Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	17	17
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	2	1	3
RfD	0	0	17	51	68
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

User Report: Niasoh - Repeated Vandalism and Harassment

= User Report: Niasoh== NoorBD (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Right off the bat, I see that you have been edit warring, breaking the 3 revert rule on the first article you edited. Please read WP:Vandalism and understand what is and is not vandalism before you start throwing accusations around. Donald Albury 12:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

OP’s Talk Page should set any mop up nicely for a WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE WP:BOOMERANG. Not sure which. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 14:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I went with DE, but yes all would apply. NoorBD is now INDEFfed. Star Mississippi 17:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Is WP:RECALL a policy?

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

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

You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I refer to my comments on my talk page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the third (for now) active discussion about RECALL live at AN - shows that it's totally not a controversial idea at all! GiantSnowman 19:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I am currently running a pool on when RECALL will be brought to ArbCom. Squares are filling up fast. Contact me for information on how to bet, and how to send me the money for safekeeping in the mean time. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:POLICIES, "Policies have wide acceptance among editors". It seems clear to me that this is not the case with this recall process. Sandstein 19:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• There's probably no one who argued more strongly than me against making this trainwreck into a policy. But Maddy correctly read the consensus as saying that this should be adopted and put into effect (and not simply as a trial). So if the community has reached a consensus to put something into effect, that can lead to a desysop, I cannot see how that would be anything other than a policy. If other editors are just now waking up to the fact that they should have joined me in speaking up earlier, well, it's too late now. At some point, we will have to have an RfC to revoke this policy, but for the time being, it's a policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  This should be adopted and put into effect – I agree with that, it's the "policy" designation that seems unwarranted, given the lack of an explicit proposal to adopt it as one. I want to avoid on the one hand watering down the definition of a policy as those guidelines and processes which have the highest level of consensus on the project (because come on, this is clearly not that!) and on the other making it harder to improve the current process through normal editing and consensus-building. Pretty much everyone seems to agree that this process needs amendment, but usually the way to make non-trivial amendments to a policy is through an RfC, and pretty much everyone also agrees that we don't want more RfCs on this... – Joe (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

  We would have done if we had been aware of it! (see previous section re:lack of notice). GiantSnowman 20:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's an issue. But the people who pushed this through insisted that they did everything required in order to publicize the discussions, and they have a point. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

  Yes, in practice it's considerably harder to change a page tagged as a policy; and nope. – Joe (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• As a process (or policy) it's far from ready, as the Graham87 petition and all the various discussions around the project-space are showing. It's not a case of ironing out small details; the very fundamentals are being questioned and challenged. More workshopping is needed. WP:AR should be returned to draft policy status and discussion centralised on its talk page. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  What parts are far from ready? What aspects of admin recall that haven't already been discussed during phases I and II of the RfA 2024 discussion and subsequently still need to be hashed out? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, within the last 48 hours alone, questions posed on WT:AR have included timing of petition closures, the structure of the petition page and naming of its sections, the maximum runtime for petitions, early closure rules (or lack thereof), and the applicability of WP:SNOW (now at WP:VPP). Valid, key questions. I think a large part of why they're being asked now is because up until now, no one had much idea of how the policy/process would actually work in practice. As currently presented, the content of WP:AR feels scant, hardly a solid foundation for launching petitions. And the attempted early close and subsequent re-opening of the Graham87 petition further damage the process's credibility. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Policies have wide acceptance among editors". This policy/procedure does not have that level of support, as has been evident over the past 48 hours. Per SuperMarioMan above, this policy/procedure should be temporarily put on hold and then workshopped extensively to make it better. Daniel (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with this take, assuming it can even be made better, which I'm not sold on. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Opposition largely seems to be coming from admins, which makes sense but is hardly representative of editors at large. I would advise admins to take a step back and accept the wider community's opinion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I kind of have to agree? I know it's a surprise that the policy made it through but it appears to have done so on a legitimate basis? To those folks challenging the close, is there any example of irregularity or a flawed read of consensus? Andre🚐 20:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  While it is true that because this involves admins and thus admins shouldn't try to discourage the process, it still is a matter that this recall process will need to be managed by admins and thus has to confirm within the framework of other processes across the board, and that's where the debate seems to be happening, that as currently written and executed, it leaves a lot of missteps that need to be addressed with the help of admins to make sure the process is able to actually work. I don't see this as admins opposing any recall process, just that this one does not have the rigor thst admins experienced in P&G writing can bring to tighten it up and avoid the pitfalls happening now. — Masem (t) 13:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• No, process not policy. The original proposal didn't include listing it as a policy, most of the !voters didn't opine on whether it should be a policy, and similar pages like WP:RFA are not policies. The policy is Wikipedia:Administrators, which links to WP:RECALL. That's all we need. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  Adding: This isn't to say it shouldn't have the same "force" as WP:RFA. And regarding notice, being an RfC at VPP and linked from CENT checks enough boxes. IMO the RfC was presented in a confusing way (consensus-for-consensus with a handful of lengthy, fragmented discussions summarized in the background section), but that might just be me, and neither I nor others adequately objected on "this is confusing" grounds to constitute a real obstacle to consensus [about consensus] forming. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

• Who's going to be the first non-admin blocked for the lèse-majesté of seeking to recall an admin, per this policy? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• For those editors who say that they didn't know that this was being discussed, I expressed my concerns to theleekycauldron, the admin who oversaw the process, months ago, and you can see that discussion here: link. Here's a link to a discussion where I tried to get a better process for deciding whether or not it would be policy: link. At that time, I think editors really were looking to conduct the decision process more carefully. But that got short-circuited by the RfC here: link, which established the present consensus (however one wants to characterize that). You will see me arguing strenuously, but to little effect, that this was going to go badly. I and others argued that it was premature to hold that RfC, but Barkeep49 insisted that the time was right. That discussion was at Village pump (policy), and was advertised on CENT, so I really do think editors should have been aware of this earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • CENT is a bit useless, though. If it had been advertised via a watchlist notice I think there would have been far more participation. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

  I was aware of RFC3 thanks to T:CENT, but the wording of the question in RFC3 was confusing to me, and led me not to comment. I thought it wanted me to read an old RFC and summarize what the consensus was in that, rather than coming to a fresh consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• I believe Maddy's closure was appropriate. However, the first application of the policy left a lot to be desired. I would like to see the normal editing called out in the close to refine the policy become a lot more vigorous as a result. In particular, we need to decide if petitions are allowed to devolve into a RRFA prequel (in which case 30 days is ridiculous) or if they are not (in which case stricter guidance on commentary and discussion is sorely missing).Tazerdadog (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: If editors believe that admin recall should not have the force of policy, at this point there are two options as I see it: close review of the RfC or start a new RfC seeking to strip admin recall of its status. Demanding that the policy status of admin recall be immediately stripped and that it be sent back to the drawing board is not how we establish and maintain consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

• WP:CONLEVEL is pretty clear that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. It's overwhelmingly clear from the response to the recall attempt on Graham that there's not actually a favorable community consensus on a wider scale than the couple of dozen editors who happened to respond to that not-particularly well-publicized RFC. Instead of demanding that we force through a bad process, perhaps consider that the original close was not reflective of what the broader community actually feels about this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  You're conflating two different things; I oppose the recall attempt but generally support the process, even though it's not perfect. (I haven't reviewed the discussion and don't have an opinion on the policy or not question yet.) Legoktm (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  As someone who also opposes the specific recall, I'll add my much more noncommittal +1 to that. I don't really care too much about the specifics of the process and I'm supportive of considering it much more fluid and amendable than typical until a few months and/or recall petitions have passed, but I am overall supportive of having a process even if it's one that needs to be worked on (and even if I do believe we have another community initiated process that's sufficient, albeit only as a side effect and with likely a much higher... "activation energy", so to speak). Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  This (and a bunch of other comments here) seem to be a back-channel way to revert the consensus process rather than any of the official ways to revert an RFC. Everyone agrees that this has been an incredibly rocky start for the process, other people are trying to fix it. But a bunch of editors suddenly complaining about the process, no matter how respected, does not suddenly revert consensus. In these three threads, editors who have concerns about this project are (rightfully) way more likely to comment now than the editors who already agree with calling it a policy. I encourage the former to follow the proper way instead of claiming lack of consensus without proof. Soni (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  It was well advertised, I was aware of it but didn't comment or read much of it. If a well-publicised well-attended RfC closed less than a week ago is 'limited consensus at one place and time' then I have no clue what the wider community consensus ever could be.

  If you didn't participate in an RfC for whatever reason and disagree with the result there are ways to go about it, citing CONLEVEL isn't one of them. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• The distinction between policy and procedure in this case may well be worth diggin into, but the idea that this has to stop because "admins didn't know about it" is the fault of those admins, as it was on CENT and in the last issue of the admin newsletter, and the overall RFA 2024 process has been going on for.... I dunno feels like forever. I didn't think it would pass, and I think this first attempt at using it has thrown some serious issues with it into the public eye, but this wasn't snuck in any back door. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, it is policy and enjoys consensus. The whole process was well advertised and had a lot of participation. Could it of been more? Sure, but it was sufficient. There are things that can be worked out with the process as shown, but there is no question that there is consensus to have a process. So basically, since this is a close review, Endorse the close. PackMecEng (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• The policy modified is primarily Wikipedia:Administrators, WP:RECALL is really just the procedures for how to follow the policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Fourth time is the charm huh? Yes, it is a policy. How many times do we need to ask this question before we accept it as such? fanfanboy (block talk) 13:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  This question has not been asked before. Please read the top of the section if you have not already. – Joe (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• On the actual question Joe is asking, namely "should WP:RECALL have a {{policy}} tag, my response is that I don't especially care one way or the other; the tag at the top of the page doesn't change what actually matters, which is that the process has teeth (i.e. if an RRFA is failed, a bureaucrat will actually desysop the admin in question). But since at least Joe cares, sure, remove the tag, it was never authorized to be there. Mach61 14:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Maddy's close was correct. I happen to think it's more process than policy because it's a process Admin X goes through to keep or lose their Admin flag. It's not a policy because there's no clear X/Y outcome. It's petition pass/fail, RRFA pass/fail. As both of those are subjective, it is not a policy situation. However it is a policy in that (using the current example) Graham cannot close Diletantte's petition because they filed it per the framework established. It has bugs as any new process does. Let it run and sort it out before the next. Disclosure, current petition opposer but not involved in RFCs as far as I can recall Star Mississippi 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Is WP:RFA a policy? No. Is WP:ADMINELECT a policy? No. Is WP:RECALL a policy? Also no. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, admin recall is a policy: it has wide acceptance ("global consensus") and was thoroughly vetted by the community. Three separate RFCs over the course of a year, with over 100 editors participating, advertised at the Village Pump, AN, CENT, the Admin Newsletter, user talk page notices, and watchlist notices. If that doesn't count as thorough vetting and wide acceptance, then nothing will. Admin recall is a standard that must be followed (subject to IAR)--bureaucrats shall desysop following a successful recall--so it's not like a guideline or essay. And anyway, the mechanism by which advanced permissions like sysop are added and removed obviously must be done by policy and not by any lower level of consensus. The reason WP:RECALL should have a {{policy}} tag is because it's the page that documents the policy. To the extent this is a close review (I'm not sure about that), endorse and (involved). Levivich (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Another reason it's policy: the third RFC was held at VPP, which is the page for changing policies. AFAIK nobody at any point suggested this was the wrong page. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not a policy This is blatantly obvious. The RfC that was concluded indicating it is a policy did NOT include any mention whatsoever of asking if it should be policy. None. Nada. Zip. Nothing. In fact, several people who commented on the RfC noted that details of the policy still needed to be hashed out. The fact is, there was no vote to make this policy. User:Maddy from Celeste, I appreciate the effort you put into making this close, but this close is a mistake in making this a policy. The question was whether the recall process has consensus, NOT if the recall process should be policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't really mind whether the contents of WP:RRfA are moved into WP:ADMIN instead, but that particular sub-section I think has the status of a procedural policy. I also don't feel all policies have the same barrier to change, if that's the main concern. Changing a fundamental part of WP:NPOV requires a very different level of consensus compared to a policy with 15 talk page watchers. There are things with admin recall that will likely need tweaking; I think reasonably advertised talk page discussion has the ability to make such change. Re procedure: I don't think procedural policies need an explicit vote to that effect. Many current procedural policies didn't, eg AFAICT WP:File mover was promoted after xaosflux noticed felt it shouldn't be tagged as an essay, and nobody objected. Ditto with WP:IPBE per [1][2].
  Ultimately, WP:RRFA details procedure on a process that many in the community likely care about the details of, and said thing is built up by defined rules approved by consensus, as opposed to fuzzy conventions built up over time by trial-and-error. I think these are the some of the hallmarks of procedural policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:File mover was promoted after xaosflux noticed felt it shouldn't be tagged as an essay, and nobody objected. WP:FMR appears to still be an essay. If you read the box at the top of the page carefully, I don't think it's claiming to be a policy or guideline. Instead, someone wrote a custom ombox that seems to be rather unclear, instead of using the standard {{Information page}} tag. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's categorised under Category:Wikipedia procedural policies and listed at Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Procedural. In any case, there's WP:IPBE and these are just the first two I checked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I suspect all the userright procedural policies fall under the same bucket. The RfC behind them usually just asked if such a userright should be created / unbundled. The creation of a procedural policy page was either done by a single editor, or said by the closer to be done as in page mover's case, but was not the RfC question explicitly, and until the closer mentioned it, nobody else did afaict. My point being, I suspect very few of the current procedural policies had explicit confirmation votes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've started Wikipedia_talk:File_mover#Is_this_page_a_policy? to work on fixing these odd pages that have a policy category but no policy template and little original talk page discussion about promoting them to policies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• It's a rule, but it's not ready to be policy yet. Let the procedure evolve into a more final form and let the naysayers finish processing their defeat. Then hold a RfC about promoting it to policy.—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the questions of whether it has consensus or not (I personally think the final version of the procedure should have been put to an up or down discussion rather than having a weird RfC to determine if a previous RfC had consensus, which would’ve avoided the issues we have now), I don’t see how we can ask crats to desysop admins under this procedure without it having the force of policy. Galobtter (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's a very good, and important, point. If, hypothetically, an admin has a petition that reaches the required number, and either refuses to engage in a new RfA or fails to pass it, there could be a real question as to whether any bureaucrat has the authority to take action. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that the RfC wasn't worded to ask to make it policy, the answer is no. There is no policy that supports a bureaucrat having the authority to remove the flag based on this procedure. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I guess that will be up to the crats. One of their roles is to provide a final sanity check on sysops/desysops, so I don't think it's a bad thing to allow them some discretion during the first few runs of this new process. – Joe (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Remove the "policy" designation I think that the close was a pretty good one for it's narrow scope in the chain of events that led to this, albeit requiring some expert derivation because the question was not clearly in the RFC making it what I would call an edge case regarding being the right close. But in the big picture (including that chain of events), a high impact policy should be something which had every sentence in it carefully reviewed, has been optimized, and has had wide advertisement/participation to adopt it, and where considering it to be policy a clear part of the question. IMO none or hardly none of those criteria has been satisfied. Further, the initial general decision (in essence saying that there shall be a recall process) was only the starting point of what should have been a thorough process that included all of the above and which in my opinion it wasn't and didn't include all of the above. Let's just take a little extra time to do all of the above instead of having this cloud eternally hanging over the recall process. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Well despite some initial doubt over the wisdom of the first recall including by me, things have turned out different so the process whatever you want to call it is actually being tested quite a bit. We'll see what happens next, I think our initial doubts have shown it's a mistake to jump to hasty conclusions so I'll leave it at that. Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you raise an interesting point. For me, it's more like bad cases make bad law, because I think the new developments would have quickly come under scrutiny under the old processes as well. I don't really believe that the recall petition brought forth anything that would not have come forth just as quickly without it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You volunteering as Captain Smith, GiantSnowman :D (Orig. sig: User:Serial Number 54129, 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)) SerialNumber54129 14:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Min968 unban request

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

---

By request, I'm posting Min968's request for WP:UNBAN here. As a WP:CHECKUSER, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. Min968 was originally blocked as Ylogm (see below) and was de-facto banned under WP:3X. I'm also reposting a follow-up question and response. --Yamla (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I, Min968 (Ylogm), would like to request a reconsideration of my block. I now understand the importance of collaborating with other members and how crucial it is to work together to develop Wikipedia. I am an introverted person and not good at handling conflicts, which unfortunately led to a heated argument with @LlywelynII and subsequently being banned without being able to defend myself. I then used a sock account to continue editing, which was a sign of my helplessness and lack of knowledge on how to handle the situation. I acknowledge that it was wrong, and I am committed to permanently stopping using sock accounts and contributing positively, while also respecting the opinions of other members and collaborating with them to further develop Wikipedia. Blocks are not punitive. I believe I need to be given an opportunity to correct my mistakes, a chance to contribute to the community.

My 5-year plan if the ban is lifted:

1. Rewrite articles about the Ming emperors
2. Improve and write new articles related to the Ming dynasty (my main area of interest)
3. Enhance some content related to the history of Vietnam and Korea
4. Correct mistakes and develop projects related to Chinese eras (a project I have started and also where I have made mistakes and stumbled)

My behavior on Wikipedia:

1. Adhere to maintaining neutrality and not obstructing the project.
2. Interact with members in a polite and respectful manner. We are all anonymous, somewhere in this world, and we are all here with the common goal of developing Wikipedia. Sometimes there may be mistakes, but we need to maintain good intentions, keep a cool head, and respect each other. All members are human, even those who have made mistakes.
3. Follow all of Wikipedia's rules. However, I do not believe that all rules are useful. Instead, I will lean towards resolving issues through discussion.

Why I chose English Wikipedia and requested to be unblocked: I chose English Wikipedia simply because it is a large project, widely popular globally, and accessed and used by many people for information. I want to contribute and improve content related to Chinese history, specifically the Ming dynasty, and bring it to a wider readership around the world. Unfortunately, the content related to Chinese history is not well developed and lacks information. I myself have waited for almost 5 years to read articles about Ming emperors, but they have not improved during that time. Therefore, instead of waiting, I want to take action. Min968 (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason you are not appealing this block from the Ylogm account? That will definitely be asked when this appeal is taken to WP:AN. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

When I was blocked before, I didn't know what to do or how to explain things. Usually, I just create a new account to continue editing. When I created this account, I wanted to start fresh with a more positive attitude. And when I was banned on this account, I received positive and enthusiastic guidance from @Remsense, so I chose to stick with it instead of Ylogm. Min968 (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I spoke at greater length six months ago on their talk page, so I'll try to be briefer here. If anyone has any further questions for me, let me know.

Firstly, Ylogm has a track record of worthwhile constructive editing in a highly important topic area (early modern Chinese monarchs) that can particularly benefit from additional motivated contributors. In the time I've been here, Ylogm was the only consistent contributor to many of these articles. In itself, that does not justify being unbanned. However, when they say they have learned from their mistakes and want to continue editing and making contributions here, I do believe them. I support unbanning them.

Ylogm was originally INDEF'd for disruptive behavior, namely a lack of adequate communication while undoing edits and otherwise ignoring the editorial concerns of others on articles they were working on. To be clear, I do not think anyone but Ylogm did anything wrong here, but is worth noting that the original ANI report was very brief, and the volume of prior communication concerning their conduct was limited—if normally sufficient as fair warning. They did not seem to understand why they had been blocked, which is on them. They then made this situation much worse by socking for a prolonged period, and rightfully earned this community ban. However, I do believe this to be the result of previous negligence, and not malice: if one accepts that they did not understand the social context, their attempted contributions consistently show a clear intention to be constructive during this time.

I am not aware that anyone engaged in direct conversation with them about their conduct until March, when I made an attempt to reach out to them on their sock Min968, after initially coming to this conclusion. As they didn't seem to understand, I attempted to explain their situation one-on-one, and they were immediately receptive to this. Their reaction reinforced my belief, and I felt I should be an advocate for their case. Then and now, I would like for them to continue making substantial contributions, if they prove capable of doing so constructively. It shouldn't be surprising then that I was acutely frustrated when it became apparent they did not immediately stop socking following my initial black-and-white dialogue with them at this time—given I had made this an explicit condition of my advocacy for them. If this appeal is not successful, I think this will be the most compelling reason why.

Even so, after being told they would would have to wait six months before their ban would be reconsidered, I believed them when they said they would do so. Given the comparatively compressed timeline of events where an apparent total lack of understanding had to be rectified, I find it plausible that they were caught in the process of recognizing the full extent of their mistakes for the first time in March. That is a confusing situation coming after months of previous confusions. I can't imagine everyone will come away with this conclusion, but I can only be honest in saying I remain convinced of Ylogm's unalloyed good faith. Now that the previous contingencies have passed, I also believe that they adequately recognize the how and why of their mistakes, and will behave competently in accordance with site policy going forward. Remsense ‥ 论 23:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Support per Remsense. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Given the explicit support of Remsense, the moral support of LlywelynII, the constructive continued editing at Chinese Wikipedia, and the fact that they\ underlying issues were merely disruptive, not dangerous, I think it's fair to extend another chance. The one thing I would ask -- though my support is not conditional on it -- is that Min968 voluntarily agree to a one-account restriction from here on out, as I think it would be beneficial for all parties, including Min968. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support unban. We could definitely use this editor in the Ming dynasty space. Last year I stopped reporting their socks because the contributions were constructive. The request is accurate: no one is improving these articles. Let's allow Ylogm / Min968 to help. Folly Mox (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment As blocking admin of the Min968 sock (not the master), I'm staying neutral here. They absolutely had socked in the past, but if the community thinks that there's merit to allowing this user to participate again under the WP:STANDARDOFFER I'm fine with that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support unban It seems that this editor misunderstood several important aspects of Wikipedia editing when they first began, and that was probably exacerbated by lack of deep fluency in the English language at that time. I think that the editor has made great progress since then, and has indicated a genuine seriousness of purpose regarding improving articles about the Ming dynasty and a commitment to follow policies and guidelines. The only recommendation that I would make is that the editor also focus on the preceeding Yuan dynasty and following Qing dynasty to help place that Ming history into a broader context for students of Chinese history in the past 800 years. Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The difference here is that our Yuan and Qing articles have seen relatively more development and improvement by other editors; our Ming dynasty coverage is particularly weak, possibly the weakest of any dynastic period (haven't compared exhaustively: this is my impression).

As an aside, since periodisation by dynasty has been so universal in Chinese historiography, and the political situation tended to change dramatically between dynasties (with some exceptions), it is common for people to have subject area expertise in a single dynasty while remaining largely novices in chronologically adjacent dynasties. Folly Mox (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment Follow all of Wikipedia's rules. However, I do not believe that all rules are useful. Instead, I will lean towards resolving issues through discussion. I find that a pretty suboptimal declaration in an unban request; we don't pick and choose which policies are followed based on our personal opinions about their usefulness, especially in terms of "resolving issues". Grandpallama (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a good point. @Min968, I want to stress a distinction here: the rules that are there in policy are basically the result of tested best common practices, and while dogmatically adhering to their letter is counterproductive, that's not the same thing as "they're not useful". Remsense ‥ 论 18:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a translation issue. I'd posit that the intent behind this statement is valuing discussion over mere rules adherence to prevent conflict (otherwise, Instead is non sequitur, and Follow all... rules immediately disclaimed). I would be interested in hearing Min968's clarifications on this at their usertalk. Folly Mox (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Min968 has responded to this subthread on their talkpage in three diffs. Folly Mox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support UnBan The request seems reasonable and I don't see any malicious behavior in their past editing. If this proves to be a mistake, correcting it takes three clicks and about six seconds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support - See no reason against this request. Capitals00 (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Given the result above, would it be possible for an admin to undelete the articles created by Min968 accounts that were deleted per WP:G5? Remsense ‥ 论 21:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I undeleted two of them, but then I realized that the appear to be recreating the exact same article (most of their deleted contributions are blue now), so I'm inclined to let them do that rather than use admin tools. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Theparties unban request

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

---

• Theparties (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 23prootie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

By request, I'm posting Theparties's request for WP:UNBAN here. As a WP:CHECKUSER, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. Theparties was originally blocked as 23prootie and claims to no longer have access to that account. They were banned via Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive203#Ban_on_23prootie. --Yamla (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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 learned my lesson. I know I should not evade a ban. And I promise that I would not do that again. I can pprove this by showing that the last time I have been caught, I actually volunteered to be caught. I did not have to admit to be a sockpuppet of 23prootie. But I admitted it showing my sincerity in turning a new leaf. I know it must be difficult to believe me but by showing that I have not ban evaded in the past few months shows that truly my intention is to follow the rules. I have been editing in the Simple English Wikipedia for the time being. Working on election articles for the Philippines. Please give me another chance. Please truly allow me to become a better editor. I also want to add tat I cannot use my original username 23prootie because I forgot the password and I do not have an email to connect it with. May this username be my reincarnation for a new and better opportunity to prove myself.

I request that a WP:Topic Ban on Philippines-related articles be instated for me in exchange of being able to edit again on unrelated articles.

(Rename/usurp request snipped by me, Yamla, see talk page. The reason given by Theparties was "Reason: Forgot the password. No access to email.")

Theparties (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: The blocking admin for Theparties and the blocking admin for 23prootie are both no longer active. I did not notify them. --Yamla (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Has realized the mistakes and accepted a topic ban from anything related to the Philippines. That is more than enough. Capitals00 (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Per above. As long they edit unrelated articles for too long, they might appeal topic ban in the future. Welcome back. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Self-nominations for the Arbitration Committee open

The self-nomination period of the Arbitration Committee elections is now open. The deadline for submitting a candidacy is 23:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Request Admin Close

There is a merge discussion taking place at Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Requested move 3 November 2024 Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. I was about to close it myself, but controversial subjects should have an admin close and I think Wikipedia and antisemitism would probably be seen as suitably controversial. Would an admin here be kind enough to close that discussion? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There is also an AfD now, which I would argue is more appropriate since the action being considered is more of of a deletion in spirit / in effect (discussed a bit here). To me the merge was starting to look like a backdoor deletion without AfD's policy rigor. The initial proposer of the merge seemed on board with holding an AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Background. The proposer closed the Merge discussion on Oct 31st, saying they'd undo Merge if anyone objected and propose AfD. I requested that the Merge be kept open and more time be given for improvements. On Oct 31, the proposer agreed and stated in the edit summary: "Unclosing discussion. I will AfD the article in 4 days." Those four days would end tomorrow, Monday, at 22:38 pm Eastern. Fwiw, the original merge discussion had most comments before Oct 31. Since that time, there have been ~ 145 edits by 12 users, including substantive additions based on added IMO reliable sources. Also, a different editor proposed an AfD today, prior to closing the Merge. Thanks to @Sirfurboy and @XDanielx for addressing this. ProfGray (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Might it be wise to cross-post this at WP:RFCLOSE? You might be able to better alert the class of editors that likes to make uninvolved closes if you post there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I was specifically looking for an admin close, because the out of process AfD needs fixing too, but I see from WP:MERGE that you are correct. Admin closes are still requested there. I have posted there now, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not really out of process because one possible outcome of a deletion discussion is to merge, so there is no contradiction. The mistake here, if one can call it that, was not taking it to AfD in the first place. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Possibly a mistake, but we are where we are. There is a merge in which 25+ editors have expressed an opinion. Those opinions should be considered, and that consideration should happen before any other discussions. Consider the case that the merge has a very clear consensus for x, but AfD finds against x and closes as y instead, with a different set of editors. Then all those opinions for x have been ignored. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I entirely agree that the merge discussion should be closed before the AfD. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

A merge wouldn't really make sense any more, as the proposed destination already has related content now, and can't reasonably fit any more since it's WP:TOOBIG. So there's no merge to be done, just a possible deletion. Perhaps the AfD closer should read the merge discussion and consider any point that might still be relevant. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If the merge is completed and the merge closes as consensus to merge, then all that remains is to make the redirect. It is not a deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• I wish I had seen this discussion before I closed this AFD discussion at the requrest of Sirfurboy🏄. More discussion on my closure occurred on my User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Liz. Then please accept my apologies. Although in the AfD where I requested procedural close I did say I'll post to AN and see if we can get an admin to close the merge. There remains no doubt that there was no actual deletion rationale in the AfD and that it was opened one week into an existing merge discussion. Please feel free to self revert your close and relist if you think the close was an error, but I don't see how I could participate in that AfD unless the merge is closed first. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I actually don't think I'll revert the closure. I'm not sure if this discussion here would have changed my closure but I would have liked to have seen this first. Ultimately, this was/is a messy situation and I think closing this AFD was an effort to simplify what was going on. It doesn't make any sense to have two competing discussions going on at the same time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Closure requests is the correct place to request a close for this I think. You can leave in your comment there that you prefer an admin to close it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already done so, following the comment from Red tailed hawk. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Forthcoming WMF disclosure of users' private information

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought here yet, but there is a situation at the WMF Village Pump that is very close to boiling over. For those who haven't been following the story, Asian News International in India is suing the WikiMedia Foundation and three anonymous editors in a defamation suit over the content of its article. In at least one case, an editor is being sued for reverting the unexplained removal of sourced content. The WikiMedia Foundation is now being ordered to deliver the private information of these three editors to the court. Discussion is taking place in regard to a community response and the potential fallout if the WikiMedia Foundation makes a decision to do so. The posts can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#The Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation situation and lower down at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Contacted by one of the editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost has some coverage of this issue with WMF. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's very disappointing but I don't see what administrators, specifically, are supposed to do about it? – Joe (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Any interested editor can check out the most recent development at Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. Cullen328 (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)♤

Request to remove topic ban

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

---

I am topic banned for weapons and Japan which are two topics I am interested in and have considerable knowledge and sources, and which I enjoy writing about. I did make a ton of mistakes when new and caught the eye of a particular admin who rightly took me to task.

Reason for topic ban: As my editing skill increased, so did that admins attention on me. We had many content disputes because they did not carefully review the sources. My user talk page has many examples of this if you need it. There were many more like it.

This admin made countless assertions that material wasn’t in particular sources (when it was clearly was in those sources). This caused borderline reference spamming but the false assertions of failed verification were coming even faster the plethora of verifiable sources, despite every source stating it. Eventually they would say that they read a source, but this was typically only long after numerous allegations of something not being in that source and just as many deletions of all of material it referenced. Working with that person proved untenable. I’m sorry I don’t have all of the links or diffs to post here now. But they exist somewhere!

I had a large draft I was reorganizing per that editors request/demands. I was trying to work with him. The admins valid observation was that the draft was too big and covered too many topics. (In hindsight, I may have built a Frankenstein).

I moved masses of material from my draft into many main pages including some new main pages. My draft reorganization effort was ongoing. Only 1.5 hours after my last edit, this admin complained at Mfd that I was refusing to reduce the size of the draft by narrowing the topics AND that it was WP:STALE. But the assertions were blatantly untrue. They came after yet another heated content/source incident. These exchanges are perfect examples of the admin behavior being described. Nevertheless, the involved admin had the draft permanently removed without any review of the merits of the reasoning. Mfd did not check to see whether anyone was being accurate or truthful That Mfd was appealed and voted for. I lost as only a rare few reviewed the merits. Those that did, verified my version of events (I think). Most participants did not and review merits nor any of the diffs showing the moves and decreasing size nor of the recent edits. If they had, the untruth of the admin would have been exposed. But, the WP:VOTE upheld it. There was a weather event here and family death during that process and I had no access to WP.

This same admin then created his own version of the page with much of the same the content he had deleted from my sandbox. It’s what remains on the main page right now. Their version of that article is not remotely close to a complete picture of the subject per the sources. Yet they fully understood the scope the subject encompassed when they were reviewing at what I had edited in my sandbox. The current page is a small fraction of this subjects scope content that was deleted.

I restored the draft to my sandbox to cut it up in more parts and was eventually topic banned. I also made some edits and talk comments on the newly created subject page created by that administrator in violation of the TBAN.

It took a bit for that rule to sink in because it seemed so unfair. Time has passed and I request the ban be lifted but without giving me or anyone else the benefit of doubt. I’d like some assistance in finding the post-MFd (appeal?) as there is a diff that shows the draft revisions from before material was removed up to the point of deletion. That diff would prove quantitatively when, whether and how much the sandbox draft content had been reduced. If the diff was clicked there would be no need to accept my assertion nor the other editors admission that it was in fact being condensed despite his MFd claim that it was not. My behavior(s) sprang from that abuse from involved admin over content, and then his achieved goal in making his own page with that material.

I reacted badly and ignored or broke rules in reaction. There’s no excuse or defense. It’s an explanation that I hope is understood.

I’d appreciate any other links that can be found and for any decision to be made on the merits I put forth. However, that might be a TLDR situation. In the past those upholding the deletion and my ban did not look closely and took untrue words at face-value.

After Mfd, the involved admin came onto my talk page and admitted that despite his mfd claim, I had in fact, been reducing the size of my draft and the secondly that it was not “Stale”. Those are the very reasons he had the draft nominated to be deleted. He admitted he knew the concerns that he used to get my draft deleted and me eventually topic-banned were false. Did that admin work to restore my draft or have my topic ban removed? We’ll, I wouldn’t be here asking now if he had! A large part of my talk page is interaction with or about that admin. Feel free to look and my talk page or for additional links and diffs.

If you read nothing else, please read the admins quotes below!

Obviously draft was being edited yet the reason provided was no improvements and being stale. When the assertion were made the assertions were already know to be untrue. This is not disputable.

"MfD debate: At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat “I have nominated your stale userpage for deletion. Regards”

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/OpRedHat "The user has not condensed the material."

Compare my talk page comments from the very same admin who nominated it at MFD (and remember it was a sandbox draft). If it met the main page article requirements it would have been in the main space not my sandbox!

"Yes, of course you were tinkering with the draft." “Possibly I should have explained myself more clearly. The implied additional clause in 'The user has not condensed the material" is 'to produce an article that meets the requirements of WP:ARTICLE' etc.

Yes, I responded poorly. I responded by ignoring MFD and a ban because it was based on the above assertions of that involved admin that were admittedly false.

I want to edit topics covering weapons and Japan and further I’d prefer a block on the involved admin from interacting with me in the future. Johnvr4 (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not alert the other editor because I didn’t mention his name. I want nothing else to do with them. Johnvr4 (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC) (fixed a few typos)Johnvr4 (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• For the reference of anyone else who tries to make sense of this appeal, the topic ban was imposed here. I'd also note that if you are asking for an interaction ban with another editor, you need to alert them whether or not you mention their name. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Only 2 mainspace edits in more than 1 year. In fact, your appeal reflects your battleground mentality and justifies the topic ban. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Question Would Johnvr4's edits to Midget submarine violate the topic ban on weapons, broadly construed? It's entirely unclear to me if a midget submarine is itself a weapon or if it is a container of weapons. And either way, if that would be covered. Note that Johnvr4's last edits to that article were more than a year ago. --Yamla (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • It's certainly toeing close to the line. It's also close to the line of the "Japan" topic ban, given that his edits there primarily relate to the GIMIK project which (according to the sources he added) was intended to infiltrate Japanese-occupied Korea and then Japan itself during WWII in preparation for an American invasion of Japan. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    • (Also within the last fifty articlespace edits are a series of seven to Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote, which seems to be clearly within the scope of a TBAN on Japan broadly construed. It was back in December 2021, but Johnvr4 has made only 20 mainspace edits since then) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

      To help answer the question, talk pages and my sand boxes are where most of my most recent editing is contained, in a draft I was working on, and will need to come back to. In sandbox drafts, there’s also mention of a notable crashed training TB-25 which could be considered a weapon if it wasn’t a trainer or had guns or bombs. It didn’t. It had a famous general.

      If these examples are even borderline TBAN violations then I am clearly misunderstanding the broad scope of this ban.

      An unarmed OSS semi-submersible for Korea (and that was never deployed) is nether a weapon nor about Japan and the fact that someone once wrongly assumed it was a Japanese vessel is not a qualifying factor.

      Similarly, a statement falsely attributed to a Japanese historical figure but in fact had nothing to do with anything he said is not related to Japan.

      If broadly construed to be "related" to Japan is because it was uttered in response to the Pearl Harbor attack then in my view, that is way too broadly construed. If that is considered a violation, then I beg for removal of the TBANs which I believe I am compliant with.

      I am considering an article on a scientific bird study by the Smithsonian and WHO and others. There is an allegation that the program was secretly implemented for a biological warfare program. Perhaps it was. the allegation has been officially denied. I don’t want to have to tip toe around a subject (Toyota cars for example) or wonder if some obscure relationship might trigger a TBAN violation. I really don’t want to have to constantly worry or be so constrained by it. It's difficult to work like that even more so because of how it happened in the first place. Due to a required source on the subject, a 2023 book by Ed Regis, I can not cover much of the subject and it would certainly eventually trigger the TBAN if I tried and made a mistake. Just mentioning that potential source reference to a different editor who is also interested in the subject might be considered a TBAN violation. So I'm limiting my participation in main page editing until other admin can under what is my topic ban is about and why I believe (with very convincing evidence) that it's application (not to mention the admins deletion of the sandbox draft).

• • • Let's please be reasonable. These are not controversial edits nor are they crossing any TBAN red lines. I am here to request that I don’t need to watch that line so closely so I can continue editing on subjects I enjoy.

      I also apologize for the typos, this is from a phone and spellcheck is going haywire on grammar. I’ll try to fix them without disruption. Thank you for the missing link(s).

      I am flexible on the interaction block. A look at our past interactions should help to determine necessity of blocking interaction. Thank you for the consideration.16:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Johnvr4 (talk)

    • some typos addressed Johnvr4 (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The initial appeal is textbook WP:NOTTHEM, with barely anything addressing Johnvr4's own behaviour or why we should lift the TBAN beyond that they want to edit articles covered by the TBAN. Johnvr4's response to my raising their edits on Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote also does not give me confidence that we should loosen their restrictions. A quotation attributed to a Japanese admiral about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour is clearly related to Japan broadly construed, but Johnvr4's position is apparently 1. it's not and 2. if it is, we should lift the TBAN because they have violated it? If they cannot understand the connection between that article and Japan, I have absolutely no confidence that they are capable of understanding and avoiding the issues which led to the TBAN in the first place. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't intend to comment on every contribution. I do not intend to present a wall of further arguments.

  I very much appreciate ALL contributions to this request and want to expressly thank you personally for helping make sense of my initial submission and for providing useful links.

  Regarding the Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote, there is no legitimate attribution to any Japanese General that is valid, including that expressed in that page's references and title (period). The falsehood, or more accurately, the Myth about Folklore has verifiable coverage in many sources but in the face of the original quote, they are factually dubious and can no longer be relied on for accuracy or verification. The quote ("...and also don’t forget, sometimes you can strike a giant who is dozing momentarily, when the giant is awakened, look out.") is from an American about Giants. The comment came in the aftermath of something from Japan and specifically one day after. Now, if you want to listen to the entire Radio show, and present each of the times it does or does not mention Japan, you can. It could be relevant to a violation complaint or not. The title of that page itself is an issue because it falsely ties this quote to Japan or the Japanese. It is clearly a myth and a false one at that is not related to Yamamoto.

  I do not believe the WP:BANX tag for that edit was required or I else would have used it in my edit summary. I would think WP:OR would be your complaint there as no other source anywhere that ties these two subjects or offers anything verifiable. Verification is why I linked the original source.

  We can agree there is an important and valid concern about that page (and title) and sources etc. But I cannot raise the issue nor participate in important discussion because of the TBan in combination with a widespread mistaken belief of it being Japan-esqe.

  I can see that you are adamant and serious about your concern of these edits as a TBAN violation, which I do not want to take lightly even though I wholeheartedly disagree with it. I think there is a separate place to raise that concern and I agree to participate in that process, should you bring it or any of my other edits you may have concern with to that forum.

  To clarify, any concern or concerns being raised, It was me and only me who made the edits that previously violated the TBAN. As stated above, I did that. I reacted badly and I own that behavior (period).

  What I was reacting to is spelled out in diffs and links. No one has to believe me to sort it out. It's there, laid bare for all. I can, in fact, understand why NotThem concerns are being put forth by those who glance at the surface of the matter. The NotThem concern requires the other parties actions to be free from the valid policy concerns I raised and that simply is not the case per the evidence available to all in links, and diffs, and concerns previously raised in discussion and elsewhere. Complaining that I was being disruptive while they were deleting any text or sources that disputed their POV was the easiest way to deal with my concerns about them and their editing and which eventually led to my behavior. The TBAN for my behavior was a consequence of that.

  I am not claiming innocence, but the facts edits, diffs, sources and everything else should give anyone pause before repeating the NOTTHEM (or any other concerns) that first raised by the very same admins involved in the behavior I've described and have strong evidence that confirms it at the links you've provided us (again thank you for that).

  One super-easy test for this is to ask yourself, "Did the Red Hat Operation last for Six months, or did it last for Thirty years"?

  After simple verification answers that question to your satisfaction, then it's just a very obvious a POV issue.

  The (Johnvr4 sandbox4?) version that the other admin was successfully able to remove from WP stated that this Operation lasted for 30 years with exhaustive details and reliable sources with a plethora of detail about all three parts of the operation. The 30-plus-year scope of the Operations was verifiable by that admin and all other participants in the reliable sources that cited it and that version may still visible to admins that can still access it (I can't). 267th Chemical Company for example, uses a few of those sources but they are more than enough for any competent editor to verify super-easily that the subject Red Hat mission extended from the mid-1960s deployment up to the 2001 destruction of the Red Hat component agents. No one can argue otherwise. ...Except the other Admin and those involved with them in that effort.

  The other admin stated numerous times their goal of an Operation Red Hat article that only covers (their words) "the core" six-month Red Hat redeployment occurring in 1971. there are many example of this in the links you provided above. The Red Hat Operation was initiated around 1965 and was already going on years before 1971 with the initial deployments and then continued right up to 2001. What you are claiming as strong examples of NOTTHEM, is, in fact. Them. One can verify that editors obvious POV in the version of the article Operation Red Hat they resurrected and in the process to delete the article's history and talk page as well. My ban was in part related to his action to insert his POV and to reinsert nonsense and bad sources into the main space which I had already corrected long ago.

  To alleviate POV concerns I raised (Diff:[3]], he had to reinsert material he deleted from my sandbox to avoid my obviously valid NPOV/PFORK complaint. His version now republished was never an improvement and is wholly incomplete. Someday (not soon), I may revisit that page if asked but the community has decided they want his POV version over that which I had presented in the verifiable sources I cited. In my view, the community can be stuck with his version. The community worked really had to get that version and they deserve it now and without improvement, for eternity! There was an alternative to doing that. There are quotes from that editor that contradict every other assertion that he's ever made about it made or expressed in any forum about the version I was redeveloping. Never, not even once did that admin find something not verifiable in my sandbox. Please note that the reasons the admin stated for the removal of my sandbox that he put forth at MFD and everywhere else were entirely his own fabrication and that he actually came back to my talk page afterwards to leave comments where he stated that of course what he had alleged in order to have my sandbox deleted wasn't entirely accurate and basically admitted deception which is precisely that which many others latched onto (specifically complaints stale, abandoned, not being reduced in size per his requests, Not-here Not-them etc.). Those efforts were not me. That, was THEM; plainly displayed. These are inescapable facts with diffs that can bare out false allegations-easily. Please consider facts with diffs and examples before alleging WP:NOTTHEM behavior and repeating unfounded opinions as alleged by others (without diff or links). Johnvr4 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:TLDR, your posts are way too long. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I know. I can't help it. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Then we're in WP:CIR territory, and you might find yourself facing even stronger sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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

What do I do about a username that includes contact information

Call_Center_Kredit_Digital_Phone-082188251238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single line ad. I'd like to do something to remove the phone number, but don't know who to approach about it, or if anything can be done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Possibly WP:OVERSIGHT? 331dot (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You'd be hard pressed to show that a call centre's number is suppressible personal information. Cabayi (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your username block. Perhaps you could revdel the log under RD5? Valid deletion under deletion policy, executed using RevisionDelete, and as you say, it's a spammy username. But maybe that's going too far with RevDel, especially since you've posted about it here too? Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it does not meet the threshold for supression. It possibly does meet WP:RD3 but getting rid of it with revdel at this point is kind of closing the barn door after the horse already got out. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I just suppress-blocked because while we do not particularly care about the call center's privacy, we have no way of knowing that this isn't a personal number being used for harassment. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess you have a point that we don't know if we don't actually call it, which I'm certainly not going to do. The number is still visible here and on their talk page, if it's being supressed it seems like those need to go as well. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Naturally, but it felt not quite as urgent to remove. Since we're on the fence here, I looked it up, and the results suggest that this is in fact a call center, so I have unsuppressed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I posted the number here because, based on the now-deleted user page, it was clearly commercial, and I only wanted to reduce future exposure, not necessarily eliminate it from all records. In retrospect, doing nothing is probably the best course, as that username alone is a pretty ineffective ad, so who really cares? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a widespread assumption on Wikipedia that any mention of a product (such as a call centre) is promotional. That is obviously not true, so doing nothing beyond what you have already done is probably the best course of action, as often. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

To me, it seems the first step should have been to search for the phone number on Google. Animal lover |666| 21:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the first step I usually take if it's a problematic username. As others have mentioned above, posting at AN is about the worst thing that can be done - contact OS or an OSer directly and keep it as much as possible out of the logs (including places like AIV or UAA). Primefac (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's most likely this is just spam, which we get a lot of. It would be nice if we could rename it as part of clean up. Secretlondon (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Clean up without renaming, and the disruptive username eventually fades into obscurity (posint here makes it take longer, but it will still happen). Rename the user, and the user can return eventually with the same name, causing twice as much disruption. Animal lover |666| 11:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Linking Trump with dictatorship

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

---

I'm concerned about @HM2021:'s recent edits at Donald Trump & Dictator. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely inappropriate. We can include sources to the comments Trump's made about that, but saying he is/will be one in Wikivoice is a complete violation. — Masem (t) 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Edits like this make me wonder what they've done in the past and should we be reviewing more then just today's edits. Moxy🍁 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I am an innocent editor and the edits I made in the past are nothing to do with politics. Just LEAVE ME ALONE. I won't touch those two articles again I promise. HM2021 (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are links to three of HM2021's edits here, two on Trumpty-Dumpty's page, the first and the second, quotes that "America is DEAD" in the edit summary and another on Dictator, reading "America is doomed".

The first Trump vandalism was made at 02:29, November 7, 2024 and the second, which was a revert of removal of the first Trump vandalism, was made at 02:32, November 7, 2024. The Dictator vandalism was made at the same time as the revert HM2021 made on Trumpty-Dumpty's page, at 02:32, November 7, 2024.

@User:HM2021, don't try to pull a trick over on the admins with the ol' "the edits I made in the past ... I won't touch those two articles again I promise" card, when it hasn't been even a half-hour since your disruption was done. What in the sam hill were you thinking? This probably should have gone to WP:DRAMABOARD instead. BarntToust 02:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to ANI. While judging these edits to be unacceptable, let's also acknowledge the election stress this week. If these three edits are part of a pattern, I could see advocating for a topic ban but if this was a momentary lapse in an otherwise okay editing career, I think a warning is sufficient. But again, this seems like a case for ANI, not AN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

haha, Liz! I think that's right. the editor probably got carried away. I was thinking the same thing about why GoodDay brought things here. eh, no matter anyways. BarntToust 11:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Edit filter manager request for non-admin

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

---

Hello all, there is an edit filter manager application open for a non-admin. For information or to participate in the discussion, please see the edit filter noticeboard. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding Marine 69-71

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 18:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Marine 69-71

Administrator recall: reworkshop open

You are invited to refine and workshop proposals to modify the recall process at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop. After the reworkshop is closed, the resulting proposals will be voted on at an RfC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

ACE2024

In case you haven't noticed, WP:ACE2024/C is currently listing 3 candidates for the 9 open arbcom seats. What strikes me about the three is that they are all either current or former arbs. What is probably happening right now is what typically happens: there's a bunch of former arbs sitting on their hands and they'll add their names as the nomination window is nearly over. I'm not saying that having former arbs is bad, but in the big picture, we need new blood to keep the thing going. So all of you admins out there, please consider taking a step up and running for arbcom. RoySmith (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'll throw my hat in the ring if we get approval to unionize. I think the pay arbitrators get here is substandard compared to that of arbitrators in similar positions on other collaborative editing projects.
  Seriously though, how can there be 9 open positions? Isn't it typically 6? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's typically either 7 or 8, depending on whether we're electing Tranche Alpha (7) or Tranche Beta (8). This year we're electing Tranche Alpha, so that's 7 positions, but Maxim and Firefly (both elected last year to Tranche Beta) recently resigned, bringing the number of open positions up to 9. --rchard2scout (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  We could upgrade your boring, basic mop to a Smart Mop^(TM), would that do? -- asilvering (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• RoySmith's concerns are really valid. All of the current candidates have already served more than one term within the past 8 years. I really encourage administrators with a year or two under their belt, particularly those who feel comfortable working as part of a team or who have experience with dispute resolution, to give this some thought. This isn't to criticize the experienced hands who have put themselves forward; it is to emphasize that "new blood" is essential for Arbcom to do its best work. Risker (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Full disclosure, recently I was asked to consider running again this year (after about 10 years away), but having just come off the very intense work of the MCDC, I need to do more project-based work and less committee work for a while.
• I was going to ask a question this morning about numbers etc, but Roy and Risker have now answered it. I wonder how many editors/admins are in my position — happy to help, a little hesitant given the burnout witnessed from consecutive Committees, somewhat hopeful that 10-12 other good options nominate so they don't have to, but will if numbers stay skinny. This might sound incredibly selfish but ArbCom does not seem like it would be 'fun' in the slightest; at best it could be considered rewarding. It's a big commitment (potentially two years) and that's a lot to ponder when considering throwing one's hat in the ring. Daniel (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm in the same place, Daniel. I was an arbitration clerk for two years and I know how much work is involved at some points and how much criticism even the most functional committee receives. That leaves me with mixed feelings. It would help to hear some former arbitrators issue a sales pitch for why it was a rewarding experience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

    @Liz and Daniel: To a certain extent, many hands make light work. Obviously most of the committee needs to get involved in the big cases but we only have a few of those per year. You're both experienced admins so taking flak for a necessary but unpopular decision should be nothing new. I've been doing it for a year now and it's not as bad as I imagined so I'd encourage you both to run. If you really hate it, you could always resign at next year's election but new blood is important and so is having an election with enough candidates for it to be meaningful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

    I have enjoyed my experience on ArbCom, even though I have not been the most active. There are many roles within the committee, so members can work in the areas or topics that are most interesting to them. Moving checkuser blocks to the community has lightened our workload to devote more time to other activities. The admin tasks that I think are most similar to working on ArbCom are AE, unblock requests and checkuser: those thinking about running can participate in those areas to see if they like that work. I strongly encourage anyone who is interested in ArbCom to run: I do not regret my decision and I feel like it is a fantastic place to help make Wikipedia better for its editors. Even if you are not successful, you can get some ideas on where you can find places to improve your skills on the admin side of Wikipedia. If anyone wants to reach out to me they are welcome to send me an email. Z1720 (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

*Dracula voice* "We need ze blood! Ze fresh blood!" But seriously, yes we do need new folks on the Committee from time to time. I can say that it is one of the best and most rewarding things that I do in my life. It provides a lot of transferable skills. I also find it easy to do on the go, which is a real bonus over regular editing. Don't wanna be scrolling mindless social media? Why not try reading Arb discussions! Don't feel like you have to come in as a perfectly formed judicial decision machine. We need the same thing we need in admins: humble people willing to learn. The time commitment is different depending on your style. Some people go in sprints, some run a marathon; ArbCom needs both tortoises and hares to run well. I think the work that ArbCom does is important and really makes a difference. It's not all sunshine and roses, as various guide writers (see User:Barkeep49/ACE) have put more eloquently than me, but it's meaningful, engaging work. So if you're on the fence, I really do encourage you to throw your hat into the ring! Or if you know some whippersnapper who'd make a good choice, why not send them a message encouraging them to run? I would have never run if it were not for a community veteran who privately encouraged me to take the leap. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I also find it easy to do on the go, which is a real bonus over regular editing. This, 1000%, is such a key selling point for me. I travel for work (far more than I'd like), and while I read Wikipedia/discussions/etc. every day, there are some days I just can't edit when travelling. Emails and just being across things are fine, but to sit down and actually edit on a plane or in a hotel just sometimes doesn't happen. Thanks for sharing your experiences CaptainEek, as well as HJ Mitchell and Z1720 above — it is genuinely appreciated. Daniel (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's much easier to keep up with emails on a phone than it is to do any serious editing. If you're used to reading and digesting discussion threads in between daily life you'll probably find ArbCom quite manageable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Until the WMF has a dedicated deputy general counsel and transparent budget and procedures for volunteer security/indemnification, I can’t countenance even standing for admin, far less Arbcom, even though I humbly suggest I would bring considerable experience and value to either role. I value my identity, job, and physical safety, and I cherish this project (and, uh, have the litigation skills in spades for that role if it existed—and a proposed job description as an ongoing brain-doodling phone note) but I’m going to stick to hyphenating compound modifiers and decapitalizing generic food names. I deeply appreciate the work of everyone who serves. I wish I felt comfortable being of more service. I’m just too scared of the trolls, and have too many IRL responsibilities to take on that enormous layer cake of anxiety with no expectation of support from the WMF. Julietdeltalima (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  ArbCom is covered by the WMF's Legal Fees Assistance Program. Legoktm (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  To the extent of an unknown amount of “earmarked funds”, hence my budget transparency concerns. These cases get really expensive, really fast, because the obvious initial line of defense in many U.S. states (including California) is an anti-SLAPP motion, which requires accelerated briefing and discovery—and even though most such laws provide for the prevailing party (hopefully the WMF and volunteer(s)) to recoup attorney fees and costs of suit from the non-prevailing party, there is virtually never any ability or willingness for the loser to pay that award. Or they appeal. Either way, even the winner has to keep paying lawyers either to pursue the appeal or file motions as part of collection efforts. I would need to know the extent of those “earmarked funds” and the policies regarding their distribution before I’d be okay taking on that risk. I can’t trust the WMF not to quit paying my legal bills because they purportedly ran out of money their “earmarked funds” got exhausted mid-case. Julietdeltalima (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• I note that there are now, about 62 hours from closing, 7 candidates for 9 seats, I presume (I have not followed the arbcom election messages) that if there are no more candidates than available seats all candidates will be successful, and that there will be no election. That can't be good. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Candidates still need >50% for a one year term, and >60% for a full two years, so an election would still be necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that ScottishFinnishRadish. You've put my mind partially at rest by showing that there is some quality control. It would still be better to have more candidates. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Here's hoping for the rush during the final 48. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates is pretty good for those who may be on the fence. Clearly we need a few more good candidates. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  For more descriptions of what it's like to be an arbitrator, see Wikipedia:Arbitrator experiences. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Glad to hear RoySmith and Liz are planning to add their names! :) How about some straight-up peer pressure other humble suggestions? Here are some folks I'd support (omitting a couple that I know I've nudged in the past and got a hard pass): @Red-tailed hawk, Firefangledfeathers, Novem Linguae, ScottishFinnishRadish, Rosguill, EvergreenFir, Girth Summit, Valereee, Joe Roe, and Muboshgu: (btw not expecting a response here -- just pinging in case you haven't thought about it) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  One step ahead of you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, there you go. I can pick 'em. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  As a sitting member of the Ombuds Commission, I am ineligible. RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: I'm flattered, and rather chuffed, that you would suggest I put my hat in the ring. Susceptible as I am to suggestion, I'm going through some IRL stuff at the moment which has taken me away from the project for much of the last few months, and which might do so again in the year ahead. I wouldn't want to make promises about my available time which I'm unable to keep. That said, if you put your name forward, as a very experienced and level-headed editor, I think you might get a lot of support... Best wishes, Girth Summit _(blether) 00:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Understandable. Maybe next time. if you put your name forward - oh heavens no. I'm just here to pester other people who would be good for it. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Rhodo, I appreciate your confidence in me. But I'm not a spot in my life where I have the time to do the job of an arbitrator well, so I won't be running. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• ArbCom work seems it's even worse than closing long, difficult discussions. I can't imagine wanting to sign up for it, but those of you who do: thank you for your sacrifice, and I'll be praying for your wellbeing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

What has kept me from throwing my hat in the ring, year after year, is that a) I enjoy the editing work I do now and that is pretty time-intensive and b) I don't want a repeat of my experience from my RFA which was grueling. But maybe arbitration candidates are treated more kindly than admin candidates. I do have a draft of a statement written up but I'm still undecided based on the two points I mentioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The biggest difference in the ArbCom elections is that the voting is secret, so you only have the question phase. That makes it less grueling in many ways, although even the questions can be tricky - I know I spent an hour figuring out how to answer a tricky question in my RfA but I guess I got it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I can't speak for ACE or EFA personally, but if you read the debriefs from the folks who just tried the admin elections, the general impression is that secret ballot made the whole thing pretty painless. Actually, one of the common complaints from the candidates who got more opposition is that they don't know what turned people off of them! The opposite of a gruelling RfA, really. -- asilvering (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Note to anyone waiting until the last minute: That would be right now. There are nine seats open and only ten applicants. You have two hours. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not it was your message, Just Step Sideways, but we got two more candidates in the final two hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I seriously feel a lot better. More candidates, to a point, are a good thing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to get an ENWP account blocked for multiple account abuse without filing an RFCU?

Hi there. I am editing on the Simple English Wikipedia, as well as this one, and this afternoon I've discovered an account on the Simple Wikipedia, belonging to someone who also has an account here. User:Times Daily has been blocked indefinitely (on Simple) for abusing multiple accounts.

The block was enacted by the administrator / checkuser User:Vermont on Friday November 1st 2024. Without carrying out a CU here, is there any way of getting the user blocked on here too, since they have been active with similar articles to those written on the Simple site, or do you have to conduct a local CU for the English Wikipedia, too?

The notice to the user is linked here: simple:User_talk:Times_Daily#November_2024.

Thank you. Dane|Geld 17:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We'd need evidence that they have been abusing multiple accounts on this project. Do you know the name of the other accounts they used over there? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't. I can check for an SPI over there, and see if their other accounts are listed. I'll have to wait for a few moments, because I'm in the process of putting out the notices to the involved editors I've mentioned. I'll get on it in a moment. Dane|Geld 17:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: - I can only see one on the SPI for Times Daily there, and that's User:The Unknown Explorer, who has not edited this site. They are however, connected. Involved parties (Vermont and Times Daily) have now been notified of this thread. Dane|Geld 17:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ping to @JBW:, who issued them a final warning; there are several issues with Times Daily (talk · contribs) that were flagged by multiple editors, including copyvios, trying to push a certain autobio with title evasion, and CIR concerns (calling readers 'viewers' in edit summaries for instance). Nate • (chatter) 17:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I noticed only one, User:The Unknown Explorer, and they have not made any edits to en.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Based on the socking elsewhere and the disruptive editing here, I ran a check. They're a sock of Top Gun X 4. Blocking, along with The Unknown Explorer (both  Confirmed). Blocking etc. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Extreme Personal Attacks

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

This IP addresses is personally attacking me in very extreme way. They are calling me Khalistani, (a supporter of a militant movement) and are accusing me of being an "anti-Indian" user. They are also in a very subtly manner suggesting a legal action against WMF, they admit to word it in such a way in order to avoid WP:NLT. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 17:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for making personal attacks and legal threats. Valereee (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This says (I think) these needs to be longer [[4]]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

TPA revoked for making what I interpreted as legal threats, despite their clumsy attempt to obfuscate it as expert advice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; "stop this or you'll get sued" is a legal threat no matter how you phrase it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

84Swagahh unban request

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

---

Request reason:

Hello members of the Wikipedia administration reviewing my request for unblock, It has been six months since my last request for unblock and editing activity on the English Wikipedia. Per the standard offer and other rules on Wikipedia, I have not used any other account or IP address to edit on any Wikimedia project during this block. In addition, I promise that I will not repeat the behavior that led to my blocks. This behavior including creating and abusing sock-puppet accounts, vandalism, harassment, disruption, and username policy violations. Lastly, I do not believe that given reasons for people to object my return. I have avoided bad behavior and contributed to other projects during my block. During this block, I have been active on the Simple English Wikipedia. I have made over 1400 contributions and have not received any warning during my time. I reverted bad-faith edits using twinkle, gave those users warnings, nominated articles for deletion, performed copy-editing, welcomed new users, and expanded articles. I have applied for the roll backer permission and successfully earned it, meaning I am in good standing with the project's administration. However, I have not been as active with editing on the Simple English Wikipedia recently than I was the last 6-11 months. I still spent time reading articles on Wikipedia, but I just wasn't as active. I believe that this shows my efforts towards returning to the community and my ability to make positive contributions. Please note that this request was shorter than my last request in order to make it easier for administrators to review. If there are any questions for me, please ask me and I will respond to them. Thank you, 😂🤣84Swagahh🤣😂 17:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Because he is banned via WP:3X, I'm bringing the request here. There is no evidence of recent block evasion (see brief discussion at User talk:84Swagahh#Unblock Request through the Standard Offer). What he says about his activity on simple-wiki is true; there is some additional relevant discussion here. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, I don't object. Editor seems to have matured some. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support – positive contributions at a sister project, meeting the WP:SO. Welcome back. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Can we get some additional context on the initial block? Was it just blatant vandalism with multiple accounts? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, yeah. Examples (note datestamps): https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BulgariaWarrior -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  In that case, support. Seems more mature, and there will be basically no cost if it turns out otherwise. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support as the editor is a good-faith editor and has been productive on another project, but with the condition that they not edit from temporarily assigned devices from their school. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support unbanning - I see no reason to not take this request in good faith and a spot-check of their contributions at Simple did not turn up any issues. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Closure request for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 28#Ivy Wolk

Would an admin please close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 28#Ivy Wolk? The consensus is obvious, but only an admin can implement it. Posted here because no admins watch WP:CR. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

no admins watch WP:CR a rather bold statement given there are over 600 people watching that page. Seems statistically unlikely. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I know plenty of admin who watch WP:CR, and I personally used to keep an eye on WP:DRV, but I took a break recently. Will try to help with backlog there when possible. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Can someone delete my Userpage User:Blidfried

thanks--Blidfried (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I've done this. If you have a request like this again please use {{U1}}. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect

I was trying to create ஃ (film) as a redirect for Aayutha Ezhuthu, as the lead of that article notes: "The film's title was taken from the name of a Tamil letter ஃ – three dots corresponding to the film's three different personalities from completely different strata of society." But was hit with a blacklist warning.

Can this be created as a redirect?

PS: Not sure why this is in the blacklist in the first place, would be great to know the reason. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Gotitbro, is the film actually called that anywhere, or is it just where the name comes from? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it is, the title is a direct transliteration of the letter after all, and from what I can tell the reason the letter isn't broadly used is due merely to technical reasons (in print and otherwise). See for example [5] and [6]. Gotitbro (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

As for the reason, the comment in the blacklist entry is "potentially confusing mixed-script titles." I can't tell you any more than that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi, Could you please revdel this? And blocked the talk page as well? Yann (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like User:Secretlondon removed TPA back in October and User:Fathoms Below revision deleted that edit. So, all done here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The username alone is powerful evidence that this person came to Wikipedia only to troll. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Guidance to participants at a particular AfD, please

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Gertoux has descended into a somewhat arcane discussion about a religious concept rather than being confined to whether the biography being discussed should stay or go. I can't find an obvious place to ask for whatever guidance is available to participants to be given, so I'm hoping this is the right board.

I realise that the eventual closer is well able to disregard any off topic material, but their job will be easier if it is handled at this stage. What I perceive as clutter is becoming rather large and imposing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps not needed. David Eppstein has engaged in selective hatting of off topic material. Thank you, David. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

User:94.64.80.27

the IP 94.64.80.27 keeps adding unicode swastikas to the Scholz cabinet article. Please block immediately. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 21:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Done, blocked for one week. --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this is the sort of thing that an edit filter should be able to catch... — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Permission gaming after warnings

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

---

User:Uncle Ramon seems to be making a ton of useless edits to user talk page to get to Extended Confirmed. They have been made aware that this is prohibited, but they have deleted that notice and continued, so here we are. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm doing it because I can't post on someone's talk page because I need to talk to them about something and their talk page is extended confirmed protected Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

(I'm so dumb, I posted this in AN thinking this was AN/I...) There is always an option to request a decrease in protection level or reach the editor in a different way. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

What other way to reach them is there? Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You can just ping them. win8x (talking | spying) 06:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to cast aspersions, but with recent LTA's always being here, I am led to believe they want to edit Qcne's talk page. The user could just tell us who's talk page they want to edit, but doesn't want to tell. win8x (talking | spying) 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Huh? Who's Qcne?

I'm not looking to contact that user, and their talk page isn't even ECP'd

I just looked upon going to that person's talk page Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, who are you trying to contact? We can contact them for you. win8x (talking | spying) 06:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

But I don't want anybody to contact them tho

That's what I'm trying to get at

I want to be the one to contact them Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this user came outta nowhere just today and they already know jargons like "ECP". I'm probably bad at assuming good faith here. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Well you create an account and you already need to contact someone. There aren’t tons of ECP user talk pages. I want to assume good faith though, but I wanted others who see this report to consider the possibility. win8x (talking | spying) 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, because I just created an account 2 months ago. I'm pretty sure 2 months is enough to know what ECP is. Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You started editing today. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

So just because I started editing today that means I didn't start READING Wikipedia until today...?

And I'm somehow supposed to magically assume that I don't know anything about the user permission rights because I just started editing today? Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed revoked. You can make a request to regain that permission after making 500 real edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Then how am I supposed to contact the person I want to contact if their talk page is extended confirmed protected? Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You’ve had plenty of offers to help. See above. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

And I already said I don't need their help. So I'm not sure why you… felt the need to take my extended confirmed privileges away. Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Gaming the system. You were warned multiple times. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Over a talk page?????? Uncle Ramon (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Uncle Ramon, yes, this is over a talk page. The intent of the 500 edit requirement to achieve WP:ECP is to show convincingly that the editor is learning about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. An editor who repeatedly adds just another period to a long list of periods that does not improve the encyclopedia in any discernable way is learning nothing of value and is "gaming the system". That is what you have been doing, and if you want to have a conversation with another editor whose talk page is protected due to harassment, then there legitimate ways to do so, such as pinging that editor to this conversation. Your refusal to do so and reluctance to explain yourself indicates that your intentions are not productive. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not pinging them here because I dont want to ping them, I want to post on THEIR talk page. I already explained myself several times so I'm not being reluctant AT ALL to explain myself, y'all just dont want to listen. I said I wanted to post on another editor's talk page and I wanted to start the conversation from there, on THEIR talk page. Not anywhere else. I'm not understanding why the fuck y'all take a privilege away from somebody that already EXPLAINED their intentions and then refuse to give it back to them, when there shouldnt fucking be a restriction on the other page in the first place. Uncle Ramon (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Following their permissions being revoked, they have left this message for rsjaffe. Given the wording used, I don't think they understand the situation to put it mildly. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Forum-y discussion

Hi, there's a very WP:FORUMy discussion at Talk:British_Isles#Irrelevant_archaic_colonial_era_terminology which has been dragging on for months but is going absolutely nowhere. I'm involved so can't close it myself per WP:SUPERHAT, but if anyone fancies chucking some {{atop}} and {{abot}} templates around it so we can all get on with our lives, that would be appreciated. WaggersTALK 15:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be going nowhere fast. I can't find any sort of actual suggestion from the IP as to what ought to be done and nobody agrees with them; I've collapsed the whole thread and suggested that if anyone has concrete suggestions and policy-based reasoning they should open a move request. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Unban request for Kansascitt1225

Kansascitt1225 is considered banned by the community due to extensive sockpuppetry, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kansascitt1225. They are requesting the ban be lifted and I am posting their request below. As a WP:CHECKUSER, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. Their request from August 16 indicates they haven't evaded in eight months, so that would make it about 11 months now. I lost track of this unban request due to 2024 Jasper wildfire and COVID-19, my apologies to Kansascitt1225 for making them wait so freaking long to start this discussion. I have very slightly altered the request to nowiki the references, to make them more obvious on this discussion page. --Yamla (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi admins, I have not edited Wikipedia since December of 2023. I was unable to continue responding to my last request due to personal circumstances and going out of town. I have demonstrated that I can follow simple, clear instructions which shows I am able to abide by community rules and not bypass my block. I would appreciate being given wikipedias standard offer. I promise to not use multiple accounts which is the behavior that got me blocked to begin with. Most of these accounts were improperly used for persistent block evasion. I don’t want to give anyone anymore reasons to object. I know now that if I have a disagreement with someone I can talk on the talk page or on their user talk page instead of edit warring or creating an account. I have learned that civility is important on Wikipedia too and have become easier to get along with as I am older now also. I want to make constructive edits to Wikipedia and am interested in demographics and geography along with world and cities populations. I am trying to keep this short and I promise that I don’t intend to be disruptive to the project at all. I know it was a problem on my investigations case page me objecting to “largely suburban” on the Johnson county pages. I truly believed I was doing the right thing as I was always taught where I was growing up that a suburb was a more car centric place that is less dense within commuting distance of a city which is currently what the suburb page says now. I intend to edit this page to educate people that sometimes especially in the US that suburbs is where most jobs are located. In the case of Kansas City this suburban area and the municipalities within it have lower single family housing rates, more jobs, more population and higher density than the city with some suburbs walking to work more than the city. I wanted to make this clear. I do have good references for this including from the us census bureau. I think the main issue I had with the content is that calling the communities like Overland Park and Johnson county “suburban” makes people think that more people commute out than into these places and that these places are less dense and have more single family housing, which is the complete opposite of reality. I won’t remove anything about these communities as being suburban but want to include that they have more density, more jobs and lower single family housing rates so people don’t get confused. I also edited a while ago (more than 6 months) the Economy of St. Louis page and showed how white flight influenced the city’s economy as it was the same for Economy of Kansas City and wanted to edit the page to make it more accurate instead of saying the economy is anchored by Kansas City Missouri even though there’s more jobs outside the city than within it. I have edited these before while blocked but not within the last 8 months. I want to make constructive edits to improve the encyclopedia and working cooperatively with others is what I intend on doing. I was also upset that this was removed as biased, misleading and false to the point the page was protected and from my point of view I felt as though I was being blatantly lied too. It’s a well known fact that Kansas City has experienced decades of white flight and urban decay and I think I was also caught off guard by people in Kansas City calling these places suburbs meanwhile them having these characteristics.

- Here are some references

• States that Most United States jobs are in the suburbs <ref>{{cite web|url= https://www2.census.gov/about/training-workshops/2021/2021-05-19-led-presentation.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newgeography.com/content/005264-suburbs-continue-dominate-jobs-and-job-growth#:~:text=Most%20Jobs%20Growth%20Since%202010,overall%20combined%20share%20of%20employment.}}</ref>

• States that Single family detached homes are less common in some of the suburbs compared to city in the Kansas City area. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP04&g=160XX00US2053775,2938000}}</ref>

• Shows that there is a Higher population density in some of the suburbs of Kansas City <ref>{{cite web|url=https://statisticalatlas.com/metro-area/Missouri/Kansas-City/Population#figure/place/population-density}}</ref>

• comparison that shows people walk to work more in some of the suburbs than the city <ref>{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=commute&g=160XX00US2938000}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=commute&g=160XX00US2039350}}}</ref>

Kansascitt1225 (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The blocking admin is Berean Hunter. They have not been active for more than four years so I did not notify them. --Yamla (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Frankly, this unblock request reads as a promise to continue to WP:RGW on a specific topic (I intend to edit this page to educate people that sometimes especially in the US that suburbs is where most jobs are located.), rather the opposite of what we want from editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  The following comment copied over from User talk:Kansascitt1225. Minor formatting changes from me, around references. --Yamla (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @HandThatFeeds: thank you for reading my unblock request. I’m not sure if you read these references or not, but the overwhelming majority of jobs are in the suburbs in the United States. In Kansas City for example only around 4% of jobs are in the central business district and only 30% of the Kansas City areas jobs are in the city of Kansas City, Missouri. Could you please explain how this would be tendentious editing so I can avoid it the future ? I can’t find any evidence for the contrary and genuinely do want to work cooperatively with others and I honestly don’t see how this is breaching Neutral point of view.

• Census publication <ref>{{cite web|url= https://www2.census.gov/about/training-workshops/2021/2021-05-19-led-presentation.pdf}}</ref>

• Website article <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newgeography.com/content/005264-suburbs-continue-dominate-jobs-and-job-growth#:~:text=Most%20Jobs%20Growth%20Since%202010,overall%20combined%20share%20of%20employment.}}</ref>

• Sample of jobs in central business districts. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.demographia.com/db-cbd2000.pdf}}</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansascitt1225 (talk • contribs)

Honestly, this just proves my point: rather than building up trust in the community by doing literally anything else, the user wants to go back to an area to educate people that they are right, and is arguing over sourcing rather than understanding that their behavior is the problem. Kansascitt1225, if you want any hope of ever being unblocked, you should step away from this topic entirely and work on something else. If this is the only thing you're interested in working on for Wikipedia, I'd suggest just moving on to some other site. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Red link example user

Red link example is permanently protected as a link that can be used in documentation and testing (note the page protection summary).

I have created User:Red link example for the same purpose.

Can someone kindly permanently protect the user, talk and sandbox pages, with an edit summary similar to the above?

Once done, I will also request that the account be globally locked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Unban request for Wikiuser1314

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

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

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

@Yamla: Embarrassing for me, but here are the accounts I once used: User:Banjardar, User:Bharat99x2, User:Kumasojin 熊襲, User:Kush3897, User:Ogbuago, User:SapmiSamo, User:WhiteTeaWiki, User:X Aterui x, User:일성강, User:突厥 哈萨克族, User:2001.4bc9.824.e0e4, User:AmurTiger18, User:AntiTuranism1908, User:Ape-huchi, User:Arario, User:Arkiat, User:AsadalEditor, User:AustronesianTaiwan, User:Azazmeh, User:Baikal13, User:BaiulyQz, User:Bayan Khagan, User:Benjamin Samasa?, User:Benji887, User:ChampaDroid, User:DeEnTranslator?, User:GanjDareh4, User:GoguryeoHistorian, User:Gyatso1, User:HainanTai, User:Heiwajima20Ip, User:HlaaluTW, User:Hmoob Yao, User:Jäkke34, User:JihoHone, User:KalifFR?, User:Kang Sung-Tae, User:KinhyaKing, User:KuroZetsu oho, User:KwestaPC, User:Lankaman20, User:LenguaEditar?, User:Lord Huynh, User:Magyarrider, User:Manasam98, User:Mandari9, User:Masamannamasam, User:MLx22, User:MomotaniSS, User:MomotaniYY, User:Nam Việt 18, User:OghurBushi, User:Quapaw, User:Rimisibaqwa, User:RobertoY20, User:Ruuchuu, User:Sakushain, User:Satoshi Kondo, User:Saxhleel, User:Shatuo, User:ShiroEmishi, User:Skaalra, User:Takeshima42, User:TAMILinJAPAN, User:TamizhUser, User:Tiberiussan, User:Tomislav22, User:TürkSamurai, User:Turukkaean, User:Whhu22, User:WikiEdit2204, User:Wikiworkbot2.0, and User:YonaguniFan.

—

The others in both lists are unrelated to me. (Not me:User:WorldCreaterFighter, User:ConspiracyThinkerPeople, User:Dddcg, User:DerekHistorian, User:DragoniteLeopard, User:Jinjin555, User:KnowledgeAndPeace, User:Lynch Kevin de León, User:TechnichalProblems, User:WorkingCatDog123, User:Adygeheipeople, User:BoxRec9, User:CantoneseMaster, User:ChowChowWong, User:Dan Capoccia, User:Deccodabo, User:DrKoraKora, User:Gailververgailqqq, User:HeichtiSmech, User:InternationalAffairs3, User:LemanderOrange, User:MasterChai, User:Namela123, User:OrenburgNative, User:OttoKhan, User:PeopleTaking11, User:Pinoy123xaaa, User:Robela2, User:Spiritclaymore, User:SushigirlJessice, User:TelephoneBaby, User:ToRespond, User:TurkicDelight, User:Verakhu, User:WayneMacleod1, and User:WuyueDNApeople. )

—

Accounts once associated with me, but not blocked/listed here should be these: User:Orange172212, User:Noble4c2, and User:Krause96. – Wikiuser1314 (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• If this user is really distinct from the master of the WorldCreaterFighter sockfarm, we couldn't distinguish them by behaviour nor by technical data, and we have a lot of those data points. At some point when we get into the hundreds of accounts that both look and act the same, we stop bothering to carefully distinguish one account from another, because they've collectively been so disruptive over such a long period of time that there's practically zero chance of them ever being unblocked, and each new one is just adding to the garbage heap. So maybe Wikiuser1234 is a different person, maybe they're not; to me it's irrelevant, and policy supports this irrelevancy. This case goes back over a decade, has been persistent throughout that time, and involves pushing fringe theories in a sensitive subject. I'm inclined to say never here, but I'd like to hear from people who edit that topic and have had to put up with this for a decade. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do we know when the most recent sock was? There's too many here for me to hunt-and-peck looking for it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Based on manual investigation (!!!) of the self-declared socks, Wikiuser1314 last edited articles on 2024-04-22. Prior to that account, Krause96 on 2023-08-02. --Yamla (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Wikiuser1314: what do you plan to edit if unblocked? Articles, topic areas, etc... what are your interests? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support There's every indication that the user is ready to be reintegrated into the Wikipedia community. They waited out the required six months patiently, made a perfectly reasonable unban request, and came clean about their past accounts. Their most recent account, User:Wikiuser1314, made over 1500 edits over a period of 1.5 years without causing any disruption. I don't see any value in preventing them from continuing to positively contribute to the project. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

IP hopper back at the Help Desk

There's an IP hopper back at the WP:HD posting stuff like this. This kind of thing has been happening on and off at various pages (e.g. WP:THQ) for awhile now and seems to resume eventually whenever the PP runs out. There seem to be different versions of essentially the same post being added, but they're all in non-standard fonts. I think some of the accounts have been blocked, but that hasn't slowed this person down. Is there any thing that can be done outside of page protection? I don't have much experience with WP:LTA, but it appears this might be one of those cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The disruption seems to have stopped for now; so, perhaps nothing needs to be done at the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry but probably nothing can be done. May be some ranges can be blocked but they seem to use multiple ranges. Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Flamewar at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions over BilledMammal

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

---

• Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:BilledMammal (permalink)

BilledMammal was recently granted rollback permissions by Just Step Sideways and used those permissions to mass-revert CarmenEsparzaAmoux, a blocked sockpuppet. Makeandtoss and Zero0000 (an admin) are now arguing at that thread the permissions were wrongly granted.[7] Both of them should be told to knock it off.

First of all, RFP is not the right place for that discussion as both editors were warned by Extraordinary Writ, an uninvolved administrator, though they have continued arguing. Second of all, Extraordinary Writ and other admins have explained that to revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to) is an acceptable WP:ROLLBACKUSE.

I would appreciate it if uninvolved administrators can step in and close that thread since RFP isn't the appropriate forum for lengthy discussions of tool use. I'd also like a clear consensus over whether or not rollback was acceptable here.

For full context, Makeandtoss and BilledMammal were involved in a dispute over the Palestine-Israel topic area that made it to WP:AE in June, and the use of rollback occurred within that area. Makeandtoss was given a final warning by ScottishFinnishRadish for behavior that falls below the required level required when editing in contentious topics[8] and previous battlegroundy behaviour in the area. There is probably a further conduct issue that can be dealt with here or at AE, but the immediate action should be to close the RFP thread. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that PERM is not a place for debates. I've shut it down. I don't think that was an INVOLVED action as all I did was respond to the intial request, not the ensuing argument. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You conflicted my edit! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

And you thanked me for it. Go team. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No idea what the justification is of this use of rollback[9], not reverting a blocked editor in any case. Fram (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

[10] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

For the lazy: it was an accident. I definitely misclicked rollback within a day of getting the permission, and I bet at least half of our rollbackers/admins have done the same. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Fun fact: although I work permission requests semi-regularly, I hate the rollback function, I use a script that blocks it (if you didn't know, admins have no choice whether they have it or not), and I use Twinkle instead. It's too easy to make mistakes with normal rollback. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I hit a rollback button accidentally several times a week (much more often than I rollback anything), so I also use that blocking script, and rely on Twinkle for rollback. Donald Albury 19:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

When I got my admin tools rollback showed up on my watchlist. As I edit from my phone pretty often and mistaps are common, I immediately sought out help and installed a script to hide it before I got desysop'd for cause. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This has happened to me before when I try to edit on my phone. Looking at a page history, the link to look at an edit/diff is right next to the link to rollback and I've misclicked. Luckily, you can rollback a mistaken rollback. I've stopped doing much work on my phone if it involves looking at individual edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am actually using a script which blocks rollback on my watchlist (the highest chance to misclick due to banners on top loading slowly) but not on page histories or user contributions. I have a global rollback, but I do not think this matters. Ymblanter (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I use one to shrink the rollback button so that I am far less likely to accidentally click it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The remove rollback script is at Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Rollback/reverting. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a gadget that will require a confirmation before clicking. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 20:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The best mobile environment on offer for Wikipedia editing (Monobook with the "responsive mode" option enabled) automatically turns on this confirmation in small screen mode. In practice, that means I get a confirmation dialog on my phone but not on my laptop. No idea whether similar features exist in other skins. —Kusma (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I still believe there's an issue here. Makeandtoss appears to have a grudge against BilledMammal and ignored repeated attempts to de-escalate at WP:RFP/R. Would WP:Arbitration Enforcement be a better location for that thread? I'm asking for permission as WP:FORUMSHOPPING precludes me from bringing up the same topic at two noticeboards. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Chess:You got it the wrong way around: BilledMammal seem to have a grudge against Makeandtoss (and Nableezy, and me, and anyone else who isn't pro-Israeli enough). I haven't seen Makeandtoss filling WP:ARB, WP:ARCA, or WP:AE with reports about BilledMammal, but I have literally lost count over how many times BilledMammal has reported his "adversaries" these last couple of weeks, Huldra (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would concur that BilledMammal has been demonstrating a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude of late that is somewhat alarming. Granting them extra tools at this time and seeing them possibly mis-used is alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that would be the third noticeboard you bring me into today. The claim that the respectful discussion at RFP/R was a "flamewar" is misleading. As for the other claim, are you really arguing that if someone filed a report against me in the past I am not allowed to dispute any of their editing behavior in the future? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"Flamewar" may be a slight overstatement, but WP:PERM is not a noticeboard, and not the right place to bring up such concerns, valid or not. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay sure, if I have new relevant concerns I will open a discussion elsewhere; though I will note that PERM is listed as a noticeboard. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: I want you to recognize that following BilledMammal to WP:PERM and opposing user rights grants is not appropriate in any situation. It wasn't a respectful discussion, you were told by an administrator to knock it off twice and kept going for days.

The correct place to bring up improper usage of permissions is at this very board. That's why I asked for a clear consensus over whether or not rollback was acceptable here and why I redirected the discussion to this thread.

Right now, you've made a non-apology and are insisting that because PERM is technically a noticeboard, it was appropriate to post there. That's not the right attitude. I would rather you acknowledge you were mistaken, and when you receive a warning from an admin in the future, to look at your own actions and correct course before a thread like this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not going to get too involved in this discussion as doing so would probably increase tensions, but this discussion, regarding objections to my signing of an RFC with a timestamp, was opened by Makeandtoss a day before the objections at RfPP, with the same editors participating. Personally, I’ve considered them related. BilledMammal (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The permission was granted by Just Step Sideways without commenting on the doubt that @Fastily: had just expressed. I stated my opinion there, gave examples of what I believe is misuse of the tool, and noted that I am involved in the area. (Despite what Chess claims in this make-trouble posting, Extraordinary Writ said nothing to me.) Then the conversation was shut down by Just Step Sideways with the comment that we should take it up on BilledMammal's talk page. However, BilledMammal was just being BilledMammal. My comment was to Just Step Sideways, who in my opinion should have looked at BilledMammal closer before granting this unusual power and should have undone the mistake when informed of how it was used. And should reply when their administrative actions are questioned (disagreement is fine). The issue isn't whether sock edits can be reversed—everyone knows it is allowed—but whether a protagonist in a contentious area should be given the ability to make mass reverts without looking at them in that area at all. In my opinion it shouldn't happen and I would never consider using my administrator access to the tools to do mass reverts like that (vandals excepted). I would look at the edits and keep what is good for each article, which was quite a lot in this case. By the way, calling that discussion a "flame war" is absurd. Zero^talk 01:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Then the conversation was shut down by Just Step Sideways with the comment that we should take it up on BilledMammal's talk page. However, BilledMammal was just being BilledMammal. What does this mean? You never left a comment at BilledMammal's talk page, could you elaborate why not? [11] The only comment is about the accidental rollback.

I also don't understand how this is a make-trouble posting. You and Makeandtoss clearly believe BilledMammal acted in error. We are now at the venue where that error can be corrected. Why am I, a non-admin, being forced to create a thread on the Administrators' Noticeboard to get you to properly discuss your concerns with other admins? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Gimme a break. "Both of them should be told to knock it off." is not a request for discussion. Nor are your subsequent comments. They are an accusation and request for action, neither of which have the least justification. Zero^talk 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000: My point is that this comment wasn't the best idea. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000 I’ve always treated blocked socks edits as something that could be reverted basically without looking at them. Other people can look at them and restore the ones they want, which is what happened here, but the removals themselves are a non-issue imo. What I wish actually existed was a way to auto strike a sock of a banned editors comments on talk pages. The whole point of BMB is that, regardless of if they are good or bad, edits by a banned editors are by definition disruptive and can be removed. Somebody used a more efficient way to remove them, good for them I guess. nableezy - 05:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It would actually be very easy to create a bot or user script like that - I no longer have the time, but you could ask at WP:BOTR. BilledMammal (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, WP:PERM is by design a place where decisions are made over whether someone should be given an elevated permission. I don't see why that should exclude objections to the result when the case file is still there. The record is better served by keeping it together than by moving it somewhere unrelated. Zero^talk 04:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The perm was granted already, there's not really a need to argue or continue the discussion there as opposed to a talk page or noticeboard. At this point, from my point of view, the only thing to consider is whether they have violated WP:ROLLBACKUSE, which it does not seem like they have (minus a misclick, which happens). So, until they do, it's best to just let it be with your original objections having been noted at the request. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and I never had any intention of commenting on it further until Chess decided to make an AN case out of it. Zero^talk 02:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Please stop merging Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini

Mahsa Amini article is going wrongly to merge into Death of Mahsa Amini. Merging these articles is wrong because both article are notable and specially where Mahsa Amini has received Sakharov Prize. I think a person who receive this important prize must have an article independently. Please stop merging these articles. AlijenabH (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The merge is occurring due to the closure decision at Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#Proposed merge of Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini. Admins don't overrule consensus decisions on content. If they did, they'd likely be facing a recall discussion. You can try talking to the editor who closed the Merge discussion but it's unlikely to change the outcome of the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That would be me, and they did, but I guess they were impatient, because they came here about half an hour later. I'm continuing the conversation at User talk:Compassionate727#Mahs Amini. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT appointments, November 2024

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following user to the CheckUser team following private and public consultation:

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

In addition, the following administrators are appointed to the conflict of interest volunteer response team following private and public consultation:

• 331dot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Robertsky (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The Committee thanks everyone who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT appointments, November 2024

Request for Draft Creation: এ.কে.এম দুলাল ডিগ্রি কলেজ

Hello administrators,

I am requesting assistance with creating a draft article titled "এ.কে.এম দুলাল ডিগ্রি কলেজ". When I attempted to create it, I received a message indicating that the title is restricted due to blacklist criteria for Bengali language titles. This institution is a college in Ashuganj, Brahmanbaria, Bangladesh, and it aims to provide higher education to local students in a rural area with limited educational resources. Here is a brief overview of the college:

Establishment: February 2020 Founder: এ.কে.এম দুলাল Principal: আহম্মদ উল্লাহ খন্দকার Location: শরিফপুর, আশুগঞ্জ, ব্রাহ্মণবাড়িয়া, Bangladesh Affiliation: Cumilla Education Board EIIN Number: ১৩৯৬৫১ Facebook Page: akmdulaldegreecollege Motto: "Education is Power" (শিক্ষাই শক্তি)

The college was established to provide accessible higher education to students in nearby villages, where such opportunities were previously limited. The college’s mission is to promote modern and scientific education to create a knowledgeable and self-reliant society.

Since I cannot create this page directly, I kindly request that an administrator help with creating the draft or advise me on how to proceed. Thank you very much for your assistance. A K M Dulal (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@A K M Dulal One thing that is necessary is to translate the name of the college into English, since this is the English Wikipedia. You'll also need to provide citations from independent coverage of the college in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There are similar educational institutions, like 'ফিরোজ মিয়া সরকারি কলেজ and বিএএফ শাহীন কলেজ,' which retain their Bengali names in English Wikipedia, indicating cultural significance. I believe 'এ.কে.এম দুলাল ডিগ্রি কলেজ' also holds local importance, providing essential educational services to underserved rural areas. I am also happy to include an English translation if needed, for example, 'A.K.M. Dulal Degree College.' Besides, I will ensure reliable sources and references to meet Wikipedia’s standards. A K M Dulal (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Article titles must be in English. You should create a draft using the English name. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I understand that article titles need to be in English, so I will create the draft as "A.K.M. Dulal Degree College." I will also include the Bengali name in the article introduction to honor its cultural significance, similar to ফিরোজ মিয়া সরকারি কলেজ and বিএএফ শাহীন কলেজ, which retain their Bengali names within English Wikipedia articles. A K M Dulal (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@A K M Dulal: I can't tell what you're referring to – ফিরোজ মিয়া সরকারি কলেজ and বিএএফ শাহীন কলেজ do not exist. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

But they do on Bengali Wikipedia. @A K M Dulal:, if you want to write your article in Bengali please be aware that this page, and the instruction that article titles must be in English, only relate to the English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

While you’re at it, please read WP:COI. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Samantha Crawford (soprano) page nofollow index help

I am hopeful someone can help me here. I have made significant improvements to the article "Samantha Crawford (soprano)", ensuring that it complies with Wikipedia's notability guidelines by adding reliable, third-party sources. These sources clearly establish that Samantha Crawford (soprano) is a notable soprano, with significant international performances, verified recordings by verified music labels, and media coverage. I’ve carefully reviewed the criteria for biographies of living persons and have incorporated independent references that demonstrate her impact in the opera and concert world. Could an admin please advise on the next steps to have the "<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,max-image-preview:standard">" tag removed? I would appreciate any guidance on addressing any remaining concerns about notability or sourcing. Thank you for your time and assistance. I have tried addressing this on my talk page but have received no answer, so hoping I'm in the right spot here. -EB Eshbowman Eshbowman (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi. What's your connection to the subject? There's certainly some promotional language in there that needs removing. Secretlondon (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It will be no-indexed until it's marked reviewed by an editor with new page patrol. Please see WP:NOINDEX. As an aside, the article appears to be quite promotional. Do you have a financial or other relationship with Crawford? If so, you must declare a conflict of interest per our conflict of interest policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the article should be moved to draft. I just took a quick spin and it's not ready for mainspace. A lot of references don't support the points being made, there were copyvios and too close paraphrasing. It reads still like a resume, not an encyclopaedia article. Canterbury Tail talk 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

And you must reply to the concerns raised on your userpage regarding undeclared paid editing before editing articles any further. I also note that concerns were raised 8 years ago (Special:Permalink/1257159884#Paul Appleby (tenor)) that you failed to address. These need to be directly addressed now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Wanting mostly to remove the noindex to allow search engines to find it means that they're more interested in the promotional purpose than encyclopaedic. Canterbury Tail talk 16:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Which, as it happens, is precisely why we use nofollow to discourage linkspam. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

noindex will be removed when the page is reviewed. I could be wrong, but I believe nofollow is built into the site infrastructure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Compassionate727, complaints that have been archived are not edited so closing an archived discussion would not be appropriate because, basically, it would be hidden from view and, as I said, archives are not edited unless it is to revert vandalism to them.

I would consider "unarchiving" this discussion and reposting the case here. But, regarding your main question, I don't think it's appropriate for a non-admin to close a discussion about imposing or lifting a ban or block although I'd like to hear from other admins here about this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

At one point it was unarchived, but then someone commented at CR that this was unnecessary, so nothing was done when it was automatically archived again. In my observation, editors split about 50-50 on whether it is okay to close an archived discussion without first unarchiving it (usually, a courtesy note is left on the active page when leaving it archived). At any rate, I don't care about the implementation details, as long as someone closes it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke (formerly titled Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Yasuke is designated as a contentious topic. Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years.
• The article Yasuke is subject to a 1RR restriction for a period of one year.
• Eirikr is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Symphony Regalia is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• J2UDY7r00CRjH is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Yvan Part is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Gitz6666 is warned that disruptive behavior will lead to increasing sanctions if they continue.
• Elinruby is subject to a one-way interaction ban with Gitz6666, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke closed