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	26	26
TfD	0	0	0	6	6
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	6	45	51
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (48 out of 8845 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Rihanna Death 2024-11-16 20:26 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per RFPP Daniel Case Justin bieber dead 2024-11-16 20:25 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case Template:Infobox airline/styles.css 2024-11-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4651 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II User talk:220.81.134.147 2024-11-16 12:13 2025-02-16 12:13 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Amazfit 2024-11-16 11:37 2025-11-16 11:37 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: persistent WP:COI Yamla User talk:118.237.51.201 2024-11-16 09:42 2024-12-16 09:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Sidhant Mohapatra 2024-11-16 05:45 2025-08-23 01:14 edit,move Persistent block evasion Geniac Solomon Etefa 2024-11-16 02:11 2025-11-16 02:11 create enforcing outcome (draftify) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Etefa Asilvering Pannu 2024-11-15 21:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Lamba (surname) 2024-11-15 21:53 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Mirdha 2024-11-15 21:52 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark Karel Komárek 2024-11-15 17:43 2025-05-15 17:43 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy HJ Mitchell Millennium Dome 2024-11-15 13:54 2025-05-15 13:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry Goodnightmush User talk:61.80.147.98 2024-11-15 09:01 2024-12-15 09:01 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:189.219.66.135 2024-11-15 00:16 2024-12-15 00:16 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Malayalam 2024-11-14 23:13 2024-12-14 23:13 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case 2024 Ramyah clashes 2024-11-14 23:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Vietnamese irredentism 2024-11-14 22:41 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Matal (2018 film) 2024-11-14 20:25 indefinite create Restore salt Pppery Vettaiyan 2024-11-14 18:55 2025-08-19 20:25 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Template:No significant coverage (sports) 2024-11-14 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II FRVR 2024-11-14 15:27 2024-12-14 15:27 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Queen of Hearts Operation Cast Thy Bread 2024-11-14 14:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Y.Chroma 2024-11-14 12:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Black Kite Yung Koebra 2024-11-14 11:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated DoubleGrazing Madurai–Mysore Wars 2024-11-14 08:54 2024-11-21 08:54 move Disruptive page moving Liz Module:Fiction redirect category handler/Franchise 2024-11-14 04:39 indefinite edit High-risk template or module Pppery Desert Doc 2024-11-14 02:41 indefinite create Sock target Pppery Indonesian Dutch 2024-11-13 22:05 2025-05-13 22:05 create Sock target Pppery User talk:217.178.141.183 2024-11-13 21:31 2024-12-13 21:31 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.53.87.201 2024-11-13 21:26 2024-11-17 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:221.150.224.254 2024-11-13 21:10 2024-12-13 21:10 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:213.87.102.204 2024-11-13 12:49 2024-12-13 12:49 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:112.169.222.27 2024-11-13 12:48 2024-12-13 12:48 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:187.188.59.169 2024-11-13 12:47 2024-12-13 12:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.34.182.26 2024-11-13 12:42 2025-11-13 12:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:220.93.19.43 2024-11-13 12:40 2025-11-13 12:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:77.108.235.237 2024-11-13 12:36 2024-12-13 12:36 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.86.237.182 2024-11-13 12:34 2024-12-13 12:34 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.172.199.201 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:138.94.122.200 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create 331dot User:Marine 69-71/Autographs 2024-11-13 06:21 indefinite edit,move Drop protection to ECP since full was never warranted (especially now that Marine 69-71 is no longer an admin) Pppery Portal:Current events/2024 November 10 2024-11-13 05:32 2024-12-13 05:32 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Sevens football 2024-11-13 01:48 2025-11-13 01:48 move Move warring. Upgrading protection level after determining that AC sock had moved the article under sp-move protection. Robertsky User talk:117.53.223.10 2024-11-13 01:35 2025-02-13 01:35 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Liam Parsons 2024-11-13 01:20 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie User talk:84.107.235.151 2024-11-12 22:09 2024-11-22 22:09 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:84.42.74.76 2024-11-12 21:58 2024-11-19 21:58 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector

Appealing Topic Ban on Sports Articles

Revisiting a long term case that was related to my disruptive editing on NHL Players Statistics back in the 2018-19 season since I like to have my topic ban appealed because I understand that when it was first issued, it was to educate me in what reliable source means when I update NHL Teams and why other editors want the correct procedure. When I first started to update statistics within NHL Team articles, I assumed the information I get comes from the recap games they played.

Courtesy collapse. ——SN54129 18:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Was their any other way around the topic ban? Answer: Their was no other way. The topic ban was the only way for me to realize what reliable source means even though I was interested in other areas besides sports prior before the topic ban. You say hockey is the only thing I contribute. I asked the same question what my most interest was. NHL Hockey was indeed the most topic I contribute. The other areas you asked what I made positive contributions outside of hockey articles were transportation, 9/11, Nazi Germany but you would have to see me from the IP address I was in before I had an account. Also keep in mind that the information recognize where it got to from the start had to come from my edits from when I first started editing hockey articles back in June 2015. It will not work when I look back from where I first edit back in April 2018 since I was already contributing Wikipedia on June 2015. Even though the recap game stats are just as reliable as the official team stat website. I should know that I still should check the official team stat source to make sure my information is correct based on Goaltenders GAA Average, some examples of my corrections to stats based from official team stats and recap game sources are listed below: (Correcting Steve Mason’s stats) April 2018 (For Connor Hellebuyck’s penalty minutes, I was able to obtain this literally after looking from the game recap stats.) (Blake Wheeler and Connor Hellebuyck’s stats were incorrect after I was suspicious whether Connor Hellebuyck had an assist. I found this one was incorrect after I checked the most recent Winnipeg Jets scoring on the boxscore to see who had goals and assists listed and I caught it but at the same time was able to catch Black Wheeler’s stats incorrect since his total assist was 32 listed on who had goals and assists on the boxscore.) December 7, 2018 (Forgetting to add in Jacob Markstrom’s assist. I found this mistake after I double check my work by looking it from the recap game on Edmonton Oilers vs Vancouver Canucks game since Jacob Markstorm had the total number of assists listed from who scored and had assists) (James Neal’s stats were inaccurate. I found this was a mistake after realizing that the stats for goals and assists equal to the total amount of points. I would use the official stats records along with the Wikipedia stats and the recap game stats to correct the mistake.) (Oliver Kylington’s Plus Minus rating is 1, not 2 since the rating for the game he played was -1. But I could not just say it like that. For me to correct this one, I had to use previous edits, official team stat sources, and the recap game stats to increase the chance to become accurate. Not just one source.) Connor McDavid’s stats did not matched to the source on the recap for assists. I found this was wrong after I found from the recap game that his total listed from who got goals and assist total showed he had 51 assists, not 50. I would use the official team stat source together to correct the mistake.) (Patrick Marleau's assist on stats did not matched to the source on regular season stat website. I found this was wrong after I found from the recap game that his total listed from who got goals and assist total showed he had 16 assists, not 15. I would use the official team stat source together to correct the mistake.) (Manage to catch the time on ice for goaltenders stats wrong after the game recap stats revaluated shortly after the game was finalized) (Sam Bennet’s Penalty Minutes was wrong. I manage to catch this one after updating the team leader’s stats) Note that these corrections had to come for specific reasons: 1. This had to come with a lot of experience of editing hockey stats in previous years 2. The sources from the game statistics and previous edits on achieved areas were the reason to why I was able to correct a few areas of incorrect stats 3. The corrections I made during the 2018-19 season did not just happen even when I use the sources from the game stats and previous edits on Wikipedia that were reliable. If I continued to use those sources, I had to make sure I added in the accurate information by not rushing. This relates to my experience. 4. This comes on other editor’s part of editing since I notice some of my information I added was incorrect prior before, I somehow manage to catch some of my mistakes since I was told to use the official nhl stat source which I eventually did so in some cases. But for at least one correction I made, it had to take at least 4 websites to correct Oliver Klington’s Plus Minus rating including previous edits by me and Yowashi, recap game stats, and the official team stats page since I was using game statistics and previous stats on Wikipedia as my primary source of editing in the first place, otherwise, it would have been incorrect later on since the official team stat source was not updated at the time and I used the recap game statistics as my primary source. Some edits that I will provide that I could have been told back in April 2017 (I was never aware that the statistics scale should be arranged from most points to least) (I thought that adding in the stats from recap game statistics were allowed until I realized during the 2018-19 season I should be using the NHL.com statistics to update from their since it is more accurate and reliable) (Vancouver Canucks stats (October 2017) These edits look like I did not know the stats should be arranged from most points to least. Compared to the NHL 2018-19 season. Here are some examples where I used the official team stat source to get information that is from these edits (Carolina Hurricanes Player stats updated according to the official team stat source) (Minnesota Wilds Player stats updated according to the official team stat source) Note that the official team stats source does not provide the full list since some players get traded unless I go to NHL.com source to see the full list. In previous years since the 2016-17 NHL season when I had been updating the stats, I did not know I should obtain the NHL.com source since it was the most reliable until 2018-19 NHL season. Anywhere else that said I did not know about the most NHL reliable source till the 2018-19 NHL season?] Here are other examples of when I should use the NHL.com website to check that the information I added from the game only stats from recap games is corrected to what is reported on NHL.com. It is best to wait for at least a day after the game concludes because some of the information get revaluate overnight. That site that I was told of is actually way more accurate than it is on game only stats recap (Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 playoffs) (Edmonton Oilers December 23, 2018) (Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 playoffs stats) (Montreal Canadiens December 26, 2018) (Toronto Maple Leafs December 26, 2018) (Oilers Goaltender stats January 9, 2019) When I update NHL Statistics Teams. The sources I use to update teams for every game are listed below Recap Games that I can add from the game on to the statistics on Wikipedia. Adding in the information from game stats recap means it must be added carefully. It also contains the boxscore in who had the total number of goals and assists if I checked it. It is still recommended to use the official team stat source to make sure the information I added in is correct according to the NHL Team official stats. This source I used was what I thought was reliable since when I obtain this literally since the 2016-17 season. When I update for every game, I use the recent game the team has played recent to add on the previous stats on Wikipedia. Previous differences in edits on Wikipedia. This is useful to make sure that the information I get from the game recap statistics and official team stat source are accurate. I since had this during the 2018-19 season. NHL official team stat source for information that I can check to make sure I information is matched to the official source when I was first told of it. This can be useful to check my information to make sure my information does not have any mistakes combined together with the game statistics recap. Another thing I found surprising about some information I added that was incorrect was because I thought that the last time the information that was updated by another editor was correct but realized the NHL.com team website sometimes re-evaluates its stats overnight and plus I used the game stats from recap to add in to the page thinking it was correct but realize it was not from previous edits. Here are some examples where sometimes the NHL.COM official website sometimes revaluate its stats from these edits: (January 11, 2019 Winnipeg Jets vs Detroit Red Wings (Ben Chariot games played should have been added) (For Edmonton Oilers stats for Colby Cave, he never had penalty minutes and his rating plus minus is -3 . He did not had penalty minutes when he played against Minnesota Wilds. (February 7, 2019) (For Edmonton Oilers vs San Jose Sharks (Feburary 9, 2019) I thought that the information I was adding from the recap game was literally. But what I was not aware was that the stats from NHL.com revaluate overnight.) (March 7, 2019 Mike Smith’s saves total should have been 920 since he had 26 saves.) For Ottawa Senators update stats are the examples where I discovered some of the information from NHL.com (I at first thought I obtain these numbers literally since I thought that the last time someone else updated the stats were correct so I add in the numbers from the game they were playing but I realize some of the information from NHL.com get revaluate) (January 13, 2019) At first, I thought updating NHL player statistics in articles were allowed every game as soon as a game concludes by adding in the information from the recap game they played on to the current stats although it is still recommended through the following recommendations I had been told of Updating the stats from recap games must mean I have to add in them in a orderly way meaning I must added the stats from their going from the top row of the list to the bottom (left to right when adding the numbers) I would need to use previous stats on Wikipedia to make sure the stats are correct Sometimes, I may miss some information from their which I should have added it in, so its recommended that I should still use the NHL.com team stats that has the full accurate information. If I use the NHL.com team stats, its recommended to wait at least a day after the game is finalized because some of the information tends to get revaluate overnight. When the ANI Discussion started back in February 22, 2019, noting that when I first started the ANI Discussion, I did not started because I just did that. I did it because editors disagreed on my editing on NHL Hockey articles and that I was noticing what was going to happen when they were going to report me. When the ANI Discussion started back in February 22, 2019, noting that when I first started the ANI Discussion, I did not started because I just did that. I did it because editors disagreed on my editing on NHL Hockey articles and that I was noticing what was going to happen when they were going to report me. You also asked why I was not able to discuss probably about the issue on nhl players stats on the ANI discussion a year ago? Its because I had been assuming for a long time that the stats I updated when I really started doing this since the 2016-17 NHL season was verdiable even when I corrected some of my own mistakes, I would have thought already the information was not original research. I also learned that to avoid making more inaccurate information, I should be getting the official team stat source to make sure the information is accurate. If this ban is lifted, should I still discuss the issue of what sources should be used for the purpose to update NHL Hockey Team stats at Wiki Ice Hockey Project? NicholasHui (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• All things being equal, NicholasHui, in the world of Tban appeals—or any other—brevity is your friend  :) ——SN54129 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• No one is going to read all of this (which you just deleted in a subsequent edit). Consider shortening your appeal to a more concise summary. See WP:NICETRY.--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Please simplify to 1) what you did wrong before and 2) what you will do to correct it. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment on redaction @NicholasHui: You really should have followed WP:REDACT on your deletion, or just started a new request, since now it makes everyone's response look out of context.—Bagumba (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

1. What I did wrong before was I thought I add in the information properly but editors disagree because they believe I was adding it in my own knowledge

2. What I will do to correct it is to use most reliable source whenever I update NHL Hockey player stats articles or other articles in different topics NicholasHui (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are some examples that I will show you that I did before

(Carolina Hurricanes Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

(Minnesota Wilds Player stats updated according to the official team stat source)

These sources I used didn't provide me a full list of stats on nhl teams because they trade away their players. In previous years when I updated the stats since the 2016-17 NHL season, I thought updating the stats was only adding all the stats from recap only games stats from each game the team played without knowing I could have just simply refer it to NHL.com stats NicholasHui (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Maple Leafs game 2 2018 playoffs stats For this edit here, some of my information did not matched to the official source because I thought that is the way NHL updates its stats.

for the Winnipeg Jets 2017-18 regular season stats here, the information I put in was not all correct because at the time, I disregarded reliable sources, its later fixed by another editor here. NicholasHui (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC) (Keep in mind that even without an account I used, it still counts as my editing regardless whether I edited while logged out.)

I'll let other decide, concerning your topic ban. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I was notified of this discussion by NicholasHui on my userpage, who I think took an overly broad view of the notification requirement. I was part of the discussions that implemented the TBan. For y'alls convenience: here is The ANI that ended in a TBan, whose wording included Lifting of the topic ban will be contingent on NicholasHui's edits and behavior showing that they fully understand WP:V and WP:OR. The TBan was an alternative to an indeff at the time, and seen as a last chance. I currently have no opinion on lifting the topic ban. I do have some questions however about NicholasHui's logged out editing. Nicholas, have you made any logged out edits in the last year? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying I made edits while logged out last year? I used edit while logging out when making edits to my archieve page on my Userpage most recent. Another thing interesting was that I had the same habits before back a long time ago before I even used this account when I was editing NHL 2018 playoffs while under the IP address 24.84.228.210 by editing the NHL stats by not most points to least and using only recap game stats. You think its odd that 24.84.228.210 is inactive when I started using an account to continue edit player stats on NHL Canadian teams that time but it clearly had been me editing NHL 2018 playoffs stats before. When I got topic banned from editing Hockey Articles, their was no point for me editing under IP accounts to edit NHL Hockey stats that I was banned from unless you think their was something different about my edit logout habbit NicholasHui (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

According to those 2 IP accounts, you were commenting on the very topic you were barred from. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have zero interest in being involved with the final decision on NicholasHui's topic ban. To comment on NicholasHui's usage of IP accounts, I have noticed multiple Vancouver based IP's interact with my account over the last several months that I could tell that they were used by him. Yowashi (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well I was too obsessed in looking at your contributions. My apologies. Its just that my mind has been too fixated with your editing. Should have known better next time. (Noting that I previously was not in a habit like this before although I was around on NHL Hockey articles since June 2015, I only started to become fixated with certain contributions since 2019 because over time, I would have been more interested to know how users communicate on my talkpage.) NicholasHui (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Any other comments to say about my appeal? NicholasHui (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would have to say, with your behavior here alone, I have no confidence whatsoever that you would not return to your old ways. You seem to just make a mess of things that others have to clean up. Sorry. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to make a mess of things that others had to clean up. Its just that when I updated NHL player stats, I did not realized that using recap game only stats was not the most reliable source. NicholasHui (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@NicholasHui: I would suggest that you withdraw this nomination and perhaps try again after some time when 1) you can succinctly explain what you did wrong before and why the community should no longer be concerned 2) have stopped editing while logged out, which only raises more questions (right or wrong). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: 1) Why the community should no longer be concerned about my topic ban on Sports stats articles is because I finally understood that I should have established consensus at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey because editors could not agree with the content on player stats. Prior before the dispute when I wondered was I doing the stats hockey update properly? I expect myself to figure out whether or not I done it properly. Even though I realized my own mistake once I was notified by the editors who watched me do it. I corrected. Unfortunately, they disagreed still.

2) I have been editing while logged out with stuff with my userpage archive. The problem is that my mind in the last several months has been too fixated with certain user contributions. I just couldn't help it.

3) I will agree that even though my appeal is accepted, I will try to follow the community's advise that I should try to establish consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey.

4) I am here to make productive contributions understanding that I should cite the sources especially if I add in a lot of details of events or other topics in articles and I will try to stay calm if others disagree with what I edit. Does that sound fair? NicholasHui (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Why did you chose to edit logged out? GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It was because for one good reason was that I was editing my User archive page. NicholasHui (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would you need to edit your own archive page, logged out? GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

To save some flooded information on my user account contributions. Also, you know hockey is really not my only thing I edit on, take a look on my user page of why I have those IP accounts listed on my userpage NicholasHui (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

NOTICE. The editor in question has breached his topic ban and made an edit at 2016–17 Winnipeg Jets season. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I just was a bit too impatient. My mind gave off. NicholasHui (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Reluctantly oppose lifting or easing of topic ban. NicholasHui is well-intentioned but unfortunately, in their eagerness and impatience to edit NHL related articles, they cannot abide with the accepted consensus, editing-conditions and collaborative norms. In the most recent instance this is demonstrated by their editing while logged out because "in the last several months has been too fixated with certain user contributions", and violating the very topic-ban they are appealing while the appeal is being discussed because they got "a bit too impatient." Given the recent and past behavior, which has led to protracted discussions (see this and this in addition to their talkpage) and greatly taxed the time and good-faith of other editors active in the area, I cannot see the lifting of the topic-ban to be in interest of the project.

PS: I have been previously involved with the user as an admin in issuing a block and executing the (community-imposed) topic ban; see the linked discussions for details. Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Another thing I should note is some asked before why I have all the IP accounts on my user page? The answer is that I cared what my own editing history was. I could tell it was me that edit those articles before. (Am I wrong?) NicholasHui (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban: Violating the topic ban while logged out and then violating the topic ban recently while the appeal is being discussed demonstrate a failure to abide by community consensus. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• @MarkH21: I understand its failure to abide by consensus because I have gone through previous mistakes many times through (understanding past mistakes) since June 2015 when I started to edit Wikipedia on NHL Hockey assuming that this one was simple but it was not. NicholasHui (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Failed login attempts

I'm getting notifications about repeated attempts to log into my account from a new device over the past couple of hours. I'm confident my password is strong but it's probably worth being on the lookout for any accounts going rogue if whomever is behind this finds a way in. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chris: I'll keep an eye on your contributions, but if you somehow get locked out, I'm emailing you my mobile number in case you don't already have it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was mainly meaning to keep an eye out for any other accounts in case it's not just me that they're trying. The Jytdog arb case is the only vaguely controversial thing I think I've been involved with of late, so if it is targetted it's most likely related to that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Seeing the same thing, also (peripherally) involved with that case. Qwirkle (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I'm also seeing the same thing (6 failed attempts, according to the notice) and am also involved with that case. I'd appreciate it if my account could also be kept on watch for strange behaviour. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This kind of thing happens every now and then. There's not really any way to tell if you're being targeted specifically or if it's random. As usual, the advice for anyone who doesn't want their account compromised is to to use a strong password that you don't use anywhere else, and for admins to consider enabling two-factor authentication. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly good advice to use a strong password that you don't use anywhere else, but I'd never advise anyone to use the 2FA currently in use on Wikipedia. Considering that "Some 314 mobile phones are stolen on London's streets every day, according to the Metropolitan Police", the sheer hassle of recovering your Wikipedia account following the loss an authenticator must outweigh the extra effort required to have a really strong password. As mine is presently over 30 characters in length, it would take rather longer than the heat death of the universe to crack it by brute force using current technology. Of course that's just my opinion on 2FA. YMMV. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I know at least one person who was an active admin until he lost his phone and decided he couldn't be bothered to go through the hoops needed to recover his account, so I wonder if our 2FA-required policy is truly a net positive; how many other admins suddenly went inactive because they lost their authenticator and didn't want to go to the trouble of recovering the account? rdfox 76 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't understand why people don't back up their 2FA stuff. Even with stuff like Humble Bundle, Ubisoft etc I'd never consider not backuping up 2FA stuff no matter if it's easier to recover. Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

2FA is one of those areas where Wikipedia just feels really behind the curve compared to the rest of the tech world (captchas being another). Every other tech website implemented 2FA years ago for all users, whereas here it seems to exist only in beta form and only for a small subset of users. Sdkb (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. SMS-based 2FA is also something nice, but I doubt that will ever be enabled here. On that note, I feel these hijack attempts are random. I have a folder of those emails, and so far I've collected 154 of those. I have no idea why... Rehman 07:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: "Don't understand why people don't back up their 2FA stuff" – possibly because that means you have to secure the backup at least as strongly as its contents. Otherwise anybody who can hack the backup can "recover" your 2FA information in the same way you can. Turtles all the way down. --RexxS (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I believe this merits more complete investigation, given that the three editors reporting issues here have been in varying degrees involved in the Jytdog ArbCom case. I'd suggest outreach to determine if others in the case are experiencing similar failed login attempts, as a start. Jusdafax (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In the past there have been massive attacks by automated systems attempting to log in to hundreds (thousands?) of accounts. Speculation was that someone had one of the large password dumps from hacked websites, and was trying those passwords against accounts here. All I can find at the moment is from May 2018. I thought there was a very large attack last year. The bottom line is that log in attempts can be ignored provided you are not using a password that has been been used at any other website (because those websites get hacked and the passwords leaked). See WP:SECURITY. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I have also participated in the Jytdog workshop and I've got 4 emails about repeated login attempts. The last notification had 12 failed attempts so there might be a brute-force attack.--Pudeo (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just had a notification about 15 failed attempts. They only seem to be occurring in the evening and early morning UTC. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've also been involved in the case, and have been getting 50+ failed login attempts each day in recent days. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 21:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Same here. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Egads! My account as well, and it's been going on for a while now as evidenced in this discussion. If they can hack into my account, maybe they'll share the password with me because the one I used is so complex, I forgot it myself. (j/k about password) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I (and others) got them during the Kudpung arbcase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_SandyGeorgia SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I've been getting the same thing. Hundreds of failed attempts each day. I can venture a guess as to who it is, based on previous M.O., but I'm not interested in giving the guy his jollies by mentioning him. ♟♙ (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Although of course it's theoretically possible that specific editors are being targetted, it's far more likely that crackers are simply working their way through the entire list of Wikipedia user names. isaacl (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

...and yet so far, all, or all but one, do seem to be describing connected behavior. That’s a rather large trout in the milkcan. Qwirkle (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ve had the same thing happen to me (3 in two days, starting yesterday) and that was when I weighted in on the workshop components (and was attacked for one of my comments over on the talkpage). So add me to the metoo list for these. And I’m a very small fish in this pond, compared to Voceditenore, Coretheapple, Thryduulf... Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I experienced several attempts during Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung but, after changing my password to something more complicated, none in the Jytdog one. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC).

I had more of them this morning. Incels gonna incel, I guess. ♟♙ (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if its coincidental or otherwise, but I've had no notifications since the workshop phase closed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"China virus"

There has been four weeks of discussion at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Repeated addition of "China Virus" about additions of "China virus" to the article text. The discussion appears to have exhausted itself, but is dragging on. An uninvolved closer's reading of the discussion, whether or not that involves initiation of a subsequent RfC, would be appreciated. Dekimasuよ! 02:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, that is an insanely long conversation. However it gets closed, it very badly needs to be closed so that editors can move on to other issues where their energy would be better spent. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

BLP and illness

From another grumpy person, even without April Fools vandalism I'm seeing an increasing number of edits claiming people are sick or dead from the pandemic virus. I've blocked or strongly warned several editors for unsourced rumors and general BLP violations.This will only get worse, and April Fools won't help. Rather than an escalating series of warnings, unsourced or poorly sourced rumors of living persons' health status need a sharp warning out of the gate, followed up with protection or blocks if not heeded. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Over the past two weeks, I've already had to revert about a half dozen incidents of vandalism, saying different celebrities (usually ones I haven't heard of) had died of COVID-19. You're right, this will probably increase on April 1st. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A very stern warning or an instablock should always be on the table for someone who intentionally adds false death info, whether it's coronavirus-related or not. Death hoaxes have always been a problem, and it's something I've never had any tolerance for. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly the thing that should not be tolerated. Pissing on other users' good faith, if unfunny, attempts at humor that adhere to WP:FOOLS is just backwards. EvergreenFir' (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

If I see someone pull that one, they're getting blocked. That situation is not something to create hoaxes about. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Filter with edit notice

@Acroterion, Liz, Bongwarrior, and Seraphimblade:

Would it be possible to whip up an edit filter for COVID, corona, Wuhan, Chinese virus, and other variations that prompts an edit notice warning of zero tolerance for "April Fools" on the topic and perhaps a chastisement tell folks this isn't a laughing matter? Might curb the problem. And might be useful to keep active beyond today. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment that Suffusion of Yellow made two tracking filters 1040 and 1041 for COVID that perhaps could be used. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I would not support that. That's a heavily edited topic right now and it would catch way too many editors who have no ill intent at all. Newer editors might be frightened off by such a warning and think they've done something wrong. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. Just monitoring those existing filters might help. I've found two bad edits made in the past hour. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think any such filter should ignore April Fools, which will pass, and just provide a note on the essential need to provide reliable sourcing and to demand respect for BLPs. There are, unfortunately, plenty of genuine reasons to make such edits. We need to be vigilant and to monitor the sometimes-ghoulish race to announce sickness and deaths. Acroterion (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really adept on edit filters so I can't address that question. As someone who checks edits on COVID-19 articles, I don't think we have to worry about the top coronavirus articles as they are on a lot of Watchlists and vandalism will be caught pretty soon. Some of the lesser watched articles might be vulnerable but even countries with few cases have some editors keeping tabs on them and vandalism will be eventually reverted.

I think the greater concern are April 1st edits that cross the line into malicious vandalism and have to be rev-deleted. I think admins should be contacted directly in those cases unless it becomes a more wide-spread problem and needs more attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at edit filter 1040, where it's fairly easy to pick out possible BLP edits from the subject entry, and found a couple, some good-faith, others vandalism. For now, such a manual scan seems doable. It seems like a version of 1040 that only picks out articles tagged as BLPs could work - most biographies are coded as such on their talkpages. My concern is less about today and more about the weeks ahead, where we might need to remind some editors that we're not running a contest to see who can report someone's sickness or death the soonest, or without sources. Acroterion (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, Acroterion. I need to remember to check the edit filter logs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Liz, Acroterion, and EvergreenFir: See filter 1047 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: many thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really helpful. One byproduct is that it's highlighting a lot of defamation and BLP vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Skype number

Some smart-arse IP added a Skype number to List of Mr. Robot episodes. I reverted it, but perhaps one of you fine folks should take a look and see if more permanent removal is in order. Stay safe! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 12:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Lectonar (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Done. Next time, please contact Oversight per email if possible instead to minimize exposure. Regards SoWhy 12:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

XInolanIX

Hello,

User:XInolanIX is an SPA account focused on "Juan Branco" page, which had reached a consensual form before his interventions started a month ago. The page, has been systematically attacked by him and a similar account for a few weeks, in a very subtle but efficient way. Basic biographical elements, coming from primary legitimate sources (Reuters, AP, The Guardian) are deleted when favorable. On the other hand, negative informations, often from French sources (therefore difficult to verify in EN wikipedia) are systematically added in a distorted way.

To be more specific: the contributor deletes without justification basic academic information, as the holding of a PhD title or university affiliations (La Sorbonne); the contributor, transforms a senior research fellow emloyment position to a "junior research fellow" (the former is a title Branco held, not a subjective qualification anyone can comment on, as the sources clearly indicate); erases public positions held at the International Criminal Court and the Foreign affairs ministry, which are publicly sourced, and so forth.

Whatever happened in the history of this page does not justify the obfuscation of verified, sourced elements, the use of speculative wording, including suggestions of criminal behaviour that have never been investigated or been qualified as such in the public space, and so forth.

Many examples can be taken, but the apperantly most insignificant are revealing, for example the use of "populist" in order to qualify "La France Insoumise", the systematically negative presentation of his political engagement, as with the quote of a "colister" of Branco's 2017 candidacy: legislative candidates in France have no "colisters". Those elements are sparsed in a widespread manner. It is difficult to presume good faith when seeing them accumulated, although I do presume that most editors, which do not master French and have not seen French version or have direct access to the French sources, do not perceive it. The individual concerned by this article has been at the heart of a huge polemic, and important attacks both from some media (heavily quoted) and individuals, which have tried to hinder his reputation, have come along. This has clearly affected this page, whatever, once again, the considerations that could be made regarding the previous versions. Having proceeded to the deletion of all informations coming from previous sources - albeit not contradicted since - does not seem to me to be compatible with wikipedia standards. I'll go more into details. The current version has therefore been rendered lacunary on essential points that necessarily affect the objectivity of the page.

This is a serious attack at someone's reputation. Wikipedia is not a place to revenge on or play with other's life. This SPA account is clearly behaving this way, whilst pretending to be neutral and avoid "manipulations" and "adding of hagiographic content", which is unpresent in all the modifications he has systematically reverted, and by doing so he's exposing Wikipedia's integrity.

I therefore suggest banning this contributor, and related IPs, from participating to this page, and if necessary, reverting the page to last version before his appearance, as well as the intervention of an administrator to withdraw from this last version any hagiographic element he could encounter. The French page being relatively equilibrated, a French-speaking adminsitrator would be welcome.

For more details, I suggest to go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Branco#Revision_2

Elahadji (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Elahadji (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This user seems to be the subject of the article himself. His habit of using Wikipedia as a PR-tool and to threaten and denigrate perceived enemies has been well documented by the press as can be seen in the article and it's French version (i.e.: he once wrote a threatening letter to the employer of another Wikipedian claiming to be a "Wikipedia administrator"). XInolanIX (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The opener of this thread (Elahdji) is a SPA that is currently suspected to be a sockpuppet of Brancojuan, and, at least, three other accounts and two IPs (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brancojuan). His agressive behaviour could be the subject of an ANI, but this seems not useful if the SPI will result in a ban. D.Lazard (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

There's also some recent edits related to this matter on Gabriel Attal's article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request: Hungarian Spectrum

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

---

This article: Hungarian Spectrum must be deleted: self promotion, soap boxing, political activism. The creator of the page Stevan Harnad used and uses repeatedly the WP to spread his political views - just take a look at his editing history:

He edits his own wp article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stevan_Harnad&action=history

He spreads political opinions as facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_68#Constitution_of_Hungary

etc.

It is just another attempt. Hungarian Spectrum is a closed facebook-group, the main contributor has ZERO scientific output.

Speedy deletion tag already placed, but I guess that Harnad will remove it soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.163.158 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I have removed the speedy deletion tag. Your reason, "self promotion and soapboxing", is in line with WP:G11, but I really don't see the content of the article as "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". I have no comment on the notability of the subject (which is not a valid speedy deletion reason anyway), or on your apparent claim of conflict of interest. If you think the article should be deleted, please use WP:AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

More than the half of the whole article consists of a quote from George Soros about his vilification in Hungary, and his appraisal (philantropist etc. - he has his own wp article, no need to repeat it here!), and his views on Viktor Orbán. It is clearly soapboxing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.163.158 (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Then nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if there is some confusion here, but AFAICT, the article is about this blog https://hungarianspectrum.org/ . It seems to just be a blog hosted as a normal website. It's not a closed Facebook group. Maybe there is a closed Facebook associated with the blog but if there is, that's not what the article is mostly about. In fact the article never seems to have mentioned the closed Facebook group AFAICT. The blog seems to mostly about politics and stuff, so I'm not entirely sure why anyone would expect people associated with it to have scientific output anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion should be closed as being in the wrong venue. The place to discuss article deletion is WP:AFD, as Boing! said Zebedee said. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

   Done See WP:Articles for deletion/Hungarian Spectrum. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Voluntary IBAN: Elizium23 / Contaldo80

• Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For too long, I have been fighting over Catholic topics with this editor, Contaldo80. I have been rude and I have edit-warred and I have failed to assume good faith. I go to confession to a priest and tell him how angry Wikipedia makes me, because of Contaldo80. It's not his fault. I have a tendency to be a hothead and this relationship brings out the worst in my personality. I want out. I volunteer for an interaction ban on any articles edited by Contaldo80. It will last 6 months with an option of renewal before the expiration date. Contaldo does not need to volunteer for a 2-way IBAN, that is totally optional and not something I am requesting here. I am requesting that I be held to my word by sanctions if I violate the boundaries. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't be offering myself for a voluntary ban. Having not edited wikipedia for a while (because of a number of unpleasant interactions with other editors) I was taken aback by your quite confrontational approach on Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church. I think your suggestion that you step back from editing is a prudent one as you've made a very personal attack on me above - about going to confession and complaining to your priest specifically about me. I'll leave to administrators to make a judgement as to whether this falls into personal harassment and should therefore result in a formal block or censure. It's disturbing to say the least.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh please. I was complaining to a priest in Confession (which is about the penitent's sins and not others) about how angry I became on Wikipedia, not about anything you did. Not a personal attack. The reverse. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I find it weird and unsettling that you have gone to a priest to tell him how angry I specifically make you feel because of my editing. I really don't think this is acceptable. I actually feel harassed. I'd like an administrator to exercise judgement as to whether this is acceptable behaviour? Thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) And as someone who watched your recent inappropriate actions against Elizium at Talk:Homosexual_clergy_in_the_Catholic_Church#Today's_edits_reverted, I think it weird and inappropriate that you are calling for this. You should own up to the problems of your own behavior, not act like you're violated by someone having a reaction to it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Nat - you evidently have a problem with me. I've been respectful and polite but honestly I think you're starting to get a bit carried away. Following me to this discussion to chip in your two cents is probably over-reach for a non-administrator. Can I respectfully ask you to please back-off. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

So you come to my Talk page as part of your campaign against Elizium and specifically tell me to come see this thread, but then want to squelch me from responding? No. No, you have not been "respectful and polite", you've been attacking Elizium over their taking care of your bad edits while you've been going around boasting about how great you've been in this matter. Your complaining about me having "followed" you to a thread you told me to come see is another example of you inventing a way for you to be a victim rather than taking responsibilities for your own actions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I drew attention to his comments so that you would see that he had become personally abusive and your interventions were not helping to calm that (nor are they still). Discussing me before a priest (a third party) because of my edits is a violation of my personal privacy. I still think this frankly a disgraceful thing to say - and a way to intimidate me.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support One-way Iban as requested. (Non-administrator comment) --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 05:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Any such one-way IBAN would be a travesty of justice. At Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church it is Contaldo80 who has been inserting names in contravention of WP:BLP and making personal attacks, and Elizium23 who has been removing the names, in accordance with that policy, and not making personal attacks. Such behaviour has continued above in this very thread. If any sanctions are taken they should be against Contaldo80, not Elizium23. Much as we might admire Elizium23's "turn the other cheek" attitude that shouldn't get in the way of our seeing who is in the wrong here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please cite the personal attach I make. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Naming a specific person as gay in a Wikipedia article is a tricky issue, especially if we don't already have an article on that person which specifiies their sexual orientation. WP:ETHNICRACECAT says "a person may also not be described or categorized as LGBTQ on the basis of allegations or rumours that have not been confirmed by the subject's own self-identification." In my opinion, this complaint against User:Contaldo80 might be closed if they will agree not to add any more names of individuals to Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church without getting a talk page consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I have made no complaint at all against Contaldo80. If there are complaints against him, they belong to other editors and not me. This thread was opened as a request for administrators to enforce a one-way IBAN against me. That is my only purpose of opening this thread. Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but to be clear I wasn't the one that added names in the first place. I just restored the initial edit until Elizium clarified why he had cited WP:BLP. It wasn't clear to anyone (except himself) as to where BLP had been violated. If I want to I can just restore the names in the article and attach a source to a mainstream media showing that these priests have publicly come out as gay - this would not violate WP:BLP. The reason why I eventually supported the removal of the text was because a closer look at the article showed that it could not be established that the priests cited came out as gay because of a statement made by Pope Francis. That was the problem. This doesn't resolve the issue, however, that another editor has admitted that they personally discuss me edits with a priest and the feelings of rage this creates in him. This is intimidating me and I don't think this is acceptable. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"It wasn't clear to anyone (except himself) as to where BLP had been violated." That's false. You were the only one who claimed it was unclear, and frankly, with the length of experience you have on this site, it's hard to believe that you didn't understand why the unsourced claim that certain priests had announced themselves to be gay would be a BLP problem. But even if we accept that you're that ignorant of BLP, why, if there was even a question in your mind that there might be a BLP problem, you would re-add the material? When you're wasting people's time with such actions, it should not come as a surprise to you that they have an emotional reaction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

2 help requests: Same theme: Possibly COVID-19 or Lockdown related

Hello, on 30 March 2020, on my watchlist I found this edit (there was one more edit on its talk page). The message in Hindi, says, "My father is very sick, could you please help......" Of course this edit non-constructive, however currently like many other country there is 2020 coronavirus lockdown in India.

Today, I saw a similar edit on Mann Ki Baat, and article on a radio program by the Indian PM. The anonymous editor, in the edit, says in Hindi, "Dear PM, we are around 50 people, came from Kolkata to Mumbai, and now we are struck... ... ... we have nothing, and starving. Please help"

I don't think we have anything to do, but I am feeling a bit disturbed. I sent a message on the first editor's talk page asking them to contact local authority for support. Anything else that could be done? Kind regards. --Titodutta (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I've requested Oversight on the first and sent an email to WP:EMERGENCY on both. I am not sure if that is exactly within the scope of the latter but I figure this falls under "better safe than sorry".

If my understanding is correct, the big lockdown in India has left a lot of people (migrating workers) stranded without economic resources; some of them might now ask for help in places where one normally doesn't see such requests. Unfortunately I don't know the optimal solution either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, some people are in trouble. Note, both the posts had more information, such as phone number, area name. I did not translate those part in the message above. I monitor only a few pages. Most possibly there are some more such edits. So far, I posted on their talk page asking to contact local police etc. If it sounds good, I can add a Government website help page on how to get help. Kind regards. --Titodutta (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would hope that the people who man WP:EMERGENCY know who to contact in such circumstances, and that anyone seeing such a request would, at least, refer it to them. Whether you do anything more is a personal matter, which uncovers a philosophical dilemma. Should I help my neighbour who can't go out and needs some shopping, or should I help someone on the other side of the world who has a greater need? There's no optimum solution here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Can any one please delete the Local copies of the files that I transferred to commons?

thanks--Hippymoose17 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

What local files? El_C 18:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: check my contributions on Commons. Including all the files that were originally uploaded by User:Guiding light and User:McChizzle I transferred all of them to commons--Hippymoose17 (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

creating articles

Hi please look here, There is no mention of template or category creation here But according to this reference, I am forbidden from both In this talk, However, I can't do anything And I want a little exemption So that I can have some activity. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Come on. It's been just a little over three months since you were unblocked. You are doing ok, but it's much, much too soon to lift your restrictions. --Yamla (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Does his ban include creating pages in his user subpage? It may be an idea to allow (and encourage) it (and later, he may use {{subst:submit}} to request a review) as a first step.--GZWDer (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The ban includes anything that would show up as "created page" here. It was incredibly difficult to communicate with M.k.m2003 over the scope of the topic ban and I oppose complicating it in any way. However, your approach may be viable, if it comes with a time-based restriction on {{subst:submit}}. Again, though, I think this is complicating matters and I think we shouldn't do this at this time. --Yamla (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

At least look at my templates for example:Template:Castles in Austria, Template:Castles in Portugal, Template:Sasanian castles And ..., Please look here, I am not allowed to create categories And I have such a problem:500 edits were restored And no one helped me, My efforts were right but sabotage was announced!!!, I can be helpful even if I don't know your language M.k.m2003 (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk:2804:18:5026:998B:2:2:E673:EDFE

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

---

I can't remember, but isn't there some speedy tag for people who copy content like this? Govvy (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No, but technically you can tag it with G12. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Zzuuzz killed it, cheers know. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Phew!

I just transfered an entire category to commons! So can you do a favor and delete the redundant images please? Thanks--Hippymoose17 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Thank you for your help with that backlog. No immediate admin action is needed though. Sometime soon, an automated program will tag the files as being exact duplicates of files on Commons, which will put them into a queue, and admins will review then review them individually for deletion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

COI editing, and now outing

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

---

I would like for someone else to have a word with User:Wallstny, not just in light of their singleminded use of Wikipedia to plug an investment banker, Daniel Alpert, but also because of this note. I'm about to delete that and I have nothing kind to say to this person, so it's best if I stay away from them. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, Promotional Spa account + Harassment that triggered an oversighting = Not here block. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 02:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Moneytrees, I appreciate you. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruption at AfD

Yesterday, I came across several sockpuppet accounts disrupting AfD proceedings, either by making nonsense votes, closing the discussion as delete and placing G6 tags on the articles, or other problematic edits. Pages affected include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totally TV, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tampa, Colorado, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDonate (Pakistan), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sheriff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pauline Wilson. I hoped that it was just April Fool's shenanigans but it seems like they're back at it again today. More eyes on AfD would be appreciated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you’re getting at here. A check on the edit histories shows something that happens at AFD all the time. In cases where the discussions were closed, the consensus was clearly delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.240.207 (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible single-purpose account/marketing account to sell a baseball card

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

---

I'd like for an admin to take a look at user:Generalinfosports's contributions. It appears to me based on their editing history that they might be a single-purpose account trying to promote a specific baseball card that happens to be for sale on eBay. This FfD discussion is what made me look into their editing history, and this edit to Baseball (see both the change and the edit summary) and this draft article are why I am posting here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Premature: new users should be given ample time to develop accounts and webpages and not automatically banned when others with seniority get quickly emotional, especially considering the substantial information/contributions (this draft article and deep educational discussion regarding this FfD which is being contributed to wikipedia.org for free. Please read this FfD as it contains substantial legal facts, legal discussion and analysis which has thus far sustained its ground in leaving the image posted (the Ffd is really the "sum and substance" here not User:The_Squirrel_Conspiracy thoughts of "likely" or unproven allegations.

Please reference User:Ckruschke at this edit deleting 1 space character and claiming vandalism which was not reverted by any of the 5 users involved: User:Ckruschke User:Philip_Trueman User:Jordan_1972 User:Salavat User:The_Squirrel_Conspiracy), To note, User:The_Squirrel_Conspiracy is the only user who claims to list his/her other listed wikipedia accounts (it is not yet known if User:Ckruschke User:Philip_Trueman User:Jordan_1972 User:Salavat are the same, connected or related; however, it is known that this is my only wikipedia.org account).

If there is a deadline for finishing this draft article kindly please advise. The image is necessary for the article unless as this FfD says, a different image is replaced from the source or zoomed in on.

Remove Thread Move to remove thread and wait till draft gets approved or submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalinfosports (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Does this response seem a bit WP:PRECOCIOUS to anyone else? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The edit here (linked in original post) and the draft article, with phrases like As the value of the "SIDE B" error card rose above $50,000 online, more buyers and sellers became interested in the card, Based on all the facts and the card's sheer limited print, some card collectors value the Hank Aaron "SIDE B" at $50,000 upwards of the $400,000 depending on the card's condition, and the timing with the eBay listing (which also uses some of the same description), does suggest that this may be a bit of promotion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

     Reply: The information is from the eCommerce link. In a non-biased fashong, "eCommerce" substitutes for saying the name "eBay" name. The original poster at the eCommerce link says "could reach the $100,000 to $400,000 range" (last checked April 3, 2020) .

• Comment As the editor who initiated the FfD (which seems to have started the whole thing), I can tell you that I have no particular interest one way or the other in the image or draft article. I simply found the image listed in the Category:Wikipedia_orphaned_files category and was unsure of the licensing and copyright issues. I know the card itself has licensing rules which are separate and apart from the licensing of the photograph of the card. Further to comments above, this account is the only active one I have (I walked away from a prior account looking for a clean start - it has not edited since 2007). If there is anything I can do or add to this noticeboard action, please feel free to post on my talk page. Thanks. Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

    Reply: Thanks for listing past account info to clarify Conflicts of Interests partially. The image is attached to the  draft article . Not sure if it still clarifies as being "orphaned" . If  this FfD discussion is based on the reason of being "orphaned" and it is no longer "orphaned", we should probably Remove Thread 

• I would have thought that this is a very easy decision, and am a bit surprised that it hasn't been taken yet. The editor in question is obviously here to promote an eBay auction rather than to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Just because Hank Aaron might not be a favorite player, or an individual don't like the HANK AARON SIDE B card, is not grounds for taking down the image and HANK AARON SIDE B in my opinion.

Recommendation: have a "SAVE AS DRAFT OPTION" (or sandbox redirec) on the create a listing page for new posters/creators

Recommendation: have a clear small picture/emblem of who are moderators/admin are (higher level wiki people) b/c I dont know who this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nil_Einne who posted on my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Generalinfosports warning (or indirectly threatening if not authorized) to post my name. "Admin COrps" under User:Nil_Einne is not very specific. Is this a legitimate "warning" cause this fsb board does not appear to be closed yet

'Question'Bold text: how do we determine user ranking/moderators/admins? 'Question'Bold text: how will i know if this fsb is closed? not sure if its "time sensitive" cause I have to get back to my real job as opposed to typing this free information

• Comment - can anyone decipher anything here? If all this gibberish was added by the reported editor, isn't it clear that the WP:CIR issues alone are great enough for a block? John from Idegon (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Limitation of partial block

The range 47.15.128.0/17 (contribs | filter log) is currently the subject of a partial block until mid-June. However the partial block is already at the maximum number of specified articles (10) and the vandalism is spreading out wider - their current favourite page is Forbes. The range is a wide one but I can't see a solution other than to extend the block to include all of article space which may have an undue effect on other editors. It's that or back to whack-a-mole with each IP address. Nthep (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Block extended to cover mainspace. Nthep (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

An interesting extension to partial blocks might be anonymous matching on user agent. Envision being able to say, "Block 47.15.128.0/17, but only if the user agent matches (perhaps fuzzy matches) the one used to do this specific edit". The actual agent string wouldn't need to be disclosed publicly, just stored in some lookaside table keyed by ipblocks.ipb_id, which wouldn't be visible to anybody. I'd be a lot happier about blocking a /17 if it could be narrowed down in this way. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: if phab:T100070 gets traction that suggestion could possibly be integrated, feel free to leave comments on the ticket. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Checkusers have been begging for useragent blocks for years. With Google deprecating useragents in Chrome it's unlikely to get much dev attention at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser

There's a bunch of requests here, including mine, which has been there for almost a month. This needs admin attention. Invalid^OS_talk 12:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting speedy close of disruptive AfD

User:TenPoundHammer just nominated Peppermint Park (TV series) for deletion for a third time in less than 4 months, after the last two AfDs both ended with "no consensus" and a recommendation from the closer (User:Sandstein) to "let some time pass" before the next one (IMO a problematic statement for an unbiased closer in itself).

Had I not participated in the second AfD, I would have WP:NAC-closed this one myself immediately as it is blatantly disruptive. But doing so now would be improper, so I'm asking an uninvolved admin (or experienced editor) to do it instead. Modernponderer (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Modernponderer: @Barkeep49: So how much is "some time" anyway? I was not given a set time. I thought three months would be fine. This seems needelessly pedantic and bureaucratic. @Sandstein: only said "Some time" and did not specify how much. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, 3 months from the 2nd AfD would have been May 3 not April 3. In my speedy close of the third nomination I wrote In this case I would suggest 6 months from the close of the second nomination as a minimum time. Hopefully that gives you a sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Another close review please

Yesterday, I made this close, and an editor has indicated on my talk page that he feels my close was mistaken. Your comments are invited: should I self-revert?—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• No. This is always the problem with a non-binary question and the editor on your talk page is arguing that two of the options should be regarded in the same light. The mistake they're making there is that whilst people voting for Option 1 clearly don't want Option 2, that doesn't mean they necessarily agree with Option 3. The RfC should have been "Should this be mentioned at all?" followed by a discussion and possibly a second RfC on the amount of coverage if the answer had been positive. I don't think anyone would have closed that as anything but No Consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: What you're saying about Options 1 and 3 is just not reasonable. Options 1 and 3 are both for inclusion, except that Option 3 proposes a more concise text. Many people who voted for Option 1 said that Option 3 was their second choice, and several people who voted for Option 3 said that Option 1 was their second choice. A spectrum of options were offered, from no inclusion (Option 2) to one sentence (Option 3) to two sentences (Option 1). Inclusion clearly had a large majority, with the only question being how concise that inclusion will be.

That's the quantitative argument, which obviously supports inclusion. There's also the qualitative argument about the strength of the rationale for each vote. Take a look at the comments accusing unnamed groups (either the signers of the petition, or the journalists covering the petition, or unnamed others on the internet supposedly promoting the petition) "Assange cultists" and "useful idiots," comparing the signers of the petition (including the long-time #2 figure in German politics, Sigmar Gabriel) to Eddie the Eagle, etc. I don't think there's any comparison between the arguments made for inclusion (coverage in virtually every important German-language news outlet, and the high-profile list of signers) and those made against (which were truly bizarre, in my humble opinion). -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: before I looked at your talk page, I took a gander at the !votes. Option 1 had 13 supporters, Option 2 had 13 supporters, and Option 3 had 9 supporters as "first choices". When looking at the "second choices", 5 users indicated Option 3 (5 of whom chose Option 1 first, 1 of whom chose Option 2 first) and one indicated Option 2 (chose Option 3 first). Overall, I'd say there was more support for inclusion than not (23 showed some support for inclusion compared to 14 who showed support for exclusion). I would say rough consensus was more toward include.

When looking at the rationale and quality of the !votes, it seems that the issue of (UN)DUE is foremost, though the "include" side did show coverage by German sources. The exclude side, though, had a handful of dismissive comments not based in policy.

All together, I'd weakly lean toward rough consensus for include with Option 3 as the compromise just by looking at the RfC comments. But I do not think your overall assessment on your user talk was way off and I would give your German fluency some weight in your decision. If someone else assesses that "include" was the consensus, then consider self-revert. But I am neither confident nor convinced enough in my own assessment to suggest you overturn. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And with Black Kite's comments, I would say keep as is. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would also have closed as "no consensus, maintain status quo". I agree with Black Kite that the RFC was malformed amd should have been a straightforward "should this be mentioned at all?" with subsequent discussion if there was consensus to mention it, but as a closer you can only work with what you're given. ‑ Iridescent 07:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: The RfC originally presented only two options (Option 1 for inclusion of the two sentences, Option 2 for no inclusion). Option 3 was later added as an alternative, shorter inclusion. Inclusion clearly had a large numerical majority, with the question being how concisely to phrase the text. Launching yet another RfC to determine whether to include, when the first RfC clearly returned a large majority for inclusion, would be a waste of everyone's time, in my opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse the close, do not revert. Possibly, more explanation could have been given. A casual, poor, reading can give the impression that Option 3 the compromise option was a good compromise. The problem with that is the strong arguments for Option 2 (do not mention) citing NOTNEWS or UNDUE (which I read as alluding to NOTNEWS). The challenge is that the letter was a flash in the pan, brief coverage, and with time a flash of news coverage becomes primary source material, completely undermining the proponents argument that the letter writing was independently notable. You wrote “the article should not be changed for the time being”. Until when? I think the answer that could have been written, which I might have written, is “until new sources, later published, non-contemporaneous with the event, are found”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall, SmokeyJoe, Iridescent, EvergreenFir, and Thucydides411: The close, which by all indications from S Marshall was well-intentioned, nevertheless overturned RfC consensus: 18 RfC respondents favored inclusion of some kind as their first choice, while only 12 respondents favored exclusion as their first choice. German media still consider the intervention by prominent German political and media figures to be a significant part of the "history" of the Assange case [1][2]. And in terms of the quality of the arguments in the RfC, people who argue for inclusion reference sources, whereas arguments for exclusion tend towards bizarre insinuations of a pro-Assange conspiracy... somewhere. -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Valid close - The close was clearly correct. There was no consensus for inclusion. The close indicated you evaluated the weight of arguments and comments. Need it be said that on Wikipedia we don't evaluate consensus by majority vote? Also, Darouet, to avoid the appearance of Canvassing, I suggest that any group pinging should include all participants in the RfC, or at least a note on the article talk page informing all of this thread. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I am fed up with edit-warring against consensus in Eastern European articles

I was reverting disruptive editing for about ten years. I was by far the most active and often the only admin willing to look at topics related to Russian-Ukrainian, Russian-Belarusian, Tatar, Estonian etc issues. Sorry I can not do it anymore. It is too much for me. Formally, I was broken by this series of edits. The consensus to use Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) has been well established, but these driveby editors just do not care. They come, change the spelling, and disappear. This is not just about Belarusian spelling, it is about pretty much every Russian, Ukrainian, or Belarusian topic where any issues can appear - and they always appear (Kiev/Kyiv being the most notorious example, where for the first time in my life I encountered an admin who refused to accept a RfC outcome). Some of these users stay a bit longer to accuse me in being a Russian government propagandist, a Ukrainian government propagandist, a Russian hater, a Ukrainian hater, a jerk, an asshole, a retard, a moron and so on. This happens on a daily basis. I reverted this particular edit, but I am sure by the end of the day I will be reverted back, with the user claiming that the marginal publication in English he found beats the general consensus on Romanization. I managed to get a couple of these guys to the Arbitration enforcement and get them topic-banned. Each time I had to spend half a day of my life to find the diffs. I can not do it for every disruptive editor with more than 20 edits, otherwise I will only be doing this. More often, they appear out of nowhere and turn out to be socks, after I have wasted enormous amount of time thinking they are new editors. I blocked hundreds of them, one (a pro-Rissian one, for the record) still continues to harass me using IPs. I do not feel that dealing with all this shit is why I came to Wikipedia. Somebody else will have to do it.

This is not really a request for help or a call to action, though it would be useful if more people would have eyes on the thousands of articles in the topic. I just felt I need to express this before taking hundreds of these articles off my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(As I anticipated, my edits were reverted with an edit summary "Reverting Russian nationalist edit" by a user with 52 edits who has not yet posted in this thread [3]--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC))

I took care of that. Reverted and EC protected for 2 months. El_C 07:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Are these articles covered by DS? We could, for a start, semi protect the lot of em and see what difference it makes. ——SN54129 09:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure, we have discretionary sanctions. However, (i) I probably should not be the person mass-protecting such articles since pretty much everyone, after learning that my mothertongue is Russian, assumes I am involved (never mind that I am a Dutch citizen and live in the Netherlands, and have been to Russia once in the last five years - I have been to Canada or Portugal more often during this period) and (ii) I am generally not sure whether the community would like the idea of indefinite full protection of thousands of articles. The most problematic one, such as Kiev, have been semi-protected for ages.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, you just can't trust those Dutch-Canadian-Portuguese editors to understand the Ukrainian language... :-) It doesn't have to be full protection, it sounds like pending changes or extended confirmed protection might help? Do you have a list of the Most problematic articles somewhere? Also, if it's the same edit being made on a number of articles, is edit filter a possibility? It's terrible what you're going through, and no one editor (or group of editors even) should have to manually police so many articles from the same disruption day after day. It's not a sustainable model for building an encyclopedia. We should look at implementing a solution that won't cause us to lose editors to frustration. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec) You are not losing me as an editor, I am around, editing and performing admin tasks, not yet planning to retire. However, indeed, this area just became too poisinous. I do not have a list of problematic articles, I do have a list of sub-areal where editing against consensus occurs on a regular basis, but collecting the diffs to prove it on the level of AE or even ANI is just too much. For example, the above example refers to a group of editors promoting an alternative Belarusian alphabet against consensus. This alphabet has some status in Belarus, and this is why they are not prepared to negotiate, they just come, move/ edit and disappear, they are typically active in one of the two Belarusian Wikipedias. Right now I have discovered an attack at Barysaŭski trakt (one user moved the article without consensus, another onbe, belonging to the same group, opened a RM,. and they will make sure that the name would stick).However, collecting all this would probably occupy me full-time, and I do not feel I am here for this. The sky probably is not going to fall on the eath if these nationalists rename all Belarusian-related articles, it 's that just this has nothing to do with the Wikipedia policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, just found this from a week ago, involving the same user.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, I think I speak for many admins when I say, I think you should be able to do as you see fit as an uninvolved admin, including but not limited to using the DS, liberally, if need be. If you feel it's time to escalate — escalate. We don't have enough admins reviewing this key topic area, during these times, especially. So, you have my support. El_C 11:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for support.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, I echo El C's support. I respect the idea that if a minority see you as involved it makes it harder for you to act as an admin in a conflict area but that doesn't mean you are involved or have acted inappropriately. We're all volunteers so if you want to take a break you should. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. I am afraid I really need a break from this activity at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: it's incredibly hard to edit in this area, and I agree with your specific wording: it can be so "poisonous" that I don't know how people like you keep it up. But your work is deeply appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The results of this consensus: English Wikipedia vs. Reality --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody apart from you expressed an opinion there as to how we should transliterate, so it is certainly not a consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think what Чаховіч Уладзіслаў means is that the result of the consensus on Belarusian transliteration on en.wp is that we use names for the Minsk Metro stations that are at variance with the Latin-script transliterations that will be actually encountered in the stations. Double sharp (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That is what was meant by the original post at the Village Pump, but what Чаховіч Уладзіслаў said above is that that position had consensus created there, when in fact nodody else expressed an opinion either way. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, that is not the interpretation my mind leapt to when I read his comment here (I interpreted "consensus" to mean the 2006 one, so pointing to the an exposé of how the results of this consensus create an absurd-seeming situation), although I can see how it could come about due to its terseness. Double sharp (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. That wasn't my initial interpretation, but you are probably right. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

When was the "consensus" adopted? Where can I read the discussion? --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

For the first time, as far as I know, here in 2006, and has been confirmed multiple times afterwards.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Just another interesting detail for community of English Wikipedia is that one of the biggest supporters of Russian system here was User:Kuban kazak using the symbol of Russian Nazi. I believe there are circumstantial evidence to assume a connection to this topic and keep it in mind during considerations of all this situation. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

How is this relevant? Do you want to say that I am related to the Russian web brigades?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I just show that the users who oppose the Belarusian naming system and support the Russian system for Belarus are somehow connected to Russia. It will be unwise for the community of English Wikipedia not to consider a possibility of Russian state involvement in its editing by some tricky means. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a very serious accusation, and you need to provide evidence or withdraw it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The obviously false (fake) statements by User:Ymblanter like Russian is still the mothertongue of 95% of the population of Belarus looks very close to disinformation campaigns to promote <...> pro-Russian propaganda. And I hope that it is hard to deny Russian nationalistic views of User:Kuban kazak, who took the most active part in so-called consensus (that is actually a messed discussion which became obsolete after issuing Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script) referred by User:Ymblanter. It look like the community of English Wikipedia feels OK with discrimination Belarusians by one particular administrator, who just use the uncertainty of current messed situation instead of trying fix it according to the latest updates. And I don't see a big difference if he acts voluntary in such way or not. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

But the official Instruction was approved only in 2007... --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I had minimized my participation in English Wikipedia long time ago, because the current situation with the names of Belarusian places here is completely insane. The inactive state of Wikipedia:WikiProject Belarus proves that I'm not the only one with such opinion. Чаховіч Уладзіслаў has provided quite enough evidence to show the whole absurdity of the Russian fairytale naming in here. So the long-term discrimination of Belarusians in English Wikipedia is a big stain of shame that is hard to wash away. All who support this situation are part of this discrimination and finally leave such "great" legacy. Think about it carefully. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Well, you guys have just zero respect for our policies and consensus-driven processes. You just know the TRUTH and do not care about anything else.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  It's false accusation as for now there is no policy or consensus Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic): "This proposal has become dormant through lack of discussion by the community". --Red Winged Duck (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody claimed it is a policy. However, it was added 14 years ago followed a discussion, and was kept there without being challenged since. This is a de-facto consensus, even if your group does not accept it. You would need to open a new RfC, announce it properly, and get consensus to introduce Lacinka. What is happening now is a guerilla war, not a process to establish consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ymblanter obviously should take a break from editing topics related to Eastern European articles as "a group of editors promoting an alternative Belarusian alphabet against consensus", "another one, belonging to the same group" and same statements are not neutral and looks like conspiracy theory rather than efforts on making Wikipedia better. All of his statements clearly show that rules need to be reviewed to reflect current situation of naming conventions in all eastern european states (at first Ukraine, Belarus mentioned here) rather than ones invented in soviet times not taking in account national language traditions. Simple example: Serbian language has both latin & cyrillic version and Wikipedia using national latin version not any way of transliteration. For obvious reasons people from Belarus and Ukraine are more intrested in topics related to these countries so calling them "some groups" does not meet Wikipedia standarts on neutrality and politeness. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree. Instead, I think some topic bans should be considered. Please apply to whomever is disrupting the project, Ymblanter. El_C 15:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  I am afraid at this point it would be considered at least by a significant minority as actions of involved admin who wants to get an advantage. Never mind I do not care what transliteration is used, I am just trying to enforce consensus and keep the policies homogeneous. The last thing I need at the moment is an ArbCom case against me for violation of ADMINACCT.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I wish I could assure you, Ymblanter. Your uninvolved admin status in this matter has not been disputed by any admin or established outside editor. I don't think an Arbitration case is likely, or if it is filed, it is unlikely to be accepted by the Committee. El_C 15:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note canvassing on the Belarusian Wikipedia [4]--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Not just canvassing, but battlegrounding: "Come help in the fight against transliteration from 1979 on the English Wikipedia". Unfortunately, Belarussian is so far removed from my own languages that I had to resort to google translate. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on that, I think a year-long topic ban to the culprit (under DS) would be appropriate, unless anyone has any objections. Clearly unacceptable behaviour. Number 57 15:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Number 57, +1 Guy (help!) 20:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Belarusian is one of a few languages (I believe along with Serbian/Croatian) where the users could not agree on the spelling and two Wikipedias had to be created. The same group of people who could not even agree with their compatriots on which spelling of Belarusian to use is consistently pushing one particular version of romanization here.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Another one important detail was skipped. The situation with two versions of Belarusian language was created artificially by Russia. So it's not about agreement between Belarusians, it's about classic divide et impera. Moreover, there is no discussion about Belarusian Latin names between Belarusian users, the official Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script (not patriotic Belarusian Latin alphabet) is accepted by the users of both Belarusian projects as a consensus for now. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Is there a consensus? The relevant page you mention is tagged as a dormant policy proposal that never went into effect. If this is the case, and there is no enforceable guidance elsewhere, that would seem to be a massive problem for a language in which there are numerous different ways to Romanize it, and the only guidance is an unofficial stale policy proposal that says to use the British/American system rather than the official Belarusian one, which seems like it would be understandably controversial to begin with. Yes we can and should sanction editors, but shouldn't we also examine the context of why this is happening and what can be done about it? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  It is a de-facto consensus which was followed by the majority of users who were willing to discuss anything for 14 years. I am not against a new discussion (see though Masem's comment below) but it has not even started.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  May be a comment I left a few days ago about a similar but completely unrelated case (no relation to anything Belarusian whatever) could be also useful to understand a general landscape of this editing area.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• At the larger problem 1) it seems odd that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) is not yet a guideline, and that should be reviewed and reassessed. and 2) as en.wiki (not ru.wiki or uk.wiki or whatever), that we're likely going to favor the Romanization spelling of odd character sets like Cyrillic as we already do with things like Japanese and Chinese to make it easier for English readers, accepting that this is not how native Russian/Ukraine/Belarus/etc. would spell it. It's one thing to incorporate the single character accent marks, but its the diacritics that are what make it harder for English readers. But that's my opinion and something to be used to establish point #1 - get that guideline actually to a guideline, at which point it becomes a no-brainer that DS on those users trying to switch to versions away from that guideline are violating. --Masem (t) 15:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, could you please describe a proper way to accept Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) as guideline as it obviously needs new discussion for every language mentioned there and maybe even split by language as it cannot be accepted for all languages at once. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Just follow the process at WP:RFC to lock it down: Add an RFC tag to the talk page, add a simple question, like "Should this document be promoted to a guideline?", and then maybe promote it at WP:CENT, WP:VPP, and if there are relevant wikiprojects in this area (yes, I know, may be tempting fate) , there too. You can explain - after setting up the RFC - that's its been a de facto guideline and you just want to formalize it now, and thus aligning with how we treat other languages (ala Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) , Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek), and several other language-specific in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions (which, only just doing a quick survey, all support romanization even if we can type out the ISO character). In other words; the current draft/essay for Cyrillic follows the same pattern and thus should be a no-brainer for consistency across WP, and thus should be trivial to keep. Then after 30 days, you'll get a neutral admin to review and close by looking at the arguments (not the !votes) to make the call. I would think that if the situation is as you describe above, you'll have a clear P&G based reason to promote this as a guideline even if the !votes are outweighed by new editors to the discussion that says "But you aren't respecting the culture of X!". --Masem (t) 16:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  Does it also apply for new discussion (per Swarm, Double sharp's comments) to create separate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Belarusian), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian) etc. or should it follow some other process? --Red Winged Duck (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Red Winged Duck: I think it is best not to bundle the discussion, as the situation will be different for each Cyrillic-script language. Separate pages for each one seem reasonable (indeed, the Ukrainian one seems to be a separate page already). Double sharp (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  (ec) I don't know enough on the differences in the languages or any official national guidance as like discussed below, but I would assume that if the Belarusian guidance is different from what the current guidance is for Cyrillic is, then yes, a separate guidance would be reasonable. You'll see we have many per-country level naming conventions, so there's no hard to that, but you still want to establish them as guidelines, ideally using the romanization approach that the other country-specific guidelines use, so that the issue that Ymblanter is fighting against doesn't have to be an issue. --Masem (t) 16:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Judging by what Swarm points out, I think a new discussion on our naming conventions for Belarusian would be a sensible way to get closer to a solution. Since the old consensus seems to be from 2006, the latest iteration of the official Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script is from 2007, and the recommendation that it be adopted as the international transliteration system for Belarusian geographical names dates from 2013, there does seem to be a good case that the old consensus needs to be relooked at due to intervening changes in the situation. Then a discussion can take place and provide a new consensus that should remain valid until the situation shifts again, regardless of what it ends up being. Double sharp (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that it would be a good idea to discuss this in good faith, but a discussion is not in good faith if there is editing going on in the background that changes things from the current consensus. As an example of this not happening we have User:Чаховіч Уладзіслаў, to whom I suggested discussing the issue here, who started a discussion but when it wasn't replied to in a few days acted as if there was consensus for the changes. This is clearly a contentious issue, so we need to take our time to discuss it properly before implementing any changes. I say all this as one of the few native English speakers with no family connection to Russia or Belarus to have attended a month-long Russian language course in Minsk (in 1978), so I'm sure anyone from either "side" who treats this as a battleground will characterise me as an enemy. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, we clearly need an agreement from all parties that changes away from the current guideline's recommendations should not be made before or while the RFC is in process, and that the eventual results of the RFC once it is closed will be respected. Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• This is just to emphasize that the scope of the problem is much broader than a handful of Belarusian nationalists disrupting our project. And now I really start unwatching articles, I will only keep my own creations on my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  If anybody would ever need my experience / subject knowledge / institutional memory in the area I will be happyto help, but I will not be patrolling the articles anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that the spelling of that city's name is something that people should be sanctioned over if they refuse to follow consensus. There have been many rename discussions which have all concluded with the spelling remaining "Kiev". The irony here is that people claim that "Kiev" is a transliterated Russian spelling. It is not: that would be "Kiyev". "Kiev" is the English spelling. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  "a handful of Belarusian nationalists disrupting our project" - nice example of this sysop "neutrality". --Red Winged Duck (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  If the shoe fits... El_C 09:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ymblanter just undid my correction claiming that Russian-language version of Kyiv name ("Киев") has to be placed along with Ukrainian-language version on the reason that Russian is spoken by significant part of the city population. If you follow this logic and want to be truly unbiased (as Ymblanter pretends here) you have to correct respectively articles about other cities with similar cases. To name specifically, Riga or Tallinn, where Russian is a language of significant part of the city population (in case of Riga not less than in Kyiv). Articles of these cities do not contain mentioning of the Russian names of the city. So, either you follow same rules to all similar cases or you recognize that you have "special rules" for Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroserhi (talk • contribs) 10:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  WP:NCGN (which is a guideline) is very clear on the subject: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages – i.e., (Template:Lang-et; Template:Lang-fi; Template:Lang-ru, Finskiy zaliv; Template:Lang-sv). Separate languages should be separated by semicolons. A suggestion that in otder to implement a guideline I should go through every page and implement it at every page I find to be honest ridiculous. Adding Russian name to Riga is certain to cause a reaction from another group of nationalists, and the whole purpose of this thread is that I can not stand this on a dily basis anymore. However, I already removed Kiev from my wtchlist, you can start edit-warring, I will not notice it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I have upgraded the protection for Kiev to extended confirmed, indefinitely (Arbitration enforcement). El_C 10:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for this one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I do not argue with guidelines (though I may disagree with some of them), but I just draw attention to Wikipedia double standards. In your response you prove to have biased attitude to specific nations. Additionally, your irresponsible branding of everyone, who disagree with your vision, as "nationalists", confirms your political motivation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euroserhi (talk • contribs) 11:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  May I please draw your attention to the fact that the Russian name was already in the article, and actually quite for some time. This is a situation different from Riga. If you imply that I am actually, in violation of WP:NPOV, push pro-Russian POV into the articles (and you would not be the first one, there is at least one more user implying the same in this very topic), this is plain bullshit. I had plenty of pro-Russian users claiming I am on the Ukrainian government payroll, for example, for not letting them to replace annexation of Crimea with voluntary accession of Crimea. The whole point is that what I was doing was to implement the policies. I do not care whether policies at this point favor pro-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, pro-Belarusian, or pro-Reptilian view. They just need to be respected. Unfortunately there are just too many people around who stop caring about policies if they are not aligned with what they want to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

An RFC has been started by User:W at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Problem with transliteration of Belarusian geographical names. Double sharp (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly about the issue (despite many attempts of the users above to imply the opposite) and would be fine with any result of the RfC, however, I feel obliged to note that the discussion so far has been dominated by users who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia (in particular, the starter has less than 50 edits total).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Welcome to the party. As you know, we've been dealing with these exact same problems (and much more) around Poland TAs - the sourcing, the reversals, the name calling, the accusations... you name it, we had it. You've seen a tiny bit of it on AE just the other week, didn't you? Well, that's how it looks from inside. François Robere (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This might not be entirely connected to the problem, but Rolando 1208 (talk · contribs) has been going around in Belarusian pages and removing Russian names. For example, at Belarusian People's Republic. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably not connected. There is a lot of quite diverse disruption ongoing in all these articles for quite a long time. And even if one manages to reason and talk to one user and to convince them to stop disruption (like the above example may show), another one soon will be back doing exactly the same things. May be indeed blank ec protection of these articles on a random version could be a partial solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is happening regularly (eg. just last week) with German place names on Polish articles, and admins know about it. François Robere (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thing is - I and the rest aren't admins - we can't deal with using the same tools you guys and gals have, it's ever more more frustrating because of that. François Robere (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Keir Starmer

Could an Admin please protect Keir Starmer. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please explain why protection is needed? From looking at the article history, few edits seem to be being reverted, especially for an article on someone who's currently in the news (by the way, WP:RFPP usually leads to quick responses from admins). Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I see three bad edits today. I would have probably semi-protect for three days if responding to a RFPP request, but I do not have a strong opinion on this, and I know many admins are less lenient on protection than I am.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

While there doesn't seem to be much vandalism their (and indeed less than you would expect) there is quite a lot of good faith mucking around with infoboxes and the short description - some of which is breaking things or conflicting with each other. Semi protection may help to slow this down. Certainly more eyes on the article would help.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, exactly my thoughts. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you El C. JMHamo (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C Noting for the record that this was also posted to RFPP at 10:02 where it was declined 4 minutes later at 10:06 by @HJ Mitchell. -FASTILY 22:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Fastily. HJ Mitchell, feel free to lift the protection if you think that's due. I have no objection and am happy to deffer to you. El_C 23:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to protect Keir Starmer. With a face like that he can protect himself. Hey there... do you come here often? François Robere (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Advertising

Tanisha priyadarshini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi admin

can someone please edit the talk page or remove that message from talkpage as he/she is advertising on talkpage and i am sure this is not allowed on Wikipedia. User:Tanisha priyadarshini

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've left a message for the editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Greg McGroarty

All of there edits recently appear to be simply to promote themselves.[5]

Any thoughts? They were warned before the block. Happy for anyone to unblock if they think this person can contribute positively. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I support this block. Obviously an appropriate unblock request could be considered but good block in my book. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. Looks like good action all around. El_C 17:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thirded, Good block. –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Endorse the block. Clear-cut promotion. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

COI and Sockpuppetry of User:CollegeMeltdown

I got suspicious about the edits of this user and decided to do some research. A quick Google search with the user's username revealed (first Google search result) that there is a blog of exactly the same title (i.e. College Meltdown) dealing with exactly the same topics this user is editing on. Behind the blog is an activist who has been campaigning and ranting against private schools and for-profit education in general for years. The more one googles and researches the blog and its owner, the more it becomes evident that there is an obvious conflict of interest. Further research revealed that user CollegeMeltdown has already edited on Wikipedia on the exactly same topics in the past under his real name and was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing (see here: [[6]]). Needless to say: A clear case of conflict of interest, sockpuppetry and block evasion as per WP:COI, WP:SOCK and WP:BE. 194.230.155.111 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Please open a case at WP:SPI. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: The alleged sockmaster hasn't edited since 2015 so I don't think an SPI will be helpful.

"Editor edits in their topics of interest" isn't the same as a conflict-of-interest. But an editor that is evading a block is usually a pretty clear problem. @CollegeMeltdown: Can you please comment on this allegation? (I don't think the unregistered editor who lodged the initial complaint notified you of this thread as he or she should have done; this ping should draw your attention to it.) ElKevbo (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@El Kevbo, I don't think my work is a conflict of interest, just a keen interest in higher education. By the way, I am getting repeated anonymous phone calls (5 today) and emails telling me not to write on Wikipedia. Information from my user page was also deleted recently (probably April 4, 2020). How can I reach out to @RoySmith @ElKevbo:CollegeMeltdown (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, RoySmith is me. You can learn pretty much everything about me that's relevant from my user page. I'm an admin, who has done some work in the sockpuppet investigation area. My suggestion to open a case at SPI is straight-forward. There was a suggestion of sockpuppetry here. The correct forum for investigating such things is WP:SPI.

It it quite disturbing that you are getting anonymous phone calls about your edits on wikipedia. I have no idea who is doing that, but to whoever it is, please know that such behavior is absolutely not tolerated and must stop immediately. As for deletions from your user page, that's not me. You can see every edit to your user page by viewing the revision history. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith, I have gotten used to anonymous threats, but it does make life more difficult. How can I reach out to you?CollegeMeltdown (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, The best way to reach me is to leave me a message on my talk page. If you have something that you feel can't be said on-wiki, you can sometimes email a user by going to their user page, and clicking on the "Email this user" link in the left-hand toolbar. The process is described at Wikipedia:Emailing users. Note that not all users have set their accounts up to allow email. I have, but I strongly prefer to communicate on-wiki, and reserve the right to not respond to any email sent to me, if for no other reason that doing so publicly exposes my own email address.

I should add that I've already alerted the arbitration committee to the off-wiki harrassment you're getting, so you may possibly be contacted by them for more information. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, @RoySmith, I continue to get threatening calls and texts, now with personal information.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Harassment, on or off Wikipedia, is unaccaptable and I hope that administrators and the foundation are able to help you; I've been on the receiving end and it really sucks. And if the unregistered editor who opened this discussion is a sockpuppet of a blocked editor then that account should also be blocked.

With all of that said, the issues raised in the original complaint appear to be legitimate and should be addressed. There is a blog that shares the name of a current Wikipedia editor, that editor edits in the exact same area that the blog focuses on, and the author of that blog was previously blocked from editing Wikipedia. So it is reasonable to ask, @CollegeMeltdown:: Do you have a connection to that blog or the banned editor? ElKevbo (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting at this point that the OP is almost definitely an IP sock of sock of Supervisor635, rather notable for their alleged harassment and off-wiki activities. I've blocked it as such. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, the harassment issue aside, the question about COI that ElKevbo raises needs to be answered. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: I am not convinced that there is a COI issue but there is a legitimate question about sockpuppetry or block evasion. ElKevbo (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes to oversight team (II)

Following a request to the committee, the Oversight permissions of HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 18:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to oversight team (II)

User:Belledoll

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents § User:Belledoll

 – Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:AIPS

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

---

Dear Friends, I've created the page Draft:AIPS in english, which is about "The Association Internationale de la Presse Sportive (AIPS)" The page is still looks as a draft only. How and when it will be published as an article in english Wikipedia ? Regards, --AgentBarsam (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

AgentBarsam, I have submitted the draft on your behalf. However, I can tell you it is unlikely to be accepted. You need references to secondary sources. I would read WP:FIRST as it will give you some great advice on how to write your first article (including improving your reference which isn't wrong but isn't what we hope for). If you have more questions like this the tea house is designed as a place where newer editors can go for advice and help. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To quote the header: This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,266 pending submissions waiting for review.. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

fabricated file from ArabEditor11786

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

---

hi muslim population according to country (2018 est) this file is fabricated so why should we trust it? the editor: ArabEditor11786 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:CD09:C800:8CD4:56E9:B5B8:572D (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Backlog at speedy F8 categories

Hello. There is a backlog of over a week for the speedy deletion categories Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. If an administrator could address these, it would be very helpful, as they are clogging up another backlog that I am currently working on. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Request to retrieve revision-deleted copy of public domain image

Hello. I need an admin to retrieve the revision deleted larger version of File:Bolivarian_Technical_Military_Academy_logo.png from English Wikipedia and upload it to the file of the same name on Commons. Many thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Uploaded to Commons and CSD F8'ed the local copy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hijiri88

• Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Black Kite blocked Hijiri88 indefintely for "Personal attacks after warnings, plus self-requested indefblock". Since self-requested blocks are normally lifted on the request of the user, there is a tension here. I think we need a collective view of how long the NPA block is, and therefore what block length should be imposed if the self-requested indef is lifted. My view is that it should be at least 3 months. Guy (help!) 08:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Normally it is 24-72 hours if the editor made those attacks likely because of pressure. This is how I see admins usually do. Also, Hijiri88 is mostly a polite editor and has made a lot of effort to help grow this project. Three much is just too much. Also, starting a discussion now while the editor is blocked looks more like gravdancing. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That is indeed often the case for "first offences", but any recidivism becomes increasingly influential in the decision-‐making process. ——SN54129 10:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• No strong opinion on the lenght, except that it shouldn't be a self-block. Hijiri88 already had a formal warning about insulting behavior from Cullen328 from March 26. To rehash: the personal attacks were strong, he called editors a bunch of filthy, repulsive degenerates who have no place describing themselves as Wikipedians and listed people who had let him down.[7] He also told people to fuck off logged-out [8]. --Pudeo (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• As blocking admin, I would simply suggest that if/when Hijiri88 is to submit an unblock request, it should be discussed here. I don't think you can say "this block is 1 week for the PAs and the rest is self-requested". The personal attacks were strong, although Hijiri's take is that they were deliberate to speed up someone blocking him. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, Yeah, the issue is that this is Hijiri88, who is by way of being a frequent flier. Guy (help!) 10:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Is there a WP precedent for this multiple sentences type of block? E.g. some kind of this editor is blocked for 1 week for edit warring, for 3 months for personal attacks, and indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE; all blocks will run concurrently. It seems formally justified but a bit over-the-top for a non-criminal proceeding. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yes; we do this kind of "indefinite block for x with a minimum of y due to z" and "discussion of the other issues is suspended unless and until an appeal against the indef block is lodged" thing all the time. Indeed, there's an example of the latter at Arbcom as we speak. ‑ Iridescent 11:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I would point to this [[9]] posted after the block (but now removed), which they even acknowledged here [[10]] "could" be seen as a PA (as well as saying they will continue to "defend themselves"). And which implies after their block they were still watching what some users were doing (and there is an implication that once unblocked they will post this screed again). Their latest post [[11]] claims such gems as "(the thread had been inactive for weeks, so it was hardly a coincidence)", in fact it had been reopened by Hijiri88 themselves [[12]] and at no time is there more than a 4 day gap (or not even 1 week) between any one post.As well as continued accusations of grave Dancing (based on the above falsehood), in fact they posted everyday after their "retirement" until their block (once in breach of an IBAN). So they continue to play the victim card, even though if they had not re-opened that ANI this would have been over with a couple of weeks ago, without them being blocked or "having" to retire (or anyone "grave dancing"). Moreover they continue to comment on their talk page about issues unrelated to their block, on the grounds its not a real block.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit sad to see this. Although this self-destruct has seemed inevitable for a while now, I always had some sympathy for Hijiri. When it comes to arguments about article work, he was right 98% of the time. And he absolutely did get ganged up on by people who thought it was terrifically funny to poke and poke and poke him until he exploded. Reyk _YO! 13:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think that it would be improper to take any action with respect to this block in the absence of an appeal by Hijiri88. Our practice is to review sanctions only on the request of the sanctioned editor. I agree that any unblock request should be subject to review by an administrator as with any involuntary block. Sandstein 14:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  I would normally be agreeing with you Sandstein regarding third party appeals. Except that's not what this is. The initial question was whether this was a community block already. My take on Black Kite's reply is that it was and so should not be reviewed by any administrator without community consensus to unblock. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is this [[13]] "Gotta preface this: I consider my present block to be a self-block, and therefore consider myself to be free to continue to use my talk page as I see fit" accompanied by [[14]] "request for my block log to be amended to make this a purely self-requested block". The question is is this interpretation correct. Or is this in fact a substantive block, and if so how long for?.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. And I take Black Kite's response I would simply suggest that if/when Hijiri88 is to submit an unblock request, it should be discussed here. to mean that the interpretation is not correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Then someone should tell him before he digs himself an even deeper hole. Because it will be very hard to justify an unblock if he continues to (in effect) ignore it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, just so. Guy (help!) 18:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, I think Hijiri88 needs to step away from the talk page - if they're going to be watching and contributing, then they should have the self-block removed and appeal the PA block in the normal way. Otherwise, they need to stop using their talk page for non-unblock-related things, as is normal for blocked editors. They can't have it both ways (blocked but still contributing from the sidelines via talk page). creffett (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor's opinion: this is not a self-block per se. This is a block because the user intentionally violated WP:NPA in order to be blocked. That's the equivalent of arguing that shoplifting from a convenience store in order to be arrested so you can spend a cold winter night in jail is "self-imposed" and they can be released whenever they ask.

That said, this does not appear to be a community imposed block, so a simple unblock request would be all he needs. Though at this point, he's unlikely to find an admin willing to do so until he backs off and leaves the site alone for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it's certainly not a community block. There was no discussion with a consensus to indefblock. However, neither, as a number of people have agreed above, is it entirely a self-block, as Hijiri purposefully violated NPA a number of times which would have been blockworthy (though not indefinite) on their own. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Well given this I think this thread should be shutdown then as Sandstein indicated (and apologies from me to him about this). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• It should just be treated like any other preventative indef. I see no reason to complicate things by trying to interpret it as a "temporary preventative block within an indefinite voluntary block". The blocking admin seems to have clarified that there is no such intent. Perhaps the lack of an expiry was partially motivated by the blocked user's own request, but I don't see how that means that the user should be automatically unblocked after some arbitrary period of "time served". WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY seems relevant. An indef is not some draconian measure that we must rectify, it merely requires the user to request an unblock, which I note is not some unreasonable "game" but rather straightforward. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Unban request by User:Alexiulian25

This user is requesting a reversal of the community ban imposed here. A previous review in April 2017 was not officially closed but showed a very clear consensus to retain the ban. Alexjulian25 has requested that his appeal be posted to an administrative noticeboard via UTRS, and so I am posting their last unblock appeal below:

I'm really sorry for what I did and I can make you sure I'll not do it again. I understand what I was ban for and I will make more productive contributions instead. I intend to contribute at the encyclopedia because I really like to do it. I want to improve Romanian football and create usefull articles as I did before. Also I want to ask an administrator to copy my appeal to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard where it can be addressed by the community.

I assume my mistakes and I hope you can understand me.

Thank you!

A CU check shows Alexjulian25 as the only user on his current IP. Please indicate below whether you support or oppose unblocking this account. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose My usual - I don't see a clear explanation that they understand what they did wrong, and after looking at the discussion which led to a CBAN, there's a lot to account for (primarily the edit-warring, PAs, and socking). creffett (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Yep, creffet is absolutely right - particularly the PAs and socking. They aren't inherently hostile to the encyclopedia, but their previous editing was both somewhere between rude and hostile to other editors and not contributory to a better wikipedia. I'm usually pretty rope-happy on this timescale, but too many weighty aspects not considered. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• After looking at the previous record (I wasn't familiar before I saw this appeal), the ban discussion, the UTRS tickets and the user's talk page, I'm not confident that the user has the ability to return and be a competent and helpful member of the community. I don't question a degree of sincerity in their requests, but as I look at the language of the requests, I see desire to come back but I don't see a full understanding and acceptance of why they were banned to begin with. I find the overwhelming number of requests underwhelming in their content. Because of that, I would Oppose unbanning at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above - I did want to support however I'm not seeing any understanding from this user. their block log as well as the various things listed at the last unblock also put me off support unblocking and I fear if unblocked they'd gradually return to the behaviour that got them indeffed in the first place. –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Unable to Edit Talk:Main Page ?

Hi, I am trying to start a discussion on Talk:Main Page, but I can't seem to find any place to add a section (is that because it is split up?) or edit the page? Thanks. 2601:181:C381:6C80:8803:458B:250C:70F8 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The page is currently protected from editing by users who are not autoconfirmed due to disruption. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it's semi-protected I'm afraid; usually we have a sub page for unregistered comments in that situation. ——SN54129 19:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki-wide database problems

I know this isn't really AN material, but wanted to spread the word. If you're getting weird errors when editing a page, see T249565. I'm sure the devs are in full panic mode by now and don't need to be distracted with more tickets and emails reporting the problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Indeed, "full panic mode" sounds pretty right. The issue is under control, but there will likely be interwiki issues for a bit while the database table is being rebuilt DannyS712 (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is mostly being discussed at WP:VPT#Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Boris Johnson missing interwikies

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T249565

Can someone have a look at the interwikies for boris Johnson. And maybe the Wikidata item as well? Breg Pmt (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a technical issue ongoing at the moment which is affecting inter-wiki links. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)