apparent personal attacks as shown by the evidence (if not more)? You appear to have ignored or misinterpreted all the evidence and fixated on my “personality”, which I find unfair. Just because an editor made mistakes in the past, it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve basic respect as a human being or aren’t entitled to raise concern on this noticeboard when necessary. I would appreciate if you can show some basic respect to me.Steven1991 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have ignored or misinterpreted all the evidence but fixated on your perception of my personality, which I find unfair. Just because an editor made mistakes in the past, it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve basic respect as a human being. I am afraid that your judgment is wrong. Casting more aspersions isn't going to end well, but by all means, keep digging; you asked what should be done, and you've gotten the answer--withdraw the filing and drop this. I also note that you didn't inform Wikipedious1 that you opened a discussion about them, which is required, as explained by the giant yellow banner at the top of the page displayed when you edit. Grandpallama (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not “casting aspersions” to express disagreement with wordings that are not an accurate representation of what happened. I would appreciate if you can assume good faith when you expect me to, and stop defending the apparent instances of WP:NPA violations by the user as discussed in my #1 post. Steven1991 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Since you still haven't notified Wikipedious1, I have now done so. At this stage, based upon the responses here that mirror the battleground nature of those that you provided in the previous discussions about your behavior, I suspect a TBAN may be necessary. Grandpallama (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t added further content to that article for days while complying with other users’ demands to remove content they consider as irrelevant, so I don’t see how I am “uncooperative”. I have been listening, engaging and following when appropriate. I would appreciate if you refrain from classifying someone’s self-defense as “battleground” when they are trying their best to explain to you how they perceive what have happened to them and why they find it difficult coming to terms with it. Steven1991 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have stated all my points and will return to the article to continue the discussion with relevant users on the content. Have a good day. Steven1991 (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991: what makes you think that WP:ARBECR applies to this revert? M.Bitton (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You have already asked the same question on an uninvolved admin’s Talk page. Please avoid WP:SHOPPING forum shopping. However Nevertheless, for convenience, I’d state my points again:

The edit you linked may not be directly related, but the article itself is tangentially related to the A/I conflict given that many of the incidents are associated with events thereof to varying extent. In that article, “Israel” is mentioned 48 times, “Palestine” 6 times and “Gaza” 3 times, almost all in the context of A/I conflict-associated issues, not mentioning over a dozen of edits was made by another non-EC user in which the Gaza War was discussed directly, which shouldn’t have been done in the first place until that user has become an EC member. Just because it hasn’t been noticed by an admin, it doesn’t prevent EC users from making discrete reverts of non-EC users’ entries on the stated ground as per the protection under WP:ARBECR’s clause C and D.

Steven1991 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from casting aspersions. 1) I'm not involved in the dispute. 2) I did ask you for clarification, but you refused to answer and said This is the personal Talk page of an uninvolved admin. We need to respect their space., so here we are.

The edit you linked may not be directly related it's not related at all (unless proven otherwise). Which begs the question, why did you invoke ARBECR as a justification for your revert? M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Two editors reverted that, so it's just edit warring, the ARBECR justification is just wrong because assuming Arbpia restrictions apply on that page, they only apply to related content. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It was only a single revert within 24 hours. It’s not edit warring. Steven1991 (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the ECR, an uninvolved admin ruled to another non-EC user that this example (from this page), despite not mentioning the war directly, also constituted an ECR violation. It’s not “my definition” but how they perceive it:

You [another non-EC user] cannot engage with this topic on the talk page, and this is another ECR violation. I suggest you stay well away from anything that is even tangentially related to the Arab/Israel conflict until you are extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991 (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

How is it not related? How do you decide it? How are you so sure? Please see the example I quoted from an uninvolved admin who passed by the thread of the article – the admin considered it as related and asked one of the non-EC users to stay away from it. Steven1991 (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not “casting aspersion” to describe what you are doing on this thread. It’s rather I am being subject to it throughout the correspondence, including the aggressive ones in violation of the WP:NPA by the non-EC user concerned for which the user issued me an “Apology” on my Talk page. Steven1991 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That article is not covered by ARBECR, and that edit certainly isn't. You edit warred it right back in over the objection of other editors, despite being told on this noticeboard to review WP:ONUS. Grandpallama (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not “edit warring” to revert a specific edit that hasn’t been asked by other extended confirmed editors to remove. The specific non-EC user, who shouldn’t have been engaging in those activities tangentially associated with the A/I conflict in the first place, is the ONLY person who unilaterally removed it without having received prior input from other participants beforehand. There has NEVER been a consensus to take that specific case off from the list. It had not apparently been discussed fully. You CANNOT make up one when there is none. That edit reversal was a single edit I made within 24 hours in that article. It has neither hit the 1RR nor 3RR bar, so I don’t see how it’s such a serious matter. Is it only “edit warring” when the reversal involves the removal of something not aligned with your personal view? I don’t want to guess, but I have the impression that it’s been mischaracterised by you and/or another account who has never participated in that article’s editing activities, i.e. disinterested parties. Steven1991 (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The ARBECR doesn’t consider such issues on the basis of an article as a whole but related content. Clause C and D authorise an extended confirmed user to revert an non-EC edit if the content of that edit is tangentially related to the restricted topic(s). Steven1991 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please note that another editor has already pointed that out to them (see [1][2]). M.Bitton (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The user’s judgment is not accurate, unfortunately. Steven1991 (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Is that some kind of joke? M.Bitton (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are going after me over this? The user you quoted doesn’t appear to be an EC user themself? May I know how is it an issue to you? Have you ever been involved in that article’s editing activities? Steven1991 (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t want to argue with you. I will be away once I’ve made my points clear. Steven1991 (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

 Note: as if harassing other editors wasn't enough,[1][2] the OP decided to template me (for no reason whatsoever). M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not “harassing” to give multiple reminders when the non-EC user engaged in personal attacks on me repeatedly. The purpose of the reminders is to save the time from getting specialised admins involved. Steven1991 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to know how you would perceive if a stranger online repeatedly refers to you as an “entity” and uses insulting language in most of their correspondence associated with a discussion in which you are involved? Steven1991 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Steven1991 (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

My last reply to you. Feel free to have a look at the following quote guideline:

Accusing others of harassment

Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of harassment on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle. At the same time, claims of harassment should be taken seriously and not be summarily dismissed unless it becomes clear the accusations are not well-founded.

I’d appreciate if you stop tagging me as well – have a good day. Steven1991 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Steven1991 (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. There is now another thread about this at WP:ANI, because Steven1991 decided to WP:FORUMSHOP their arguments to WP:RFPP. Their longwinded bludgeoning there resulted in the entire thread being declared unsuited for RFPP (of course) and being moved to ANI. Steven1991 needs either a broadly construed TBAN from the topic of antisemitism, or (in light of their numerous recent blocks), an indef until they are able to demonstrate an understanding about editing collaboratively. Enough is enough. Grandpallama (talk)

And in response for my calling for sanctions, Steven1991 dropped a NPA template on my talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps don’t do it if you don’t want one? Steven1991 (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this thread has (thankfully) subsided as a result of the ANI one, but for the record, I have never leveled a single PA against you. Grandpallama (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Madoc revert

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

---

I would like to ask for permission to keep a reinstated revert I did in the Madog ab Owain Gwynedd article, I need help from an administrator with experience on the issue. Please see Talk:Madoc for the unfolding issue. The user @Richard Keatinge: reverted over 12,000 characters of work conducted on and off over the past two weeks, the work was a simple tidyup and grammar correction to unfold an unreadable article. Then I simply added a few references and a new paragraph and merged other paragraphs and simply adding references where they were missing. The work I undertook was simple, with virtually no additions except for one La Times reference and a few website to reinforce the point. The reason I have come to the administrators board is because of the issue Richard and I had when I did work on House of Aberffraw up until September 2023 was reverted, there was a discussion: Talk:House of Aberffraw#An entire article of OR? which was settled (or forcibly quashed, depends who's opinion that is), and also at the same time there was an issue regarding King of Wales, please see Talk:King of Wales#King of Wales. It's just I feel the user I mentioned has potentially been personal in reverting my work again, this time without a real reason. Therefore I would like an administrator to intervene, and if possible look at the Aberffraw and King of Wales discussions from last year to identify the bigger picture, as I believe the work on the King of Wales article in particular should be reverted to the improved forms, as the article has gone from 53,000 character to 6,000 for the past year, and no one was has made an effort to continue the good work that was done for the King of Wales article. Please and thanks. Cltjames (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames, you haven't even given the reverting editor time to respond on the article's talk page (he hasn't edited since the revert). Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The user and I had an ongoing discussion last year, and this complaint is not just for the revert he did today, it is also for the reverts and potential article deletions which he did last year. Therefore, he has spoken about my 2/3 of my complaints. Cltjames (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that in both the discussions at Talk:King of Wales and Talk:House of Aberffraw, other editors agreed with Richard Keatinge's arguments. Do you have diffs of any behavioral or conduct-related issues that an administrator can consider? What you've presented so far just looks like multiple content disputes. Schazjmd (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel I want an administrator's opinion on the King of Wales article in particular, as you have to look at the List of legendary rulers of Cornwall and List of High Kings of Ireland and Legendary kings of Scotland. Out of the majority of Celtic nations, Wikipedia allows for the Irish, Scottish and Cornish articles to display legendary rulers... So, why not the Welsh?? As for content disputes, I'm not sure if Richard is being personal in dismissing my work, or if he read through the article carefully to see my copyedit. Therefore, again I would like a professional opinion, I just feel my side of the argument has been underappreciated and it needs more input that only Wikiproject Wales users, as it has NOT been a neutral process so far. Cltjames (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames, administrators don't have the final say on content. In content disputes, they're equal to all other editors. Take a look through dispute resolution and see if there are any methods you haven't tried yet. Sometimes, you just have to accept that community consensus doesn't agree with your point-of-view and move on to other articles. Schazjmd (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks. It's just unfair how consensus isn't always the right answer, take @Titus Gold: for instance, his was work good and correct, only to be dismissed based on an unfair trial. The work I conducted was diligent and I spent 2 weeks on and off IMPROVING the article's structure and grammar and references problems. Therefore, to avoid an edit war, I've brought it to the noticeboard, something I have learnt from trial and error. I guess we will wait for Richard's comment on the issue and take it from there, thanks @Schazjmd:. But for the record, I believe the article is correctly presented now, and I want a peer review type situation that's all, it would be crazy to dismiss my edits without a correct review. Cltjames (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

So, quick update. As for the Madoc article, there shouldn't be any real issues with the grammar, structure or presentation of facts, because it was vetted for years and just minorly updated with a few paragraphs. Therefore, I have submitted a request to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Madoc for a copyedit, which is a good idea. Otherwise, the debate over the King of Wales article is now settled as I've created the article List of legendary rulers of Wales using the previous reverted version. And as for Aberffraw, I did continue to work on the article after the cull and revert, and I'm satisfied with the standard of the article now, compared to before that is. So, can we cooperate please Richard, and just do minor edits and not a complete revert, as I'm only arguing my case with administrators reading because I genuinely feel a revert was the wrong idea due to the scope of the edits being minor in comparison to an overhaul, sorry about this again. Cltjames (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German

The name of the suspect at Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German needs to be suppressed once again. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe a new RfC needs to be held on the issue? Taking a quick look at the article, the trial is now underway, so it's going to be attracting fresh attention from casual editors. The circumstances of a year and a half ago regarding the individual are different (beyond just arrested and charged), so it might be worth revisiting, even if just to reaffirm there is no consensus to include. Grandpallama (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is really a disconnect of WP:BLP that I haven't known how to even begin addressing until now. For this case, we have the following in the article: and on October 31, was charged with two counts of murder. - properly sourced to a reliable source that names the suspect. It is absolutely absurd that we must avoid naming the suspect on Wikipedia even when it's named in a source that we link to in the same sentence. BLP is a very necessary policy. However, it should not prevent naming someone as a suspect when they are named in reliable sources. Currently, BLP states the following: editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. This should be changed to "not including material - in any article - that suggests the person has committed a crime". Reporting on accusations should not be subject to BLP so long as those accusations are sourced. The fact someone was charged with a crime is almost always due, even if they were not convicted of that crime. Being charged with a crime does not imply guilt.

In other words, I agree with Grandpallama above - if there is a prior consensus that the name of the suspect is inappropriate... there needs ot be serious reconsideration of that issue and of whether it's a BLP issue to begin with. This is a high profile crime and the suspect's name is linked to from the citation at the end of the sentence. Surpressing it here does fuck all for preventing it when it's literally one link click away (or are we claiming we don't encourage readers to use our citations to verify the information we present?). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The rationale behind BLPCRIME is that we shouldn't name non-public figures, particularly criminal defendants, who did not choose their status. Reliable sources naming someone is one thing, but I believe that we have an ethical duty to avoid creating a permanent record—one that affects how search engines, AI chatbots, etc. present information—for someone who might be innocent. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a perfectly reasonable take, and I don't know that I have a position on inclusion vs. exclusion. But I do question relying on RfC results for a situation that is different now than it was in April 2023. Separately, I see the RfC resulted in no consensus for inclusion, but I'm not sure how that leapt to "edits must be suppressed". Grandpallama (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

See, I'd support that... but the problem is that no other source has this sort of policy. When charges are first announced, sure, they will wait for an actual indictment before they report a name. But I cannot think of a source that has a similar policy.

The concern over presenting an indicted/charged person as a criminal is real. That is solved through requiring the prose be accurate. It is not our problem if an AI chat bot uses Wikipedia to hallucinate that someone was a criminal. It's not the fault of the news organization for reporting that someone was charged with a crime and that information is misused. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If editors want a wider RfC on BLP policy perhaps at WT:BLP there could be merit for that I guess. I don't see what purpose an RfC on naming the suspect will serve at this time. The trial is set to end by November 15th. With an existing RfC even if it was no consensus, and considering the BLP importance it seems to me ending any RfC early with a new consensus is questionable no matter how clear any initial consensus seems to be. Meaning the RfC should run for at least a full 30 days before we can name the suspect. And this is a jury trial meaning that barring very very long jury deliberations we should have a result within 1-2 weeks of the trial ending. So at best starting an RfC now, we might be naming the person 1 week before the situation is likely to change significantly with either an acquittal or conviction. While it's always possible there will be a hung jury or some other kind of mistrial, I think better to just wait those 6 weeks or so and see what the situation is then and then do an RfC. Further if things have significantly changed, there will be much more reason why it might be reasonable to end the RfC early if consensus seems clear. Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

For now, we should suppress the edits, then repost the name only if there is a conviction. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC would be worthless at this point due to the time constraints and with the majority of the points above (aside from the need to supress a name that is covered in the majority of reliable sources and citations in the article. Seems rather drastic to leap to the need to supress when the name is widely published).

And at this point, is the guy even a 'low profile person' anymore, where BLPCRIME is concerned? Looking over the old edits of some of the people who had a hand in actually making that policy, Bbb23, SlimVirgin, and even though he didn't have a hand in making the policy Jimmy all seemed to think that a high profile crime could make someone a high profile person.

There is also the fact that the subjects attorneys pushed for his name to be released a while back 'in the hopes it would bring tips [14]' or similar. A press conference followed by a press release, and later a fundraiser to get his name out there.

Are we not supposed to take into account what a subject wants in terms of inclusion/exclusion? Jimmy said yes years ago [15] [16], ARBCOM said to consider the legal and ethical implications of our edits for BLPs, WMF stated we should be Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest.

I could understand waiting for a resolution to the trial to follow a strict following of the letter of BLPCRIME, but if the subject/his attorneys wanted his name out prior to the trial to help him, it seems like waiting for a conviction before considering what they want goes against the above paragraph. It is essentially saying a policy put in place to protect someones reputation from false accusations holds more power than what the subject wants, which seems wrong on so many levels.

Awshort (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that there may be cases where defendants who have not been convicted yet may want to publicize their names—such as in cases of civil disobedience, public ransoms, or acts of terror—I do not believe that this is one of those cases. The comments at the pressers were pretty bare bones and the press release expressly states: "We do not want to try this case in the media and we intend to adhere to the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct that provide guidance on pretrial publicity." The spirit of BLP is that we shouldn't publicize the name of a a person who hasn't inserted themselves into the press, and a limited press conference, press release telling journalists to buzz off, and a fundraiser page do not, in my view, meet that threshold. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The original edit that sparked this discussion I believe was by me; I added the name to the 'trial' infobox parameter and added the name of the trial further down with just the last name of the defendant since I thought MOS/LAW was the guideline to follow when legal things were being discussed. It was pointed out to me later that this is incorrect, and it's only relevant for legal articles. That is what Jax ran across and I believe wants supressed for whatever reason.

My intention was to try to update the article a bit and add a subsection later about the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that involved the suspect in this case, which is under a different case name and ended with the Judges issuing a new ruling about when a suspects court appointed counsel can be removed, since it was notable and widely covered at the time (and essentially set a new case law for them, I think [17]). Are we not allowed to list trial names now because it can be seen as a BLPCRIME violation?

Awshort (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Seahawk-2023

User @Seahawk-2023 has been on Wikipedia since April 2023 and has not engaged in a single discussion, has never left an edit summary, and does not respond to any attempts by other editors trying to discuss their problematic edits.. They have been warned countless times by other editors and they refuse to reply. They have not once shown signs of trying to engage with other editors, participate in discussions, or any other collaborative efforts. Can any action be taken? I have warned them before and so have many others but they continue without acknowledging our concerns. They have not engaged in discussion at all. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Over 9000 edits never to anywhere but articlespace. I've p-blocked; as always, anyone is free to alter or remove this block if it no longer applies. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Masada_myth Procedural RfC Closure

The RfC on Talk:Masada_myth#RfC_on_the_article_lede appeared to me to be malformed and unanswerable so I proposed a procedural close. There is no dispute properly demonstrated at the RfC and the editor who began the process has not clarified the situation at all. The RfC asks editors to answer Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes? without making any mention of what the basis for the question is, what the disputed nature of the content is, and seemingly without having actually undertaken any attempt to WP:FIXIT themselves as they haven't edited the article at all except to revert the edit of another editor after they began the RfC Special:Diff/1251948920. The discussions the editor who started the RfC refer editors to read for context in regards to the RfC are long, meandering, and full of sarcasm and mostly seem to center on fixing a DYK Hook that has since passed. Is the lead "OK" or "Not OK" is an overly broad question due to WP:NOTDONE, and this opinion has been shared by other editors on the RfC itself. The creator of the RfC has insisted twice now that I take my motion for a Procedural Close of the RfC to the Admin Noticeboard Special:Diff/1251937669, so, here I am. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Involved, but as far as I know the ship sails for a procedural close once this many people have responded substantively to the RFC question. Andre🚐 02:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The RfC does not satisfy the requirement of having a clear-cut well-posed question. Since no specific issue is raised in the RfC, nobody knows what things are actually relevant to it and the discussion is wandering all over the place. Basically it says "I don't like the lead, do you agree?" An uninvolved administrator should close this RfC (whether as procedural or "no consensus" doesn't matter), with the understanding that a properly posed replacement can be opened. While I'm at it, someone should examine the behavior of the RfC poser User:Herostratus who asserts that the editors of the page are clever antisemites. Zero^talk 03:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't find the word antisemites in that diff, did you mean a different one? And as far as the RFC question, "Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes?" Seems clear enough to me, it's not specific about article text changes but it appears to be a question to which you can answer one way or another and then as a result, will determine to either change or not, the lead. Andre🚐 03:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The word is not there, but the implication is. "Myths like this omit any mention of African-American may demonstrate an African-American resistance to modernization which may have contributed to a culture of backwardness and poverty among African-Americans in the South" and whatnot. Can probably find a historian who said that if we dig enough. Want to go edit that article? Won't get far will you. The hypothetical the editor is presenting here implies bigotry in response to the other editor saying all the bolded words you mentioned (and all the issues you raise elsewhere) appear basically verbatim in the sources - fully quoted in the citations - in the references section. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, but that is different thread. We are talking about the RfC. Maybe I'm an asshole. Maybe my motives for starting the RfC were bad. I don't think that that matters enough to close down the RfC if it is otherwise OK. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyway... I didn't insist on anything, but I did say "step up or pipe down". The editor decided to step up, xir perfect right, so here we are. I tend long-winded, so here goes. Skip it if you want.

So... at least three editors at least asked for a procedural close as malformed -- a nonsensical question, a question from which no actual benefit could come, and so on. That's enough that you have to pay attention, yes. I opened a separate thread to discuss it, at Talk:Masada myth#Procedural close of above RfC? and there's more material there.

I wrote the RfC. It is:

Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes?

In all this, I haven't yet seen any suggestions for what should be written there instead. I have asked.

My reasoning for starting the RfC was this:

• The article lede is very poor -- POV, and way overly negative in my opinion. I can back that up with good evidence (doesn't prove I'm right, granted). Ofc that is the personal opinion of one person, yes.
• The matter involves Israel, and the Jewish people generally. People are having really really really strong feelings these days about Israel and Palestine, both ways. Let's not pretend this isn't so. It's a data point.
• In the local discussion, there were some editors -- two or three -- who were defending this (bad IMO) lede super strongly. I wasn't going to get anywhere (I believe that, on grounds of being required to assume good faith and to be civil, I'm not allowed to say if I think that this was because of emotional and political factors rather than ice-cold NPOV scholarship, let everyone decide for themselves.
• Yup, I did get sarcastic in an earlier thread. Within bounds I think, but definitely not my best moment. (I have strong feelings too! But mainly that this is the sort of thing that is going to lose us Michigan). But anyway that's a different thread. In the RfC itself I haven't been too involved and have not yet "voted".
• So the reason I started the RfC was to get more eyes on the matter. Eyes backing me up? Hope so -- I'm human. But whatever happens, it is what it is. IMO the RfC itself is neutral and I did not canvass.
• I offered a general big-picture RfC because it's a very fraught, emotional question, we want to go step by step. If the consensus is "OK", we're done. If it is "Not OK", we can move on to another discussion on how to fix it. I did not want to start off with "Should we have the current, or this version I have provided?" cos I thought that would bog down into "Neither. say such-and-so" "No, say so-and-such" etc. If I'm wrong, may I please have some suggestions of what the RfC should say, instead and we can start a new one I guess.

I think that some these requests for procedural close are political. That is my personal opinion. You decide. In fairness, the first person to request a procedural close was summoned by bot, and thought the RfC was terrible and was mad about it. So there is that.

But still... a number of editors are engaged in the RfC discussion to possible useful effect, so I think a shutdown is too late and would be not excellent. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't insist on anything

I am unsure how I am supposed to take essentially telling me to shut up or take it to the admin noticeboard in response to proposing a procedural close as anything but insisting I take it to the admin noticeboard. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You are not my puppet, colleague. I mean I offered the option to pipe down (I did not say shut up). and of course you always have the option to roll your eyes and mutter "what a jerk" or whatever and move on. God knows I do that often enough. Herostratus (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Two editors seem to have missed it so I'll quote from the Herostratus' diff to show that the accusation of antisemitism is there explicitly.
"The editors we are dealing with here are clever. They are not going to use material that is not well sourced. That would be stupid. So they are clever, so what? Have you not heard of cherry picking. Have you not heard of spin, of propaganda. The Devil can quote scripture. [followed a few sentences later by:] So, the material is not anti-Israeli, itn is anti-Semetic." So, once the subject has been established as the editors of the article, and they are described as engaging in spin and propaganda, it is said that the material they wrote is antisemitic. In my opinion, a charge of antisemitism against other editors (except on a behavioral noticeboard with strong supporting evidence) should merit an immediate indef. Zero^talk 04:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

An accusation of antisemitism combined with comparing editors to The Devil? Yeah, a pretty clear case of a personal attack in the form of serious accusations lacking evidence. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Herostratus opened an RfC while showing with long and tortuous personal harangues that they have not troubled themselves with reading the sources. It was also clear that the quip about editors being 'clever' was a disingenuous shot at the putative ulterior motives driving those who actually have read the sources and aided in the composition of the article, a point unambiguously underlined later by the crack:' the material is not anti-Israeli, it is anti-Semetic.' That misspelling always puts me on my guard, since it crops up frequently as, for me, an index of quarrelsomeness uninformed by any serious reading. No fuss was made, but I will note that when I tweaked the lead to remove 'by Jews', - precisely because of my own sensitivities about generalizing about Jews (a premise of antisemitism that all Jews are involved whenever one or another does this or that) - Herostratus reverted to restore it, after waiting 5 days, just as this report opened. That is deeply ironical. In context, Herostratus is insinuating those who support the article are motivated by antisemitic feelings, and, with his restoring the usage 'by Jews' I considered potentially coloured by the kind of imprecision that plays to antisemitic feelings, telling me he thinks editors like me are perhaps both anti-semetic and 'philosemitic'. This is on a par with the vexatious incoherence of most of the things written on that talk page.Nishidani (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

None. Of. This. Has. Anything. To. Do. With. The. Question. At. Hand. Which quashing the RfC or not. If you want to want to have a conversation at WP:ANI on grounds that I have made false accusations of anti-semitism, OK, do that. That's a different conversation.. Herostratus (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

<- So much inane timewasting trolling. The malformed RfC should be shut down regardless of how many patient people participated. The editor should be made to go away. It would be an act of kindness. WP:DNFT Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Procedurally closed or not, this RFC is going absolutely nowhere, an unfocused mess.Selfstudier (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone is as confused as I was: the African-American bit is comparing this article to John Henry (folklore). Nobody's suggesting that African Americans need to be mentioned in Masada myth. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Title-blacklist creation

I'm trying to create the redirect "Sand-nigger" as a punctuation variant of Sand nigger. It should redirect ot the same place. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_444#RFC:_The_Telegraph_on_trans_issues

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

---

Reliable sources (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: 1

Reasoning: The RfC was closed via vote counting instead of an assessment of arguments. Cortador (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Closer

I refer to my comments at User talk:Sandstein#Telegraph RFC (permalink). In addition, I note that the editor requesting review does not explain how the RFC should in their view have been closed instead, and why. Sandstein 19:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-participants (Telegraph RFC review 2)

• Speedy close this RFC review #2 as no action. Too many RFC reviews, RFC review reverts, etc. in too short a period. This is taking up too much community time. Sometimes you just need to take the L and re-RFC the whole issue in a couple months. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Participants (Telegraph RFC review 2)

• I have stated so above as well as in the closure request: the RfC should be closed by assessment of arguments, no by counting votes. Cortador (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse close (involved in original RfC). Given the circumstances of the RfC, the subsequent initial close and closure review and then this reclose. The outcome of this re-close being a no-consensus was the appropriate outcome based on reading the consensus as happened in the initial close, or counting of the results as happened in the reclose. It appeared clear that the community simply has no consensus for either GREL or GUNREL, so a no-consensus close, which is a valid outcome at RSP, was the correct close. I don't think we really need to spend more energy on this yet again than has already spent in the countless (probably hundreds) community hours on this. Raladic (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse: Vote counting is a way to assess arguments. The closer's job is not to assess the arguments in the sense of which ones they personally think are stronger, that would be a WP:SUPERVOTE. They assess the arguments in the sense of which ones achieved consensus in the discussion. In that context, it's basically necessary to count votes. And if all of the arguments are reasonably policy based then counting votes might be enough to assess consensus by itself. In fact the vast majority of closures rely heavily on vote counting. Loki (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved in the first close review, and the discussion of the RFC). The only reasonable close was 'no consensus', the only issue with the first close was it's contentious wording. How the RFC is record at the perennial sources list is a matter for WT:RSP not an issue with the close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• I don't entirely agree with Sandstein's logic about strictly counting votes, but I agree with his general reasoning that source reliability analysis is fairly subjective, leaving a closer with significantly less wiggle room than in a discussion entirely about applying well-established policy. More to the point, if someone wanted to close this RfC with a detailed point-by-point analysis of the arguments raised, they had several months to do so. Let's be done with this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Explain to me how the project benefits from having an experienced closer (who are stretched thin as it is!) spend at least a day reading through that novel-length beast of a discussion again only to reclose it with the same conclusion the previous two?? three??? (I lost count) closers came to. Actually don't, it's a rethorical question, nobody benefits from that. We all lose. Someone please put us out of our misery and SNOW-close this --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Telegraph RFC review 2)

Can't we just put this to rest? Is this really that important? (I have avoided this discussion entirely.) C F A 💬 19:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I've posted a notification of this review at WP:RSN#Closure review of Telegraph on trans issues RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Haven't we all had enough of this? Sandstein's close seems fine enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oh noooooooo. Silverseren^C 20:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Not this again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• I'm sure that if this RFC gets re-re-reviewed and closed again, then that decision will be contested, too. Can involved editors just let this one go and do another RFC in 12 months if you are not satisfied with the results? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Additionally, the reasoning statement is meager. If you are seriously asking any future discussion closer to wade back into these contentious waters, you have to provide a more compelling and evidence-backed rationale than the one provided here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• This is such a tragic moment for Wikipedia. I hope someone has the boldness to speedily close this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg

Hi, Please undelete the first version so that it can be moved to Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The uploader, who is an administrator (@Holly Cheng:) had labeled that version as non-free. Has that changed? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but it is currently labelled as public domain with {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Yann (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done WP:REFUND is the normal noticeboard for this type of request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The public domain notice on the file says it was first published in 1942. But Adams modified the negative over the years, in particular making the moon brighter. Our image comes from a gallery listing that says in was printed by Adams in the 1970s, so that analysis does not apply. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Yann, @Graeme Bartlett, our image was printed by Adams in the 1970s so it is not PD-US-not renewed. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly brightening is not a copyrightable modification. But probably an older image as published with unrenewed copyright should be used instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The high res photo we now have gives its source as a MOMA 1964 print, but the source link goes to a lower res image. Whether the 1942 publication was renewed probably doesn't matter. Adams was not satisfied with the image because it didn't reproduce the scene as he thought he saw it. One would have to look at publication of the image in the form we have it now, and see if that copyright was renewed. The 1961 print at the Minneapolis Institute of Art has a prominent copyright notice and says "Because of © restrictions, we can only show you a small image of this artwork." Wikipedia is probably in the same situation. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I have asked on Commons: c:COM:VPC#File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Wipe user edits

Is it possible to fully delete a vandal's edit history, such that their spammed replies don't show up in my notices (or potentially a way to hide certain notices)? Tule-hog (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like that user has been blocked, their ability to edit their talk page has been removed, and the edits/edit summaries have been removed. Are you still seeing anything that needs to be taken care of? Joyous! Noise! 16:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Very minor thing (not effecting readers), but the actual content of their reply (this one) is still shown in my Special:Notifications; I was wondering if there might be a way to remove/hide that. Tule-hog (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

*poof* DMacks (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Fake news websites

• zaobaodaily.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singaporeinfomap.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singaporeera.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singdaotimes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• todayinsg.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• lioncitylife.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singapuranow.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• voasg.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singdaopr.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• alamak.io: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Singapore government just had this ten websites blocked for "potential hostile information campaign", stating that these websites are using domains either resembles legitimate news websites (i.e. zaobao.sg vs zaobaodaily.com) or gives an appearance that they have a connection to Singapore; content are AI-generated; gives an appearance that certain sentiments are an reflection of Singapore's public and/or government.

• News: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/mha-imda-websites-hostile-information-campaign-foreign-interference-fica-4692746
• Press release: https://www.imda.gov.sg/resources/press-releases-factsheets-and-speeches/press-releases/2024/ten-inauthentic-websites-blocked
• Annex containing the ten websites: https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/imda/files/news-and-events/media-room/media-releases/2024/10/ten-inauthentic-websites-blocked/annex-b-list-of-websites.pdf

While my first instinct is to put these sites onto the spam blacklist, given that Singapore does engage in censorship practices that include blocking websites for not following POFMA orders/directives (among other reasons/laws), I would like second opinions before doing so. Out of the ten, one (alamak.io) has been used as a source for two articles on English Wikipedia. – robertsky (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• We generally only put websites onto the spam blacklist if they are actually being used for spamming. If the issue is unreliability (and frankly I wouldn't trust the Singaporean government on "internet reliability"), then you probably want WP:RSN. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't trust the Singaporean government on "internet reliability" heh. indeed. RSN does seem to be the right direction. – robertsky (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Concur that the spam blacklist is not the right place -- but don't we have a hoax noticeboard or something like that? Or had at one point? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think there is a hoax noticeboard (but I could be wrong about that!) – RSN does discuss hoax websites of various kinds, though. Discussions there sometimes lead to blacklisting (though usually only if a site has already been used as a source), but more importantly, a lot of editors experienced in evaluating hoaxes frequent that board. --bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

One month block by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs) for repeated ECR violations

Administrator imposing the sanction

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by IdanST

I believe my ban is unjustified for the following reasons: 1.This one is clearly an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1. - pointing out that Maariv (newspaper) "source" is a LIE. Maariv NEVER reported on this lie, the source is in fact Al Jazeera which has been proven to have lied in this instance, as shown HERE. 2. This is not an incivility nor breaking the rules, it's allowed under WP:BARN. 3. This is a warning before taking actions, like reporting, for blatant violations of WP:POINTy and WP:WAR. I understand now that I should have reported the user instead of leaving a notice on their talk page, as it seems that discussing and warning is discouraged, and direct reporting and banning are preferred.

IdanST (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I appealed the first block.

I didn't appeal the second block yet because I am not aware of the alleged violations for which I was banned for one month. IdanST (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC) {{{1}}}

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish (IdanST appeal)

First block for a week was based on [18], [19], and [20] which are all clear ECR violations. Their talk page access was pulled by Doug Weller. When the block expired their first edits were [21], [22], and [23], which are also clear ECR violations. They continued with personal attacks on their talk page and again had their talk page access removed. Oh, and the Simple English Wikipedia page on barnstars doesn't have much weight on en.wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller (IdanST appeal)

IdanST says that [24] was an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1. which it clearly is not, just a statement that something is a lie. this is a personal attack on ScottishFinnishRadish. Yet more attacks here Doug Weller talk 15:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by IdanST

• I may be a simple Wikipedian farmer of minor corrections and !votes, but a few things confuse me.
  1. Why aren't these pages under ECR protection? It seems that this is a simple solution to the problem
  2. Some of these cited by SFR and Doug seem to fall under WP:NPA, not "clear ECR violations". We need to be a little more precise if we're going to ban/block people. Those alone are worthy of a block given previous interactions.

Buffs (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-EC editors are allowed to make edit requests on the talk pages. Generally, article talk pages aren't ECP unless there is enough disruption to necessitate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

A personal attack explicitly and particularly related to an ECR topic area, such as Your Constant Lies ...regarding Israel and Arab–Israeli conflict,[25] is surely a clear two-fer. NebY (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing about this appeal gives me confidence that this editor will be a net positive with respect to ARBPIA content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• This edit[26] is clearly note an edit request and the editor had been previously warned, I would oppose the appeal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• IdanST chooses to defend only three of their edits, and their very first defence demonstrates the appropriateness of the current block. This disruptive post was clearly not a request, let alone an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1, and that IdanST claims that it was, and makes no attempt to suggest their editing will improve, shows that this block and maybe more will be needed until they understand and accept the various limitations and restrictions on their editing. NebY (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• The appeal should be declined for the reasons set out by ScottishFinnishRadish. Additionally, the polemical style of the appeal and the appellant's personal attacks and their mischaracterization of their edits indicate that the appellant should be topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict as unsuited to collaborative work. Sandstein 19:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think a topic ban would be effective as the existing extended-confirmed restriction is being ignored. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Nableezy has a (Personal attack removed) userbox

Nableezy, on their user page, has a userbox showing support for Hezbollah, which is not allowed, as per this discussion. The user in question has also just been generally mean-spirited and extremely biased, especially to matters about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thank you, Pyramids09 (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

While I am in general agreement with criticism of the userbox, I don't think is going to go anywhere. The userbox itself (by design) doesn't directly express support for Hezbollah, and when I discussed this with Nableezy they stated the purpose of the UBX was to highlight a hypocrisy in Wikipedia's policies. (I am unconvinced by that, but that's just me.) Nonetheless, I believe this is a debate that has taken place many times in the past and, sadly, goes nowhere. — Czello ^(music) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That stuff about "mean-spirited and extremely biased" is an incredible WP:ASPERSION. You might want to avoid that in the future to avoid a block. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Asking the question "could I be wrong?" is a good habit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It's news to me that any and every act of 'violently resisting' aggression is classifiable as terrorism. If that is so, then we shall have to rewrite the history books from the Battle of Thermopylae and the Jewish–Roman wars down through the Indian resistance during the frontier wars to things like the Spanish Maquis, and the French and >Italian resiatance movements. The Greeks should have bowed to Xerxes and Darius, the Jews succumbed eirenically to Titus and Vespasian. the Sioux consigned their bowsnarrows to General Custard, the Spanish government should have capitulated en bloc with the people after Franco's coup d'état, de Gaulle should have chummed up with Pétain, and the leaders of post-war Italy should have been gaoled as terrorists for opposing the Republic of salauds, etc. Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Not as if core site policy has changed, but it's odd to point to a 2008 discussion the same way one would point to a contemporaneous one. Nableezy's work here seems equal parts political and rhetorical. I am personally unmoved by OP's outrage over it, though. What is unacceptable is calling them pro-terrorist—let's not mince words here, that's the intent of the language you chose. Remsense ‥ 论 10:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I quite like the immediate sabotage of any point you may have had by throwing in "mean-spirited and extremely biased" as if it was going to make your argument stronger. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Think we’ve gone through this already. nableezy - 11:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)