Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
direct links |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
He is already confirmed as block evader per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Prince_Of_Roblox#Clerk,_CheckUser,_and/or_patrolling_admin_comments this SPI], but I am asking for block here because this sock is doing too much damage to Wikipedia. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 08:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
He is already confirmed as block evader per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Prince_Of_Roblox#Clerk,_CheckUser,_and/or_patrolling_admin_comments this SPI], but I am asking for block here because this sock is doing too much damage to Wikipedia. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 08:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
== User:NebY (edit-war and vandalism) == |
|||
{{U|NebY}} is repeatedly removing sourced statements from [[Saturn (mythology)]], [[Minerva (mythology)]] and [[Ops]]. These deities were part of Sabine religion way before being adopted into Roman religion, and ancient Roman sources confirm that.<ref name=Varro>Varro, [https://archive.org/details/onlatinlanguage01varruoft/page/70/mode/2up ''De Lingua Latina'' 5.74]</ref> I don't understand if that's intentional vandalism and I don't know how to stop him, but this edit-war is useless and only damages the encyclopedia. [[User:Est. 2021|Est. 2021]] ([[User talk:Est. 2021|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Est. 2021|contribs]]) 11:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{rlt}} |
Revision as of 11:55, 28 June 2023
Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 20 | 14 | 34 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 6 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 10 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 12 sockpuppet investigations
- 5 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 10 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 0 requests for RD1 redaction
- 33 elapsed requested moves
- 4 Pages at move review
- 15 requested closures
- 80 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 8 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Topic ban removed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I would like my topic ban removed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive979#Barbara_(WVS)'s_editing_of_medical_and_anatomy_articles This ban includes all medical and anatomy articles. Also, I was banned from sexuality articles. I believe that I can do a good job to help the encyclopedia to grow. I intend to continue to create content in Project Medicine. Other things I like to do is to find references for unsourced content. I intend to continue to expand on topics and articles having to do with the health of older women. This ban has been in place for five years.
- Best Regards. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 17:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- No We have no way of knowing whether Barbara could work without the topic ban, because Barbara has hardly edited since 2019. And some of the behaviour that led to the topic ban was particularly problematic, which she has not addressed at all in the appeal. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Question I did a brief check into the original thread and the issues of copyvio, sourcing, and introducing factual errors are pretty severe. I also recall a big incident with Flyer22 and I see that Barbara was (is?) subject to an Iban as well, but I have no interest in opening that particular can of worms right now. Given all of that, I'm pretty strongly leaning towards no. But in the interest of fairness, can you name any specific edits you would like to make if the topic ban was to be repealed? It would help your case if you could give more details. Since you're only banned from "medical articles" and not medical content outside of article space, it would be helpful if you did something like making a userspace draft of a section or article that you want to make substantive contributions to. From there it might give us a better perspective on whether the issues leading to the ban are no longer a problem, since there isn't much recent content work. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate the concerns that you have about allowing me to edit again. I have created a few articles after my topic ban: Mariniflexile, List of Christian women of the patristic age, Susan Montgomery Williams (2019), Marinactinospora. If you would like to see the listing of the articles I have created look here: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Barbara_(WVS) . I have been busy writing articles for the Simple English Wikipedia. You can see my article creations here: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/simple.wikipedia.org/Barbara%20%28WVS%29 . So it might not be accurate to say that I have hardly edited since 2019. In addition, I have had some serious family issues going on during this time. I have not had any problematic behavior with other editors since my topic ban. I don't intend to engage in problematic behavior in the future. There were no issues of copy violations. There won't be any issues of an Iban since Flyer does not edit any more. I can't remember any edits I would like to make. I intend to review the articles I have created and make any edits that are necessary. I would also like to update the references on the articles. I have drafts of articles that I worked on in my userspace that any editor can review. I am also banned from articles that contain medical content. The ban was 'broadly construed'. Thank you for your input
- Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 19:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- The primary issue of the ANI discussion was concerns with serious content issues in medical articles, rather than "problematic behavior with other editors". It looked like @Anthonyhcole: had offered to mentor Barbara's work in that area; perhaps, if Anthonyhcole is willing, there could be a period of probation during which all of Barbara's proposed edits to topics within the scope of the ban go through her mentor for approval first? Schazjmd (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Barbara's most recent edit on simple.wiki as I write is this one. I do not know simple's rules, but on en.wiki I would consider that unacceptably close paraphrasing of the source.
- Compare:
- "If the women does not get treated, the infection can get worse. Then many things will happen. If it diagnosed and treated early, the complications of PID can be prevented. Some of the complications of PID are formation of scar tissue, blocked fallopian tubes. The women could have a pregnancy outside the womb. There could be much pain in the belly."
- To the source:
- "What happens if I don’t get treated?
- If diagnosed and treated early, the complications of PID can be prevented. Some of the complications of PID are
- Formation of scar tissue both outside and inside the fallopian tubes that can lead to tubal blockage;
- Ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy outside the womb);
- Infertility (inability to get pregnant);
- Long-term pelvic/abdominal pain."
- If source use and copyright were previously problems in Barbara's editing, the fact that this is literally the first edit of hers I looked at does not give me confidence. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- The content that you mention can be found on the CDC website and it is in the public domain. Content from the CDC is considered a good source on health topics. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 22:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Copying directly from a public domain source is not a WP:COPYVIO, but it is WP:PLAGIARISM: "even though there is no copyright issue, public-domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- The content was referenced and acknowledged in the citation. I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 01:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know how else we can phrase this. Please read the policy pages that have been linked to you; if you actually had, you wouldn't be confused. Paraphrasing a source that closely is not remotely acceptable. This is really basic stuff. If you are unable or unwilling to phrase things in your own words, while keeping to the original meaning, then this appeal is a non-starter. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- The content was referenced and acknowledged in the citation. I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 01:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Copying directly from a public domain source is not a WP:COPYVIO, but it is WP:PLAGIARISM: "even though there is no copyright issue, public-domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- The content that you mention can be found on the CDC website and it is in the public domain. Content from the CDC is considered a good source on health topics. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 22:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- The primary issue of the ANI discussion was concerns with serious content issues in medical articles, rather than "problematic behavior with other editors". It looked like @Anthonyhcole: had offered to mentor Barbara's work in that area; perhaps, if Anthonyhcole is willing, there could be a period of probation during which all of Barbara's proposed edits to topics within the scope of the ban go through her mentor for approval first? Schazjmd (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 19:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate the concerns that you have about allowing me to edit again. I have created a few articles after my topic ban: Mariniflexile, List of Christian women of the patristic age, Susan Montgomery Williams (2019), Marinactinospora. If you would like to see the listing of the articles I have created look here: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Barbara_(WVS) . I have been busy writing articles for the Simple English Wikipedia. You can see my article creations here: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/simple.wikipedia.org/Barbara%20%28WVS%29 . So it might not be accurate to say that I have hardly edited since 2019. In addition, I have had some serious family issues going on during this time. I have not had any problematic behavior with other editors since my topic ban. I don't intend to engage in problematic behavior in the future. There were no issues of copy violations. There won't be any issues of an Iban since Flyer does not edit any more. I can't remember any edits I would like to make. I intend to review the articles I have created and make any edits that are necessary. I would also like to update the references on the articles. I have drafts of articles that I worked on in my userspace that any editor can review. I am also banned from articles that contain medical content. The ban was 'broadly construed'. Thank you for your input
Hello all. Barbara and I didn't finnish our mentorship because I ran into some health issues and rudely dumped her. I'm in a better place now so, Barbara, if you'd like to pick up where we left off, I'm up for it. Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- That sounds like a great idea. I hope that is acceptable. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 13:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Cool. I'll email you. Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- So, Barbara and I have been talking. We've decided to pick up the mentorship where we left off and get back here when I'm confident about her accuracy and policy understanding. Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Cool. I'll email you. Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
My username change
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given my rename from "NotReallySoroka" to "Silcox", please change the WP:CHECKPAGE anc WP:RAL pages to reflect my new username. Silcox (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for acting on this request. However, for WP:RAL, you simply moved my username to where "Silcox" would be, without changing the underlying username. Please fix it, Silcox (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
0RR appeal
I would like to make a request for the 0RR restriction to be lifted or at least reduced. I was given the right to make an appeal after 3 months, which passed on 7 June, and I originally made it at HJ Mitchell talk page (link, but since 11 June HJM has been inactive on Wikipedia, so I am filing the appeal here. I hope I'm not breaking any procedures in the process. I'd just like to add that I don't want the restriction lifted just to immediately engage in edit warring, but to have more freedom in editing. It's just very uncomfortable if you have to wonder if every edit can be interpreted as a revert or not. I have generally learned over this period not to use "undo" button, and instead to engage in discussions about edits with their authors. Marcelus (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- More background: User talk:Marcelus#AE result and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive316#TrangaBellam –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- In the general course of things a shift to at least 1RR would be fairly normal. There's this thread which anyone reviewing should look over - I've not yet had the time to check the actual underlying edits to see if the (now temp-blocked) user had any valid concerns or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Noting that there have been no blocks for violating the 0RR, I can see reducing the sanction to a 1RR, which should reduce the Sword of Damocles feelings expressed in the appeal. Courcelles (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- In the general course of things a shift to at least 1RR would be fairly normal. There's this thread which anyone reviewing should look over - I've not yet had the time to check the actual underlying edits to see if the (now temp-blocked) user had any valid concerns or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Lots of reports at WP:AIV
Just wanted to bring this to the attention of the good admins here at WP:AN, that there have been many reports of vandalism on WP:AIV that may require attention. Thank you. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think it was 7 reports at the time of your post. Doesn't seem super high, but I guess posting here doesn't hurt either. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. It was at 12 just before I posted, lol. It's usually at 3 or 4. I guess my post doesn't really matter any more. Ah, well. Have a nice day. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- 12 is slightly more than normal but usually it doesn't stay for that long. Usually a post here about backlogs is more worthwhile if you're getting more into the 25+ range? A few years ago I used to start threads here about backlogs and was told that it was mostly unnessecary. When I did, I usually would start a thread about extenstive RFPP backlogs because it's not included in Template:Admin tasks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- In some ways it's more "how old is the oldest report" rather than "how many reports". There's no clearcut answer in when to notify on that metric, but it helps filter out short-lived deluges. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a good rule of thumb for that sort of time frame, then? I'm guessing it's somewhat variable depending on certain factors? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- In some ways it's more "how old is the oldest report" rather than "how many reports". There's no clearcut answer in when to notify on that metric, but it helps filter out short-lived deluges. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- 12 is slightly more than normal but usually it doesn't stay for that long. Usually a post here about backlogs is more worthwhile if you're getting more into the 25+ range? A few years ago I used to start threads here about backlogs and was told that it was mostly unnessecary. When I did, I usually would start a thread about extenstive RFPP backlogs because it's not included in Template:Admin tasks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. It was at 12 just before I posted, lol. It's usually at 3 or 4. I guess my post doesn't really matter any more. Ah, well. Have a nice day. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The Wise Woman says "block everyone in the whole woooooorld!" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Edit war
Please take action with User:Ürfan1917 who adds his name to the Source Section and engages in an edit war in folowing files: [1] and [2] Yousiphh (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like this is occurring on Commons, which is a different website. You may want to post this at c:COM:ANI. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Reporting user
I noticed User:Atif ahmad8 undid my edit on Asim Munir (general) without explaining why. Upon further inspection, looking at the revision history of their old User Page [1], they stated that they work for the Pakistan Armys media wing. Possible WP:Paid situation? SahafatKaLover18 (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just FYI for next time, we do have a noticeboard for UPE and COI issues: WP:COIN. Also, you can try templating them with {{Uw-coi}} and maybe also {{Uw-editsummary}}. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
false accusations and discrimination by user LuckyLouie
- David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- LuckyLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- H3sam91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I received the following warning: " Please stop your disruptive editing. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims, you may be blocked from editing. I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest with comments such as this and this, but those kind of insinuations could be interpreted as discrimination. Please read WP:NPA and quit the personal attacks and general Talk page disruption. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my response:
Firstly I didnt edit anything. I was just discussing something in TALK page. second, discriminating based on what grounds exactly?! alleging someone is favoring another is not discriminating. Unless you're confused about what discrimination means. Also I'm sure you've given the same Warnings to the other parties involved for their personal attacks and ridiculing. otherwise you're the one discriminating against me as a middle eastern. Regardless, do yourself a favor and remove your BS warning from my page. stop your contacts with me or I'll report you for harrassment and discrimination. H3sam91 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] H3sam91 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- For reference, both "here"s in the copypasta above from his talk page include links to specific diffs, specifically this sarcastic aspersions-casting and this insulting insinuation that someone is making an argument simply to court another editor. Both of these are indeed unacceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- @H3sam91 - You should read WP:BOOMERANG. You are not the victim here. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Too late, blocked one week for casting aspersions and bludgeoning talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- undo constructive edition(s) like 1162035731 without any explanation.
- He/She/Ze declined to communicate with others regarding the edition of Relationship between religion and science. Undo without explanation and decline to reply my questions in his talk page.
- Accusing me of breaking WP:CENSOR without any evidence which violates WP:AGF. --クオン·翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 19:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I undid the selective removal of a picture and quotation of Richard Dawkins from the Science and Religion article by Kuon.Haku. I actually did reply to Kuon.Haku's questions on my talk page. I suggested that the removal of the picture was veering towards WP:CENSOR in response to Kuon.Haku's comment that the photo "...may also break WP:BALANCE for it may make people more focus on incompatibility opinion", which is absurd, and the fact that they were only attempting to remove the image of Prof. Dawkins and not the other "decorative" (K.H's word, not mine) photos in the article. PepperBeast (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Pepperbeast:I have to say your accusation is flippant and off-topic. You neither replied my concerns (like the major point - which information did that photo provide?) nor correctly reflected the fact. Indeed a minor point of mine is that Dawkins is a people in favor of incompatibility opinion, but the photo was not in the "incompatibility" subsection but at the top of the whole section. I think this is misleading. But this is a minor point. User:Pepperbeast did not reply the main point at all but attack a minor point (and I think it is a perfect straw man fallacy). He/she/ze always accuse me "censorship", "absurd", and he/she/ze said "they were only attempting to remove..." (why using they? based on WP:AGF I do not want to overinterpret this but I think User:pepperbeast must give me a explanation or apology) And why "only"? all similar photos in this article were removed, but he/she/ze only focused on Dawkins's photo. I think this could not be justified and he broken several rules including WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --クオン·翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 21:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Please review unblock request
So, while I was asking the user for some clarification, "real life" called me away from Wikipedia. And so, at this point, I don't know if I feel comfortable asking the user for more and more detail to clarify.
So I think it's maybe best if I step back from this one.
Just decided to drop a note here out of a personal sense of fairness to the blocked editor. - jc37 10:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- In have been watching this discussion since quite some while and my suggestion to the eventual unblocking admin would be that they'd consider a talk page restriction of 100 words per discussion due to the bludgeon concerns and a clear PA restriction for let's say 6 months? One word too much, one PA and that's it. But to be fair I must admit that they seem to know quite a lot of what happened in Iraq at a certain time, just the team sprint was missing so far. If they were readmitted without restrictions I strongly assume they land at the Noticeboards quite soon, which would be no solution to the problem. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Need a sock block
Can someone block Qaayush529?
He is already confirmed as block evader per this SPI, but I am asking for block here because this sock is doing too much damage to Wikipedia. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
User:NebY (edit-war and vandalism)
NebY is repeatedly removing sourced statements from Saturn (mythology), Minerva (mythology) and Ops. These deities were part of Sabine religion way before being adopted into Roman religion, and ancient Roman sources confirm that.[1] I don't understand if that's intentional vandalism and I don't know how to stop him, but this edit-war is useless and only damages the encyclopedia. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Varro, De Lingua Latina 5.74