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	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	32	0	32
TfD	0	1	6	0	7
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	68	0	68
AfD	0	0	3	0	3

• 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 user-reported username for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 8 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 121 sockpuppet investigations
• 12 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 11 Fully protected edit requests
• 5 Candidates for history merging
• 61 requests for RD1 redaction
• 33 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 30 requested closures
• 118 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 19 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (26 out of 8324 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:Magnolia677 2024-08-31 22:32 2024-09-10 22:32 edit,move Acroterion Draft:Terminator (fanfic) 2024-08-31 21:45 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Just Step Sideways Sergey Lavrov 2024-08-31 20:50 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Oleksii Mes 2024-08-31 20:46 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Pepe Julian Onziema 2024-08-31 03:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and WP:GENSEX Daniel Case Bryant & Stratton College 2024-08-31 01:06 2025-08-31 01:06 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts, long-term issue, possible gaming going on Just Step Sideways Dhahar 2024-08-30 22:26 2026-08-30 22:26 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Jordan Raskopoulos 2024-08-30 21:39 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case 2024 Red Sea oil spill 2024-08-30 21:30 2025-08-30 21:30 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA Ymblanter Kurdistan Region 2024-08-30 18:45 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/KURD enforcement; topic is under an extended-confirmed restriction Firefangledfeathers Ranjith (director) 2024-08-30 13:43 2024-09-13 13:43 edit,move Persistent vandalism Jake Wartenberg Qing dynasty 2024-08-30 02:36 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: given recent edits to the talk page by an autoconfirmed sock belong to the same sock farm, ECP is still necessary here Sir Sputnik Rajbhar 2024-08-30 02:24 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Anousone Xaypanya 2024-08-30 00:19 2024-09-30 00:19 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Talk:Usuário(a):Luhend 2024-08-29 05:10 2024-09-05 05:10 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Palestinian traditional costumes 2024-08-28 23:23 2025-02-28 23:23 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Somali Civil War 2024-08-28 23:21 2024-09-04 23:21 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User:Dennis Brown/WMF 2024-08-28 23:20 indefinite edit,move Dennis Brown 2024 Israeli military operation in the northern West Bank 2024-08-28 20:31 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Kedarkheda 2024-08-28 20:23 2024-09-28 20:23 move Move warring: per RFPP Daniel Case Rescue of Qaid Farhan Al-Qadi 2024-08-28 20:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:R sect 2024-08-28 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:GHS exclamation mark 2024-08-28 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Netzarim Corridor 2024-08-28 15:28 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish 2008 Israel–Hezbollah prisoner exchange 2024-08-28 15:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Nori Bunasawa 2024-08-28 07:57 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Novem Linguae

Off-wiki brigading regarding Uyghur genocide- and Chinese Communist Party-related topics

Hello. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate board for this (and if it isn't, please summarily close this/move this to another board), though I don't really know where else to post this considering that likely applies to a number of pages and it contains information on off-wiki brigading that is being planned by a the subreddit /r/genzedong on articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide and the Chinese Communist Party.

1. As far as I can tell, the brigading has been ongoing since a little over 5 months ago when a redditor by the username of /u/FuckedByRailcars, who describes themself as an Undercover commie wikipedian here noted that they had an extended-confirmed account. The user called upon others to join them to defend the motherland and noted that they knew that doing so would be in violation of wikipedia policies.
2. The discussions of making edits to wikipedia on the subreddit have accelerated in recent weeks. One month ago, a post was made that encouraged individuals to sign-up and edit random wikipedia articles in order to gain edits (and privileges) on the site, with the eventual goal of coordinating a campaign to remove what the OP and their fellow brigadiers deem "anti-Chinese bias". The editor also encouraged individuals to reach out to them in order to facilitate this stated goal (which seems to be improper off-wiki communication).
3. Discussions on the subreddit have alleged that Horse Eye's Back, myself, and oranjelo100 are CIA shills. Other comments in the thread note from members of the subreddit have stated that we've made a decade long mistake with wikipedia. we should have targeted admin roles there. now we're fucked and trying to catch from behind and Let’s start editing it 👍.
4. More recently, the subreddit has discussed trying to infiltrate wikipedia and redditors appear to have responded with interest. One redditor stated that the would have a discord server and kick ass project name for a psy op that can be this influential.

I'm a good bit concerned about what this means regarding the potential for tenditious editing in the topic area, which is obviously an issue of international political controversy. I also would not be surprised, owing to the timing of the posts on the subreddit, if the subreddit has been the source of brigading IP that have engaged in personal attacks against me and other editors. The subreddit also appears to be actively monitoring edits in the area (tagging Chipmunkdavis since they are also targeted in this post), and appears to think that there's a CIA conspiracy to make the page the way it is. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed, though I'm generally concerned regarding the potential for this sort of coordinated brigading to move articles away from compliance with WP:NPOV in line with tendentious goals. I'm especially concerned regarding the comments that appear to want to target admin roles and specific articles, and I wanted to post this here to see if any admins have suggestions for a way forward in light of the evidence of coordinated brigading. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I'd forgotten about those pages. I'm not really involved in this area, my edits in the above images part of a larger clean-up, but the pages in question could definitely use a lot more eyes. This off-wiki canvassing possibly relates to the accounts that popped up at Radio Free Asia last month (previous ANI discussion). CMD (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I think you’re mostly involved in this through sockpuppet work, Ineedtostopforgetting is one of the main POV pushers in that space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering the allegations against User:Oranjelo100 in the subreddit, which Mikehawk10 mentions, it's a little worrying that Oranjelo has recently been indeffed per this ANI thread. They have responded, but without using the unblock template. (We know templates are alarming.) I have now put their comment into a template so it'll be considered. Perhaps somebody would like to review it ASAP, or possibly unblock them for the purpose of replying here? Pinging Drmies, the blocking admin. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC).

That is actually a little worrying, I hadn’t thought much of it at the time (probably because Oranjelo can be a bit annoying) but a few of the editors who wanted to deep six them I hadn’t seen around those parts before and I felt that the proposal was just odd given the zero block history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should be taken a look at, although the participants in the community review look mostly like long-term active editors to me.

Regarding the proposal, it was an admin who had suggested the CBAN route to me in such situations because of the long tenure and type of issues. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to cast shade on you or other editors who voted for a CBAN, there was a clear case for it. I just wish an admin had blocked them at least once over the years, I never got the feeling that they realized they were over the line. As Dmries said with no defense they dug their own grave and the many people Oranjelo100 pissed off can definitely explain why so many people chimed in against them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Unfortunately, WP:CBANs are a bit harder to overcome than a normal block. Needs community approval at its own discussion. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't help Oranje100; they dug their own grave. That discussion was open for eight days, and many of the "aye" votes are from longterm users--it was hardly a reddit-inflected sock fest. Having said that, obviously this is a matter of grave concern, but the Oranje100 ban is another matter. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t a new thing... Its been going on for a while and has tainted a number of discussions (particularly around whether or not mainland Chinese sources are WP:RS), [1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This is pretty concerning, and may explain the several new editors that appeared almost weekly at Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 6 and Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 7 for example.

Are there appropriate remedies for this beside increased admin attention? General sanctions? In this area, I think that currently there is just WP:AFLG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, nothing has gone to arbitration on this more broadly thus far. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Actually, the more I look at this, the more I think that this ANI thread should be reopened. There was considerable support for a WP:CBAN owing to WP:NOTHERE, and this sort of stuff might make those who were on the fence tip towards supporting some sort of sanction. Is there a way to request administrative review of the thread regarding whether there was a consensus on the issue?

My alternative idea would be to make a proposal that imposes a semi-protection on all articles/templates related to Uyghurs and/or Xinjiang, broadly construed, though I don't know what the right venue would be to propose that. If we're getting organized brigading and clear efforts to coordinate POVPUSHing, it might be the most narrowly tailored approach for now, though the members of the self-described psy op seems to be sophisticated enough to understand that they can edit other articles to get around this limit pretty quickly. I know that this is something typically done by ARBCOM, but I don't see any immediate reason why the community couldn't decide to impose it (via consensus) without going to arbitration. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I worry about restricting access or trying to identify “infiltrators” or whatever those guys want to be... We have to be careful to avoid a red scare or dissuading good faith wikipedia editors who are socialists or communists from participating in the topic area by giving the idea that they are unwelcome. Semi-protection might be an option, but as you said there are ways around that and I don’t think thats new editors/IPS who would be restricted from editing are causing major issues at the moment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I also don't think we have evidence to connect specific editors to particular users of /r/GenZedong (as of yet), and I'm not sure that doing so would be in line with wikipedia policies anyway. My worry is more that they are... continuously monitoring (archive) the discussion on the topic and also my talk page (archive). My point regarding protection is more that a semi-protection doesn't really impose a burden on legitimate editors (on these topics), while it puts up a barrier to IP vandalism that we've seen (both on talk pages and in articles). Additionally, I think that the ANI complain should probably have been given a close rather than turned into an archive, and I am wondering if an admin could review it.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My first guess would be that someone is simply monitoring your contributions, hence for example the activity on the Chen Weihua article you created just over a week ago. While I don't have a link to hand right now, I remember there has previously been discussion about discretionary sanctions for China/Hong Kong/Taiwan related articles, with there being no agreement that there has been enough disruption to implement such measures. (I haven't seen that much IP vandalism, but again I don't actually edit much in this area.) CMD (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mitchen Mackvid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) certainly needs a block promptly... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's been blocked by Canterbury Tail. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As an additional heads up, the users now seem to have targeted (archive) Horse Eye's Back and are attempting (archive) to falsely smear the editor as a paid contractor. There also appears to have been some coordination beginning at least 8 months ago at /r/sino (archive), including the creation of a discord server to protect the image of China in Wikipedia, both professionally and swiftly. The same subreddit has attacked (archive) Amigao for their past edits, while other posts on the subreddit may have inspired additional brigading in related areas (such as the article for Adrian Zenz.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be escalating, we may need to 30/500 the whole space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

To add onto these findings, it looks like the recent move discussion regarding Uyghur Genocide was also brigaded by /r/aznidentiy. Overall, it looks like there is a lot of brigading on this sort of stuff, including brigading that targets talk pages. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• One of them in a previous thread raised concerns about if several admins here would send messages to Reddit admins about the brigading from that subreddit and getting it shut down. The implication was that something like that had happened before for some other subreddit? Either way, it's an interesting idea. Since their threads and actions are a pretty clear violation of the Reddit TOS (not to mention our own rules here). Silverseren^C 06:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There has been a lot of activity today I've noted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting (mentioned above), and I thought it was just following me around, however one new account has appeared to revert both myself and the article S. Ramadoss, which I have never edited but Mikehawk10 has (and it is a revert of their edit). That, and the diversity of related IP addresses, makes me feel it may be related to this situation. CMD (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Semi-protect articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for a period 1 year

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

---

As has been shown above, there are multiple off-wiki communities that have engaged in targeted brigading of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide, and others that have engaged in brigading on other topics sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party. These include several reddit communities that have formed discord servers for the purpose of promoting their point-of-view on these pages, as well as twitter users with relatively large followings. Editors have been made the subject of personal attacks, and this off-wiki behavior appears to be resulting in a lot of article editing and commenting on talk pages that screams WP:NOTHERE. I propose that all articles (and their respective talk pages) (amended per below discussion) relating to the Uyghur genocide, broadly construed, be semi-protected for a period of one-year in order to prevent additional damage to the project that this brigading causes and will continue to cause if these pages are left unprotected. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Semi-protection of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for 1 year

• Support retract as nominator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Firstly, while there's evidence of upvoted reddit posts encouraging brigading, this shouldn't itself lead to either semi or 30/500. Is there evidence several wiki pages and discussions have actually and persistently been disrupted, far greater than is the norm in other topics (noting that many topic areas occasionally experience canvassing and brigading and require no such strong measures)? Is there evidence normal community processes (ie ANI and NOTHERE blocks) are unable to handle the excess workload caused by the disruption? If the answer to both these questions suggests further measures are required, I think it'd be better to allow admins to, at their discretion, more freely protect pages they believe are of concern, similar to WP:GS/PAGEANT, rather than a blanket protection of a topic area as proposed, which will probably result in unnecessary protections. Talk page protection should be employed conservatively on single pages and for no longer than necessary; even WP:ARBPIA4 doesn't restrict the talk namespace. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Fair point regarding the talk space. My thought was to bring this in line with the recent discussion on COVID-19 misinformation, though that conversation is much more narrowly tailored than this one. I've amended the proposal to exclude the talk space. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal: place the Uyghur genocide and any articles relating to it, WP:Broadly construed, under community discretionary sanctions

What it says on the thin. This would be a first step to allow uninvolved administrators to dispense adequate actions when required. Or it could alternatively be sent to ArbCom for resolution by motion, though at this stage the disruption mostly appears to be from mostly NOTHERE accounts so it maybe does not require ArbCom intervention. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: how would one send it to ArbCom for resolution by motion? Would this be after community discretionary sanctions are imposed, or would this be in lieu of this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: In lieu of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: Honestly, I think that ArbCom might be a good option at this point. There appear to be a lot of WP:NOTHERE accounts that have popped up in this space, and this is probably going to be a mess even with community discretionary sanctions if we don't address that issue. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: In that case there's nothing stopping you from making a case request there. I have only very minimal involvement in this (having noticed only one sock recently while patrolling something else), so I guess you or somebody else would be the person with the most relevant background to make a coherent request so it can be dealt with minimum fuss by ArbCom. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Makes sense. Thank you for your time on this; I'll stop pestering you with questions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Would it be appropriate to ping the users who have contributed to the discussion above but haven't specifically commented on this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support community discretionary sanctions. I believe that this is much more narrowly tailored than my (withdrawn) proposal and it would allow for additional administrative oversight in the area, though I do have concerns that this may not be enough at the current moment. However, it's certainly a step in the right direction, so I will give it my support. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support due to persistent disruption from new accounts, particularly the deletion of references and repeated addition of poorly sourced material in many Wikipedia articles within this field. Homemade Pencils (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose portion of my comment above applies here too. Discretionary sanctions should not be applied lightly, or solely because a topic area is experiencing (or has experienced) disruption. Probably every topic area on Wikipedia has experienced some degree of disruption at one point or another over the past 20 years. Community discretionary sanctions should be authorised when the volume/nature of disruption is too much for WP:ANI to handle, or where there's a need for admins to skip steps in the protection policy when protecting pages. There needs to be clear evidence presented that these measures are necessary, and that existing measures are insufficient. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This appears to be an area where easier access to administrative action would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• I haven't read the whole thread, so don't put much stock in this, but I'd rather not add another DS/GS category right as ArbCom is trying to rework the system. Like PR was saying, there are a lot of hot-button issues that experience disruption when in the news cycle, but generally these can be handled through our existing policies and tools. Would it be enough to just tell admins to be aware of this situation and keep it in mind when determining protection and block durations? I'd even be open to more specific restrictions similar to 4/10 or 30/500 protecting the area or central articles, but a general sanctions regime feels too bulky for the problem. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible new tool/technique/procedure

I would like to discuss a possible addition to the "bag of tricks" an admin can use to deal with various situations. I am not advocating the following. I am asking whether the idea has merit.

Normally when a page is semiprotected, nonconfirmed users get an automatic invitation to make a semiprotected edit request. For the vast majority of pages that is well and good. Alas, certain pages are the targets of off-wiki campaigns. Most recently OpIndia and the Discovery Institute have launched such campaigns, but it has been an ongoing issue. The sign of this happening is new user after new user flooding the talk page with near-identical semi-protected edit requests, none of which even attempt to follow the...

"This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. 'Please change X' is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'."

...instructions.

I propose that on selected talk pages we disable the automatic creation of edit requests and instead send the unconfirmed user to an edit window with a new section on the article talk page. I wouldn't want just anyone to be allowed to do this to a semiprotected talk page, so I would like to make this something an administrator would do.

My first question is, is this a good idea or a bad idea?

If the answer is "good idea", what are the nuts and bolts of making this happen? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're suggesting that on the talk pages of certain semi-protected articles, a non-confirmed user attempting to make am edit request would be forced to provide the required full statement of what is being requested. Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

No. They're simply suggesting the removal of the edit notice on certain semi protected pages. The edit notice includes a button to make an edit request. It makes it easier to make an edit request and explains what you're supposed to do including saying editors need to make a full statement of what is being requested. Incomplete or unclear edit requests are generally rejected but the problem with these sort of pages isn't so much this although many such edit requests are incomplete. The problem is even if the edit request is complete, it's something already rejected 100 times over and clearly lacks consensus. The message does explain that edit requests are only for simple or uncontroversial changes and to make sure there's no discussion, but such messages are either not understood or ignored. If editors here are still confused about what Guy Macon is referring to, I suggest they check our a semi protected page like Chauvinism without being logged in e.g. private mode in their browser. If not an admin, they can also check out a fully protected page like Jordan Lawson as the template on the page (but not the edit request) is very similar. The hope seems to be the removal or change of the edit notice will make it less likely editors will make useless edit requests since they will need to figure out how to find the talk page and post. (Well to make an actual edit request they will also need to figure out how to use the template but frankly for the sort of pages and edits Guy Macon seems to be referring to, I don't think it matters if the template is used. I'm fairly sure most of them are dealt with by page watchers rather than those looking into the cat or whatever.) The whole point of the edit notice is to encourage edit requests by making it easier for editors to figure out how to make them, but this is maybe undesirable with a small number of pages. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Here are some examples:

[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

All of the above were handled by the editors on the talk page.

They should have been normal comments, not edit requests.

There was no need to needlessly fill up the edit requests category with the above requests.

The user should not have seen a button to make an edit request.

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's assume that we have a consensus to take away the edit request button on the minecraft talk page (looking at the examples above I don't see how anyone could oppose that). How would that work? Is it even possible, or is it "baked in" to the Wikimedia software? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This could be done with a protection notice. Examples here. I think any user with tboverride rights can create one of these. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, nobody has come out and said it was a bad idea, so I am requesting that the edit notice that creates a button that generates extended-confirmed-protected edit requests on Talk:Minecraft be removed. There are a couple of other talk pages that are being flooded with edit requests but I would like to see how taking away the button works on the Minecraft talk page first. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'll take care of it if nobody gets to it before I can log in to my admin account, I agree it's worth a try. A while back I recall asking about an edit filter for empty edit requests, but I can't find the request now and it's possible I just dreamt it. So, how about an edit filter to block empty edit requests, or to throttle too-short requests on pages with heavy request activity, or something like that? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  On second thought, there have not been any edit requests on that page in over a week, and the two that have appeared since April 24 have both been in good faith. Is there a page currently experiencing a problem we could try this on? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think you are going to find a page with 100% bad edit requests. The question is not whether nonconfirmed users sometimes make good suggestions but rather whether they will continue to do so if you take away the button, and whether the suggestions are responded to by those who are watching the talk page or by someone summoned from the list of unanswered edit requests. How about replacing the button that creates an edit request with one that simply opens a new section on the talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This suggestion and especially its background cross off one of my personal WP-mysteries regarding the vast amount of empty or severely incomplete edit requests. I had no idea that's how it worked. I cannot but support something like what Guy Macon is floating. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are some examples on other pages:[13][14][15][16][17] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

So, should I post an RfC on each individual talk page that is being flooded with edit requests because of our "one click" button? Or can we just try it on the Minecraft talk page and see how it works out for us? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow. another one.[18][19] What a shock. Who could have predicted that this would happen? Related: Attractive nuisance doctrine. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not strictly opposed to removing the click-and-save method of spamming help requests for high-trafficked pages (and/or pages that are repeatedly spammed) but I haven't had an opportunity to look into the issue enough to know exactly how to enact that. I feel like it would need to be a dev-level change. I also feel like it should be required that any such changes be logged somewhere, so that there is a record of currently-active we've-removed-functionality articles and pages. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The entire edit request system is built using local templates and modules, so this can be done locally. In fact, any template editor, page mover or admin can override the entire message shown when editing a specific protected page by creating "Template:Editnotices/Protection/<page name>". Just to make sure I understand the proposal correctly, it's proposing that the "submit an edit request" button omits the usual preload and editintro and just goes to the same place as clicking "New section" on the talk page? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I suppose then clarification would be indeed needed, because I wasn't necessarily referring to the specific "request an edit" template that we use (I do know how to do that) but rather the page message that is displayed when an IP tries to edit a protected page (at the very least, it feels like it would be in the MediaWiki: namespace) but I don't know where it is or how it's set up. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

That message is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. That MediaWiki page first checks if it is transcluded a cascade-protected page other than itself (and produces no output if so; the message that one sees when trying to edit a cascade-protected page is MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected). Then, it checks to see if the appropriate protection notice exists, and if so calls it, and if not produces a standard message based on the level of protection (Template:Protected page text/semi for semi-protected pages, Template:Protected page text/extendedconfirmed for extended-confirmed-protected pages, etc) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That is my request. As I wrote before, "How about replacing the button that creates an edit request with one that simply opens a new section on the talk page?" --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at implementing the technical side of this. First, an admin needs to carry out my request at Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021, and then any template editor, page mover, or admin can carry out this proposal by creating the appropriate editnotice (for Minecraft: Template:Editnotices/Protection/Minecraft) with {{subst:manual edit requests}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Template talk edit request

May we please have an admin evaluate Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021 and either accept it or reject it? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Ayurveda just got protected, and now Talk:Ayurveda is being flooded with edit requests by editors who did not follow the "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it" instructions. That button is an Attractive Nuisance.[20] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum is WP:NOTHERE

On 14 February 2021‎, Solavirum was topic banned from any pages or discussions relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan (WP:ARBAA2), broadly construed. He had been misusing categories on several articles, adding Category:Armenian war crimes on several pages that had no sources for war crimes and just obviously weren't[21][22][23][24][25] and adding Category:Massacres of men and Category:Massacres of women on articles where people weren't targeted for their gender[26] (article has since been deleted). In addition, Solavirum also made a genocide denial comment about the Armenian Genocide: "a century-old genocide, which happened because of the Armenian revolts, which happened because of the rising Armenian nationalism". For those unfamiliar with the subject, blaming Armenians civilians for non-existent revolts is a common form of Armenian Genocide denial. Per WP:NORACISTS, this was a strong indicator that Solavirum is WP:NOTHERE.

Less than a month after being topic banned, Solavirum was blocked for two weeks on 7 March 2021 for discussing the subject on his talk page and asking another user to make WP:PROXYING edits for him.[27][28] He was also given a warning by the topic ban enforcer El C not to test WP:BROADLY ("Don't even mention the topic area in any way, whatsoever."). One week ago, Solavirum violated his topic ban again by writing "30,000+ buildings and 250+ villages burnt to the ground by the Greek military and Greek/Armenian rebels" on the Turkish War of Independence article,[29] in addition to several other edits on this Armenia related article and it's talk page. Solavirum was citing an unreliable source from infamous Armenian Genocide denier Justin McCarthy, including for claims of Turkish civilian deaths being over 42 times higher than what the previously cited source said. He not only violated his topic ban yet again, for which he was given another two week block, but also again showed that he is simply not here to help build an encyclopedia, just to push an WP:UNDUE agenda. --Steverci (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum has not edited since they have been blocked, and it is unclear why Steverci (who already complained about this decision previously, without success [30]) decided to bring this up. However, what Wikipedia certainly can benefit from is indefinite topic-ban of Steverci. They have already been topic-banned for years, unbanned recently after a successful AE appeal and, apparently, decided to get all their opponents topic-banned so that they can do whatever they want. They are currently edit-warring at Shusha [31] [32]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I see now that Drmies, the blocking admin, advised them to come here [33]. I am however still of the opinion that it does not make sense to discuss Solavirum until they edit again, and that Steverci editing in the Armenian-Azerbaijani topics do not improve the encyclopedia. They clearly consider Wikipedia as a battleground.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I wrote this at the suggestion of @Drmies: who said there should be separate discussions for topic ban violations and a user being NOTHERE. --Steverci (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I suggested that because Steverci was a bit unhappy with the admittedly mild two-week block. I really don't have much of an opinion on the matter. I have not seen any evidence that Steverci is incapable of editing neutrally, and while I think they were a bit forward in pressing for a longer or more serious sanction, I don't think that this is some sort of vendetta, and I don't support a topic ban for them. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that there's a pattern of Steverci filing enforcement requests in order to win a content dispute by getting banned editors he disagrees with. This is a frivolous enforcement case he flied on me after we had a disagreement: [34] Also, it would be good if admins checked his editing against consensus on BLP article about well known South Caucasus expert Thomas de Waal. Adding extremely partisan sources in criticism section without consensus at talk with other involved editors is not in line with WP:BLP rules. A third opinion at talk would also be appreciated. Grandmaster 00:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: I deleted the entire section. It's possible that some of its content belongs at Black Garden, but accusations that he's distorting the truth and spewing propaganda are obviously in violation of BLP policy. The reviews section needs to be moved to the article on the book as well, if you'd be willing to do that, as it's not about him personally. Jr8825 • Talk 01:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank for your assistance with resolution of the problem with that article. I will move reviews to the article about the book, and will only mention that his book is award winning, and generally received positive reviews, if that's ok.

But that is not the only instance of POV editing and edit warring by Steverci. Please check his recent reverts at Shusha, mentioned by Ymblanter. The source Steverci refers to says: In an interview, Arkady Ter-Tatevosian, the Armenian commander who masterminded the capture of Shusha, blamed the burning of the town on aggrieved Armenian citizens living in neighbouring Stepanakert who had endured months of Azerbaijani shelling. "The [Armenian] Karabakhis have a very bad habit, a superstition, of burning houses, so the enemy cannot return". Steverci twice removed the part where it said that the houses were burned to prevent enemy population from returning, even though that's exactly what the source says, and he himself included that source, selectively quoting it. [35] [36] Please check his edit summaries, a clear example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. How acceptable is that? Steverci returned from the topic ban, but I do not see that his behavior changed significantly. Grandmaster 07:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

As I explained on the edit summary and talk page, those are two conflicting reasons (aggrieved reaction or strategic superstition), and the source doesn't also mention them in the same sentence. It's also not encyclopdic to assume what the civilians could've been thinking, and is currently reads very awkwardly. De Waal is also not a great source to go into this much detail, because he is known both for his pro-Azeri bias and for selectively quoting interviews. --Steverci (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I made the enforcement case against you primarily because you made an edit falsely attributing the claims of two Turkish and Azeri analysts to the third-party source RFE/RL, and even referred to them as "RFE/RL experts" despite them having no affiliation. This was rather identical to how Solavirum was adding as many negative categories for Armenian articles as he could. In both cases, the user was either too preoccupied with their agenda to notice they were wrongly attributing something, or they just didn't care. --Steverci (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"but accusations that he's distorting the truth and spewing propaganda are obviously in violation of BLP policy." I doubt that. When historians or journalists are accused of distorting the truth, it is often part of a valid concern on historicity. That a book won awards does not mean it does not contain propaganda. Dimadick (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Please have a read of the only English source that was provided and tell me whether you think it meets WP:BLPRS, or whether it's just a nationalist rant. I suspect the these partisan sources were added to the biography in order to insert contentious labels and loaded language that disparage the man, so as to undermine editors citing his book elsewhere... do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources (my emphasis). His book is clearly highly thought of by mainstream academia (I looked through the reviews on JSTOR and in standard RS media, expecting to find that he was being held up by one faction of AA2 editors because his book favours their side... I didn't find anything, the reviews were all glowing and calling it the most important work on the conflict in recent years)... do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all, beware of ... biased, malicious ... content. I don't mean to insult you by quoting BLP at you, but yes, repeating a fringe viewpoint on a journalist's biography, that they're out to maliciously manipulate the truth and disguise their doing so, is a clear violation of BLP. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the reviews section of the book... if it gets past WP:FRINGE. Jr8825 • Talk 22:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for Steverci

Per WP:BOOMERANG, Steverci is indefinitely topic-banned from Armenian-Azerbaijani topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• You base this proposal claiming I "decided to get all [my] opponents topic-banned", as if I had any power over that. Those were the decisions of other admins based on the actions of those users. I remember when I reported a user that was very obviously openly canvassing, you made a personal attack against me. Why have you been so hostile to me ever since my topic ban was removed? --Steverci (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Because what you are doing is not improving an encyclopedia. You have clearly taken one side and promote the interests of this side does not matter what, treating Wikipedia as a battleground.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  You're the one throwing around accusations like "They are interested in removing as many people as possible from the oppose party, and to bring there as many people from their own party, so that after several screens would have been written, no reasonably impartial user could join, and the discussion is doomed to be closed as not done. Or possibly not even closed, just archived at some point. This is the tactics used pretty much in all these discussions." I don't make this accusation lightly, but it seemed that you wanted to sanction me instead since months ago out of some personal issue. It's weird, because I had remembered you being fair and reasonable. I've been doing my best to edit a lot better since being unbanned, and have been doing a pretty good job despite editing in contentious topics. --Steverci (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  I do not think I have any personal issues with you, at least I can not recollect any. It is difficult not to see however that you are engaged in edit-warring and you consistently try to eliminate the users you disagree with rather than to discuss with them (yes, I know, consensus in these topic is not possible, but you all should attempt at some kind of agreement rather than an open edit-warring). I do not think this is what you have been unbanned for. I see however that this discussion has the potential of turning into one more Armenian-Azerbaijani battle so that nobody would read it, let alone of taking a reasonable decision based on it. Sometimes I think that all warriors from both sides must be just topic-banned en masse, but may be we are not yet ready for this decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  I probably should apologize because I indeed do not know what is in your head and what your intentions really are. You should understand however that for an uninvolved user your actions look exactly like this, whatever you intended to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support.--Renat 23:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci: A week ago Drmies blocked Solavirum and now you ask Drmies to participate in this discussion and say that you were only following the advice and "luck wasn't very good"? It is not suppose to be about testing someone's luck or getting rid of editors using the most convenient way. Also, Steverci, do you know who is "emailing administrators expressing the desire to negotiate blocks"?--Renat 02:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Steverci: I agree with Ymblanter, opening up yet another case against this editor indicates a battleground mentality. You very recently brought a case against them here and they received a ban, further chasing things is simply tendentious WP:HOUNDING. I get it, you think their contributions are a net negative to the topic – you've expressed this view many times before – but the difficulty (and a requirement) of editing in a controversial area is learning to accept and work productively with editors who you fundamentally disagree with. I don't support a topic ban because I appreciate you've worked hard to contribute positively since your last one was lifted, but viewing things through the lens of righting great wrongs, or us vs. them, will lead to further problems (and boomerangs such as this). You don't need to continuously characterise other editors' contributions (sometimes inaccurately). Disruptive editors' contributions speak for themselves. Jr8825 • Talk 00:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Can I kindly ask what in the hell is going on here? To anyone unfamiliar, Steverci is referencing this case 1 that got Solavirum banned for only 2 weeks for violating a topic-ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles second time, enforced by El_C [2]. How does Steverci's complain of a relatively short ban for violating WP:BROADLY second time now, turn into a indefinite topic-ban for Steverci ? I'm sorry for my ignorance maybe I'm understanding something wrong, but how does Ymblanter just casually suggest to topic ban another user, when all they did was to complain (and if you look at the history of Solavirum's violations, rightfully so to an extent) about a short ban for a second broadly violation? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The confrontational behaviour in WP:AA2 has become normalised over the years (example here: Armenian editor reports Azerbaijani editor at a noticeboard, Azerbaijani editors arrive to defend the editor and Armenian editors queue up to condemn them, or vice versa), but that doesn't mean this type of behaviour is no longer tendentious and disruptive. Jr8825 • Talk 10:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, but that didn't answer my question. Steverci has valid grounds for his complaint, as even the admin Drmies, who enforced the block for 2nd broadly violation said that "many will consider that relatively mild" talking about the 2 weeks timeframe 1, 2. And as Steverci pointed out in that case, Solavirum went through the cycle of denying his violation of the topic ban 3, then when his blatant denial attempts get called out and even the admin agreed that he violated it (and got blocked for it), he finally "understood" everything on his talk page 4. It seems like Steverci's complaint of Solavirum's relatively short ban has reasonable grounds, but for some reason there is a lot of WP:OTHER here, and unfounded "boomerang" topic-ban proposal for Steverci for some reason. Instead of discussing why someone who violated the topic ban 2nd time now, and who clearly isn't here to build encyclopedia shouldn't be banned just for 2 weeks, some people here deflect everything that Steverci said, and an admin of all people proposes to topic-ban him instead? This vote was just uncalled for to say the least. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. If there is to be an indef t-ban imposed on Steverci, it has to be justified a whole lot better than anything we have seen presented here. Saying "per BOOMERANG" does not provide an adequate justification. This ANI thread itself is not vexatious even if it is perhaps ill-advised and premature. But that, by itself, doesn't justify anything more than a warning. Nsk92 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is too severe of a sanction at this point in time; this ANI thread appears to not have been filed in bad faith.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't TBAN people for diff-less complaints that include speculation about motives; apologizing for that unfounded speculation but leaving the proposal in place is ridiculous, as is the suggestion that we should just be topic banning people en masse. The proposer should be trouted. Grandpallama (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, fine, I will not deal with Armenian-Azerbaijani mud throwing anymore. I do not have any personal interest in this conflict. I wanted to save time to the community, but if the community is not interested, I am sure they are going to find some other way of dealing with the situation. I have a lot of other things to do. I provided diffs btw, but people do not seem to be interested in paying any attention to what I have actually written.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  The only diff you've linked to in this thread is by Drmies. A diff-less (and argument-less) tban proposal doesn't save the community time, it wastes it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is incorrect, I have also provided two diffs for edit-warring in Shusha.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  My apologies, you're correct, I missed the unsigned comment at the top with two diffs of reverts. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I confess I also missed them, but it doesn't change my underlying argument or Levivich's good point; two diffs don't demonstrate grounds for a TBAN, and if they did, then a similar proposal would have to be put in place for Grandmaster. I'm really bothered we are discussing this, anyway, in regard to an editor who opened up this discussion because an admin advised him to do so. Grandpallama (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Good. Now, if we look more closely at the edit history of Shusha, let us say last 100 edits - from February 2021 or so - it almost exclusively consists of edit-warring. The article has been protected at my request from 22 April to 2 May, after the expiration of protection the edit-warring resumed. Dozens of users participated in this edit-warring. And the only special thing about this article is that it happens to be on my watchlist (I do not remember why, probably because of move warring which was a commons place there over several years). And then may be "the suggestion that we should just be topic banning people en masse" is not such ridiculous? As admins who are dealing with continuous Serbian - Croatian mud throwing can attest, the scorched earth policy there made their life easier - and I do not think we have compromised on the quality of encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Just because an editor went to a busy admin and asked "what can I do about this" and the admin pointed them to a specific forum, doesn't mean that admin has condoned their action or somehow vindicated it. I do see a problem with editors from this area spending more time chasing after bans for each other than actually edit(warring)ing on the articles themselves. It's a waste of experienced editors time at the noticeboards and in the bigger picture, a continuation of edit warring by other means. I said as much above, but a constant, unfailing us vs. them mindset is tendentious and quickly becomes disruptive, users should be reminded that it's unconstructive and unacceptable. I think Ymblanter's response is completely understandable given the fact that this is the (third?) time Steverci has dragged Solavirum here, and Solavirum hasn't actually edited since the last because they're still blocked. Plenty of Steverci's criticisms are on-point, but equally, some of them are aspersions and at least one is an inaccurate accusation (they did not ask me to make proxy edits). There's no new ammunition against Solavirum and it's largely a straight up repetition of the same complaints. I don't believe Steverci acted in bad faith; I also doubt Solavirum believed they were acting in bad faith when they repeatedly exercised the poor judgement, bias and POV-pushing that earned them their topic ban, they probably instead felt they were righting great wrongs. That's not at all exceptional in this topic area. Steverci's editing is not dissimilar as shown by their edit warring at Shusha and BLP violations at Thomas de Waal (this diff, restoring an obviously partisan attack on de Waal, was accompanied by the edit summary "reverting WP:JDLI from 2011"). I think a topic ban would be an overly harsh reaction at this time, but I personally support a warning for Steverci. I also don't think Ymblanter deserves flak for expressing their view here. Jr8825 • Talk 20:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I was involved with Solavirum's 2nd tban violation case, and I don't think anyone here says that the admin "condones or condemns" Steverci's decision. As you said, they were advised to come to this forum, and they did exactly that. What is strange however, and others editors seem to agree on this, is how their complain of a relative short tban violation block turn into a "boomerang indefinite tban proposal" for Steverci, with virtually no basis? That is a very heavy sanction to propose on someone, and I have to disagree with you. I do think that it was totally out of proportion, and that the criticism of Ymblanter's action here is due. It just can't be brushed off as "their views" in my opinion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  @ZaniGiovanni: To clarify, I was responding Grandpallama point about not being right to discuss an editor's actions "because an admin advised him" to come here. I agree that a tban is out of proportion, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree over whether there's "virtually no basis" for it. Jr8825 • Talk 21:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I was responding Grandpallama point about not being right to discuss an editor's actions "because an admin advised him" to come here. That is categorically not what I said. I said we don't TBAN an editor in the absence of evidence, and that the opening of this discussion is being treated as a retaliatory action when it is, in fact, the result of seeking advice for where to discuss concerns. And admins absolutely merit criticism when they propose inappropriate solutions, speculate about editor motivations, and seek sanctions without evidence; we should all be disappointed at, as Levivich pointed out, unnecessary wastes of community time, particularly when they come from the admin corps. Unless there's a sudden avalanche of support votes, which is unlikely, that's exactly what this proposal will have been. Grandpallama (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Whereas the topic ban proposal does not seem to get consensus, it seems to be emerging consensus that Steverci's behavior, in this particular episode as well as in the topic area, has been substandard. I do not see how pointing out this fact has anything to do with WP:ADMINACCT. Beyond ADMINACCT, I am obviously not acting as admin here (and not in the topic area).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  And, yes, let me repeat for the third time in this thread that I am not seeking sanctions without evidence. I in fact provided evidence, though, indeed, people not familiar with the topic area apparently consider it insufficient. Fine, I already said I am going to ignore future AA threads.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  it seems to be emerging consensus that Steverci's behavior, in this particular episode as well as in the topic area, has been substandard I don't think that's particularly true, either. I count 13 editors having participated in the two parts of this discussion, and only four (including you) agreeing there are behavioral issues. And of those four, one still voted against a TBAN. I don't think that's a consensus, emerging or otherwise. Grandpallama (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not an administrator, but this seems overly harsh. Topic-banning an editor, because you disagree with one of their proposals. I fail to see clear violations of policy here. Steverci seems to back up his/her point quite well. Dimadick (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose no evidence provided to support sanctions. User made the discussion following the advice of an admin. Nothing here that suggests the complaint is frivolous (distinct from not being actionable). ProcSock (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Somewhat Support. I think the people opposing have probably not realized that this is substantially same report that Steverci filed a few months ago here (though it seems there may have been stuff in between then and now). From my estimation, Steverci has filed five separate reports against this user this calendar year alone (1, 2, 3, 4, and this makes 5). That needs to stop.
  Though, this is more of a case to be made for a one-way IBAN than a TBAN, but that's just how it is. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Much too harsh and I'm not seeing clear attempts at disruption that would necessitate it. On a related note, this "Boomerang" thing has been increasingly referenced over the years when people come here looking for some kind of relief and I'm increasingly skeptical when I see it. Far too often, it's just codified victim blaming. ♟♙ (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban and Support IBAN, at this point I'm receiving reports on me by this same user on a monthly basis. And most of the time, they are unneeded reports. This report alone is just a compilation of half-year old arguments presented towards me that a lot of people have talked about and concluded. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 10:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban for HarrySime, for severely POV editing

It is time for someone besides Acroterion or me to step in and stop HarrySime from editing Dedan Kimathi and Mau Mau Uprising. HarrySime has been edit warring, albeit slowly, for quite a while now, and does so by making POV edits, altering (sourced) language, diminishing other points of view, and using obviously interested sources, particularly the book by Ian Henderson (police officer), a British colonial officer of, some might say, the worst kind. Please take a deep breath and bear with me.

Kimathi was one of the leaders of the Mau Mau Uprising against the British colonial oppressor; he was no saint, but rather a very complicated figure, as a quick scan of this, a chapter from Dedan Kimathi on Trial: Colonial Justice and Popular Memory in Kenya’s Mau Mau Rebellion (ed. Julie McArthur, Ohio State UP, 2017) makes clear. HarrySime, however, seems to see only one valuable source: Ian Henderson's The Hunt for Kimathi (also Man Hunt in Kenya), an interesting but essentially partial account, since Henderson was in service of the British colonial power and is the man credited with chasing down Kimathi, who was hung expeditiously after a quick trial. Their love for Henderson is probably first exhibited here, and you see it here also. I don't mind him being cited, but it should be done with proper context: Henderson should not be cited for facts represented in Wikipedia's voice. (You can find a very friendly review of Henderson's book here--written by an apparent CIA agent who includes himself as an actor in the fight against Mau Mau...)

Worse, HarrySime insists on inserting editorial commentary, here, "but fails to cite any contemporary British government documents which support this assertion"--HarrySime is commenting on Frank Furedi's 1989 book The Mau Mau War in Perspective (published by James Currey/Heinemann/Ohio UP), quite inappropriately, and does it again here. The same phony argument, about the need to cite British government sources, is found here--as if those essentially partisan somehow they should balance out an academic book.

HarrySime's editorializing is perhaps at its highest level in this edit, where they changed sourced text from "concentration camps and emergency villages" (that is, camps run by the British, who at one point rounded up 30,000 Kikuyu people in camps to undercut support for Mau Mau--see the CIA review) to "fortified villages", and again adds "but fails to cite a source for that figure." And let's note that he edits the language, and comments upon, the memoir by Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan woman, the first African woman to receive the Nobel Peace prize.

If one single edit exemplifies their editing, it's this one (a revert falsely marked as a revert of vandalism--the vandal, then, is User:Acroterion--HarrySime does this frequently, but can't find their way to the talk page to explain why an obvious POV source should be highlighted), which in Wikipedia's voice marks all Mau Mau as blooddrinking cannibalistic terrorists, and Kimathi is nothing more but a tyrannical leader who killed more of his own people than the British did. I think that all this is sufficient for a topic ban for Mau Mau, Kenya, and Kimathi, very broadly construed. One could go through his other edits (the whitewashing of Roman Polanski, for instance), but for now I just want this person to stop recolonizing these articles. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Is a topic ban enough? This feels like more than just POV-pushing -- there's also the edit-warring and personal attacks, and it seems like this editor isn't problematic only at Mau Mau/Kenya/Kimathi. —valereee (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Community topic bans mean some heavy lifting by the community and take some time, as we know. To go on with, while awaiting discussion of Drmies's proposal, I have partial-blocked the user from Mau Mau Uprising and Dedan Kimathi for three months. Also, I support an indefinite topic ban from Mau Mau, Kenya, and Kimathi, very broadly construed, as per the proposal. Bishonen | tålk 17:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC).

Bishonen, I saw your partial block, and thånk you for it. Yes, this might take a bit of time, so this is appreciated; they edit in spurts, it seems. Valereee, I thought I'd go for the low-hanging fruit--low-hanging because I'd already done some of the legwork on my own talk, and because I've seen it up close. Yes, I think there is more, but an indefinite topic ban from these areas is what I am looking for at a minimum. Other editors may want to add to this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I also endorse an indefinite topic ban to cover the Mau Mau Rebellion, Dedan Kimathi, and related subjects, construed broadly. This is based on their focus on a single partisan source and HarrySimes's unresponsiveness, other than to claim that those who disagree are vandals. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban on the Mau Mau movement, Dedan Kimathi, and all related topics including anything having to do with Kenyan independence, very broadly construed. Thanks to Drmies for doing the work to document the need for this topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

IRC security, Oversight notice

As of today, Freenode WP:IRC is no longer considered secure. A hostile takeover of IRC was completed by Andrew Lee (entrepreneur), who is described by an ex-Freenode staffer as a "narcissistic Trumpian wannabe korean royalty bitcoins millionaire".[37] Freenode's staff has quit, they advise that the network should be considered under control of a hostile enemy. Although previous communications are probably secure, future communication should be made under the assumption that it is all being logged. The WMF is on the case and looking for a solution. At this time, the Oversight team asks that all oversight requests be made by email only. Whether passwords, IP addresses, and cloaks are secure is up in the air, if you are at all concerned I suggest you simply not use IRC until more concrete information comes out. Smooth sailing, AdmiralEek ^{Thar she edits!} 18:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. It is worth adding: if you have reused the password you use on Freenode on any other sites, you probably ought to change them because the security of Freenode passwords is unknown at this point. Generally speaking, it is best to avoid reusing passwords at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion: m:Wikimedia Forum#Freenode (IRC). Killiondude (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

From a complete IRC dummy: Is all IRC Freenode? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Freenode is one of many IRC networks. Snoonet, Reddit's IRC network, is another major one; there are others. Former Freenode staff have already created a new network (Libera Chat) and I see there is discussion at m:Wikimedia Forum#Freenode (IRC) about possibly migrating. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

To give an analogy, if IRC is "ice cream", then Freenode is Ben & Jerry's, and there are other providers out there. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how helpful the politically charged, divisive name-calling from the anonymous/un-named ex-freenode staffer is - or why it's quoted here, but there is a real possibility that we should at a minimum make sure to move away from passwords shared with freenode.

kline wrote a bit about deleting your account data here: https://www.kline.sh. I would recommend reading that post, along with the resignations linked there from other staff.

You can drop your account using /msg nickserv drop <account name> <password>

You can overwrite your password using: /msg nickserv set password <password>

You can overwrite your email using: /msg nickserv set email <email>

Keep in mind, you will need to verify your new email. SQL^{Query me!} 12:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@SQL: For those of us that aren't as technically-minded, what's the point in overwriting your email if you have to provide another one to replace it? Sdrqaz (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: For some, their email addresses are sensitive, personal data. My primary, personal email address that I use to communicate with my family, for instance, is very obviously my name. If I had linked that to my username on freenode ("SQL"), it would make doxxing much easier. For wiki-related stuff I use a generic sql at enwiki address at a free provider. SQL^{Query me!} 12:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@SQL: I see, thanks. I used my Wikipedia email for IRC registration so hadn't thought of that. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz and SQL: the email thing probably couldn't hurt although it may not help. Assuming that the new owners really cannot be trusted, they may never delete any backups of any data they have. (I assume they already had backups, perhaps including offline backups if it was a well run network. But in any case, they could have made a backup of all the data once they took over.) While you could try using privacy and similar laws to demand they do so especially in the EU, frankly if the owners really cannot be trusted they'll probably be somewhere where they will have low risk and may still ignore you. The password thing and other stuff I would be more cautious about. If you have to provide your password before making such changes then it could actually make things worse. It could be the currently all the owners have is a hash. Even for a very weak hash like MD5, if your current password (that you're trying to replace) is long enough (I'm thinking maybe 12 characters+, depending also on the nature of your password) it may still be almost impossible to guess what the real password is (i.e. bruteforce). But if those now behind Freenode really are dodgy, they could start to record plaintext passwords and keep them, and you've just provided them that very password you're trying to hide which they wouldn't otherwise know. Of course it's also possible they haven't done much yet, and doing it now will ensure even your hash is permanent gone but it won't be if you wait 6 months. If your password is short enough then frankly them having the hash is probably good enough, depending on the hash. Personally, I wouldn't actually trust IRC not to have recorded plain text passwords anyway, have the ex-staff said anything? Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't the WMF operate its own IRC server? Bandwidth and server cost are next to nothing, maintenance cost can't be that massive and you wouldn't have to worry about well, this shit that just happened. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I have the same question. They operate irc.wikimedia.org already but all it does is automated logging . I see no reason it can't be expanded to host real chat as well. Naleksuh (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz and Naleksuh: meta:Wikimedia Chat exists but nobody uses it. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 10:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: See the post made by a WMF SRE at meta. Basically, they don't have the time, or expertise to run an IRC network, apparently. I'd counter with the fact that running a very very very small IRC network for ~250-500 or so persistent users should take a minimum investment in infrastructure, time, and expertise. See netsplit.de's top 100 for instance. There are networks with around 250 users running on as few as 2 servers. There are networks with just 1 server running over 500 users. Ircd-hybdid/ratbox are very simple to set up, as is Unreal. SQL^{Query me!} 11:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I had this typed out before you removed your reply - I hope you don't mind, and that this helps someone understand the entire situation.

I've actually run IRC networks before.

There is a lot more to it than this than just the technical side to be sure.

Devils advocate time.

There needs to be some consideration, and network design w/r/t DDoS. There are reasonably priced providers that can for the most part mitigate this without the need for the server operator to put forward any effort. They can run as little as $25/mo for a DDoS resistant server, but the better ones are closer to $100/mo each. I'd go for 2-4 geographically diverse servers for stability's sake. This also eliminates the argument that the network can't be used in a crisis outage because it's hosted on core WMF infra.

The bigger timesink is going to be user management. Fights over channel ownership. Fights over username ownership. Friends and betrayals. Interpersonal fights. Claims of harassment. Also, there's fights between users, channels, and groups of users. Also, users like to fight. And then there's the zombie / compromised botnets that come and go.

That being said, I think a few trusted / experienced volunteers could for sure help run a very very very small IRC network with minimal support from the foundation, and a good set of rules / guidelines. SQL^{Query me!} 12:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think setting up our own server is a good idea (for the reasons you mention and others, like the fact that less users will be on the network and we'll have less interactions with Freenode regulars that are only casual Wikipedians). But I'd say it's cheaper to run than you suggest. A Wikimedia IRC would have far less users than the entire Freenode network, so the resources consumed would also be less. You could run the network on a bunch of $5 VPS' from DigitalOcean. For DDoS protection, OVH and Hetzner are decent these days, plus there's Cloudflare Spectrum if one can negotiate. There's also a lot of smaller providers that provide cheaper tunnels. My point being that the costs for a stable network would be much less than $25-100/mo * 4. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia channels taken over

Today, Freenode has decided to forcefully take over several of our sensitive, and non-sensitive channels, such as #wikimedia-simple, #wikimedia-stewards, #wikimedia-operations, #wikipedia-en-revdel, and many, many others. They also posted this ^(archive) yesterday. Please exercise extreme caution before asking for help on freenode with anything sensitive. Make sure you know for certain whom you are talking to. SQL^{Query me!} 11:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

To whom you are talking / who you are talking to . Now drop and give me 50 non-split infinitives! ——Serial 11:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we shut down the channels or flag them with +q (removing ability to talk) if we don't trust them? Or are you saying the Freenode's sysops have shut out our community operators on the Wikimedia channels? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's what happened in #wikipedia-en-revdel, for example

[03:08:25] *** Parts: ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) () [03:08:28] *** Joins: freenodecom (~com@freenode/staff) [03:08:28] *** OperServ sets mode: +o freenodecom [03:08:28] *** freenodecom sets mode: +o freenodecom [03:08:28] *** freenodecom changes topic to 'This channel has moved to ##wikipedia-en-revdel. The topic is in violation of freenode policy: https://freenode.net/policies' [03:08:28] <freenodecom> This channel has been reopened with respect to the communities and new users. The topic is in violation of freenode policy: https://freenode.net/policies <all ops are removed here, all bans are unset> [03:08:30] <freenodecom> The new channel is ##wikipedia-en-revdel [03:08:36] *** Parts: freenodecom (~com@freenode/staff) ()

@ProcrastinatingReader: I mean that they have shut us out of them. SQL^{Query me!} 11:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yikes. That is textbook how you destroy a FOSS community; what is he thinking lol. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it's an extremely bad look - and is likely to turn a lot of people against him very quickly. SQL^{Query me!} 11:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, it's not just us. SQL^{Query me!} 11:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

What he's thinking is that he can threaten other people into doing what he wants. Here's a run down on Ars Technica. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Crikey, that's one of the reasons I stopped using IRC about ten years ago. And people thought WP:FRAMGATE was bad, imagine what it would have been like if the WMF banned anyone who voiced a contrary opinion! That's basically what's happened here. What would be the knock-on effects if all WP-related IRC activity was shut down forever? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  It would have been a better idea if no WP-related IRC activity had started in the first place. If you want security, then use a secure communication channel. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Editors who have got used to conflabbing in the under ducts would be forced to plan their campaigns on Wikipedia, in the traditional fashion? Oh no, I forgot—that's why we have Discord. ——Serial 15:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Sigh - ok, against my better judgement (I did IRC 10+ years ago) I found discord.com, signed up, logged in, d/l .. now how do I find the wiki channels? — Ched (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  There's an invite link at WP:DISCORD. If you click the join button and it should open the server in Discord. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wow. If he wanted to reinforce that the choice to move to Libera Chat was a good one, he's succeeded. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Didn't the whole development team at Freenode quit over this? It'll improve this project though, all that furtive discussion behind the scenes. -Roxy . wooF 18:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  Quite. Any public communication that affects Wikipedia should be on Wikipedia, and if any private communication is needed it should be over properly secure channels. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Relieving the title Clovia

I would like to create the genus article of Clovia. Source: https://www.gbif.org/species/2016354 Please relieve this title--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You should be able to since looking at the deletion log the previous articles under that name were deleted as WP:G11 (pure advertisement or promotion) meaning the original deleted article was obviously about something else since that type of deletion wouldn’t make sense for an article about a genus.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1:  Done - quick stub created for you to expand (forgive any technical errors). GiantSnowman 20:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked IP address

Hello

My address is blocked from making updates due to harassment but I’ve never tried to do anything in Wikipedia before - certainly not on this device or in this house! Please could you look into it and let me know.

Many thanks

Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:1485:D374:8097:E8B5:D5C9:5F56 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Your IP addresses is just one of millions affected by this block, so you shouldn't take it personally. To the blocking admin - Johnuniq - did you mean to prevent account creation from this range? To the IP user, in the meantime, please see Template:Rangeblock for further explanation and instructions on creating an account, if you wish to use one. If you don't wish to create an account, this block should not affect you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, no I didn't plan to block account creation. I was asked at my talk about shifting IPs that were harassing a particular user and I partially blocked 2A01:4C8:1400:0:0:0:0:0/40 from the user and talk page concerned for one year, with the defaults. I have now modified the block to allow account creation. I don't understand how the reporting IP (2A01:4C8:1485:D374:8097:E8B5:D5C9:5F56) would know they had been "blocked from making updates due to harassment" unless they had tried to create an account (is that "making updates"?) or tried to edit the user/talk page concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think when potentially dealing with non-experienced users, one should usually use a very broad interpretation of terminology. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Block IP Address request

Resolved

2A02:1812:1533:1D00:200E:E377:780F:C9E7 - Repeatedly trigged edit filter your known so? It's rose gold! (T?) 19:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked the /64 for a month as it seems to be a stable IP and they've been disruptive for a while. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Different IP sock per edit

Various socks of WP:INDEFfed User:Hoggardhigh have, for years, waged a campaign of largely pointless changes to articles. Though occasionally mildly positive, their edits largely needlessly alter perfectly well-expressed text to a fashion they prefer, often the forcing of one valid WP:MOS choice over another perfectly valid one. A characteristic example is their insistence on the MOS:OXFORDCOMMA, rarely, if ever, in a context where it is actively required for disambiguation or for internal consistency within an article. I know that @BilCat: and @Ahunt: have also been combatting the individual's campaign and may have a perspective, particularly in regard to edits on aircraft-related articles.

Hoggardhigh's tactics have evolved from a succession of user accounts, to the use of a particular IP for a period, to recently the use of a different IP address for almost every individual edit, sometimes mere minutes apart. The recent history of Kelly Murphy, The Amazing Rhythm Aces and Where Have All the Flowers Gone? (film) are illustrative. (Further examples can be found if my contributions are searched for the edit summary "WP:EVADE, User:Hoggardhigh".)

Watchlisting a vast list of articles with previous activity uncovers new edits but newly-targetted articles will be less easy to spot. Rangeblocking may be appropriate and the most effective tactic but a perspective on that is outwith my expertise and I know there may be collateral effects. Does anyone have a view on the best way to proceed? (Pinging @RoySmith:, @Callanecc: and @Sro23: as you discussed the issue in the last two SPIs here and here.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes this sockmaster is annoying, many of the edits are detrimental to the articles and almost all have to be reversed. Because this person constantly opens new accounts and also IP hops I am not sure what can be done other than revert on sight. - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Those IPs are all on the same /64 range (2603:6081:7840:FA00::/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), which can generally be treated like a single IPv4 address. Blocking that, even for an extended period of time, should not incur any meaningful collateral. --Blablubbs|talk 14:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Blocked for a month. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all! Ah, is there any way of checking for further edits made in this range prior to the block? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Would this be the range's full list of edits, per the "contribs" link noted in Blablubbs post above? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a month? Would need longer then that, unless the individual behind the socks were somehow restrained from his/her computer, phone, etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking that too. This person has been carrying on a concerted sock campaign for years. A one month block will not have much dissuasive effect. I was also going to ask if this sort of block will just stop him IP editing or will it stop him creating new accounts? Because he is likely to just do that, based on past experience. - Ahunt (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

A characteristic example is their insistence on the MOS:OXFORDCOMMA Insisting on the Oxford comma is a blockable offense? Did an Oxford comma shoot your dog or something? --Calton | Talk 10:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Valid style choices should not be changed based on the user's personal preference alone, it's a waste of everyone's time; particularly not in part of a years-long campaign of abuse and evasion. The same applies to someone removing Oxford commas on the same basis. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Many of them are used wrongly by this person, too. It seems to be done more to create chaos than as any sort of style issue. It all means they have to be assessed, tracked and reverted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The edit summary of this second re-imposition of Hoggardhigh’s work has not grasped the points being made above. I will take it as a misunderstanding, though more hesitancy about making accusations would have been appreciated.

There has never been a suggestion that Oxford commas are prohibited. The point is that an absence of Oxford commas is not prohibited either, as Hoggardhigh is seeking to impose. They have mounted a sustained campaign for at least 4 years, a prominent part of which is to impose their preferred, valid style to the exclusion of another equally valid style. That is plainly disruptive. Again, the same would apply if their campaign was to conversely impose the removal of Oxford commas.

This is far from the only aspect of Hoggardhigh’s campaign but it is a highly characteristic one, highlighted to indicate the links between the multiple socks.

I'd like now to do what I intended to earlier; to check and address Hoggardhigh’s latest IP sock edits, without the concern of their will being re-imposed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Mutt Lunker is right, the issue here is disruption, not Oxford commas. - Ahunt (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it is the issue. Question is, is it possible to ban the sock-master, indef. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Fairly sure the sock-master is already banned under WP:3X since I counted 5 confirmed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh/Archive. Frankly even if they weren't, there seems no point imposing a Cban. Realistically no one is going to unilaterally unblock a globally locked editor with a large SPI, and it doesn't seem to me the lack of a formal ban is making it more difficult for us to deal with the socks. Of cause dealing with the socks wastes a lot of time since as often happens, there's no simple way to stop block them before they edit without a lot of collateral so it's mostly revert. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I follow that. Per @Blablubbs: "Blocking that, even for an extended period of time, should not incur any meaningful collateral" and if a means can be implemented where the time spent countering this individual may be better spent, why would we not do so? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Userspace hoaxes by User:Odnailro

Hello. I came across this user while clearing out Category:Stale userspace drafts. I noticed that this user has a lot of stale drafts, so I looked at some of them to see if any already exists in mainspace. The ones I checked are User:Odnailro/Interkids Festival 2019, User:Odnailro/Youth Music Battle 2017, User:Odnailro/Jackie Simons, User:Odnailro/Interkids USA and User:Odnailro/Wanderlust (cartoon). Searching in Google, I was not able to find any sources for any of these drafts.

For the 2019 Interkids Festival, no results were found that this was aired on Teletoon in Canada and Discovery Family in the United Statese. Likewise, no hits for "Dancing with Rainicorns" by Chloe Woo, nor that she won Interkids USA in 2017. I also could not confirm Maverik Center in Salt Lake City, Utah held the Youth Music Battle in 2017 nor Jackie Simons is an American-Swedish singer who released an album called Tomma Bokstäver. Otherwise, I did not find any sources to confirm that Wanderlust was a Cartoon Network show, in development, or starred Zachary Gordon. Therefore, I believe these are all hoaxes. The Interkids ones are the most concerning as the drafts claim to have been running for multiple years (Interkids Festival 49 years, Interkids USA 3 years).

Checking this user's talk page, I notice that several of their userspace drafts were speedy deleted as hoaxes under G3. had one userspace draft deleted at MFD as a hoax, and had previously been brought to AN in March 2016 for their hoaxes. On their talk page, they did say they didn't mind their hoaxes being deleted when the AN discussion was opened in March 2016. However, all of their current userspace drafts were created from December 2016 to May 2020, including the 4 listed above. Finally, they has User:Odnailro/sandbox which I believe have hoax information as well. Google doesn't show any results for a party called the Movimento Popular da Felicidade led by Daniel Milošević. What convinces me the most as it says the party is against anti-wizardry. While the Dinis Rebellion does exist at 5 October 1910 revolution, I don't see confirmation that the Duke of Beja was crowned after that battle. If you compare the infobox in the article as well, there's a lot of differences as well, such as number of deaths, leaders, and party names.

Overall, I would like to know if these linked userspace drafts are indeed hoaxes and whether this user should be blocked for continuously making hoaxes. While I have only checked part of their 56 userspace drafts, this is concerning as this user was brought to AN 5 years ago for the same issue. If the Interkids Festival is a hoax for all of the years this user has created in userspace, then 51 of them alone are hoaxes about Interkids. Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, hoaxes are not allowed in userspace. If you have any questions or need clarification, please let me know. Thank you! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am also confident, having checked several of these drafts, that they are hoaxes and could probably be G3’d. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

For someone who claimed five years ago "I am no longer interested on the hoaxes" {sic}, that's a lot of time creating hoaxes. Almost all edits are to perpetuate his WP:MADEUP material. Indeffed, I am now deleting these. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefly: @78.26: Thank you both for the quick responses :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Any Commons admins about?

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

---

If there are any Commons admins about, would they please make their way to WP:MPE, where an issue has been raised which needs the attention of a Commons admin. Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I will have a look now--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Behaviour of user:Possibly

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

---

This user is a trouble creator. First he said that i have a coi of Annwesha Hazra, and so I have created a page. I disclosed that I have been paid by her to make a page for her. When he saw that everything was becoming normal again, he suddenly sent Annwesha Hazra for deletation, stating it is an advertisement. To the wiki admins I would like to say that there is not a single word in that page that says that it is an advertisement. But he is constantly saying that it is an avertisemnt.Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This user is disappointed that I AfD'd their paid editing work at Annwesha Hazra, and that it is now nearing deletion. In the past half hour they have reported me to 3RR, AIV, and here; the only possible reason being that they just started work in their time zone; we haven't interacted for about 24 hours. They've been causing havoc on multiple pages for the past day or so, mainly complaining. An SPI is open (checkuser needed) that will likely connect them with socks. Thy are being extremely disruptive, considering they're only here to edit that page and complain. Sigh.--- Possibly (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly:, Copyedit suggestion since it affects the meaning: "and that it is now nearing deletion"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks!--- Possibly (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Australian weapon has been spotted flying around, and Mynameisparitoshmandal has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. Daniel (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I was making spaghetti sauce with meatballs in the Instant Pot. I figured this would be taken care of by the time I was ready to sautee the peppers. Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I was actually enjoying the interactions at AfD and, guilty pleasure that it was, mildly regret the passing of Mynameisparitoshmandal as a result of Possibly's strange behaviour. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

RuPaul’s Drag Race (British series 2)

Has anyone looked at this properly? This is the only one in hundreds of Drag Race articles that has had its progress chart removed. I came to look for this season and it was goneShontal Smith (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess you mean RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2). This is a content issue and should be worked out on the article talk page though I see there has been a discussion, an RFC, on this matter already. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The "Summary of contestants' progress in each episode" and "Lip syncs" sections on this and all related pages were removed as being unencyclopedic and vandalism/disruption magnets. As can be seen here[38] these charts have ended up at ANI again and again. Enough is enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think one of the issues is that this is being handled on an "article by article" basis, whereas instead this should be a project wide formatting issue. Lots of people end up using the "Every other article does the wrong thing, why can't this article do the wrong thing too!" argument the OP is trying to use repeatedly to argue against the changes made to this one article; it's a common and understandable (if spurious and invalid) argument. I would recommend (if anyone who regularly edits in that area is watching) that a broad-based, project wide RFC be held to establish standards for format, sectioning, layout, and whatnot for those articles, so that if they really do need to be stripped of the cruft that Guy Macon notes above, there is a firm footing to stand on. Taking on a single article in a set of largely identical articles and changing the formatting of that one only is likely to raise questions about why it hasn't been done for the others, and really there should be some consistency here. Other Wikiprojects, like for example WP:USRD or WP:UKGEO, have well established format and organization standards for groups of similar articles, and while there is often much variance in practice, once you've established a good article template that has broad consensus, you at least have a place to point where you can say "this is how we should do things". This kind of one at a time scattershot method of cleaning up all of these articles isn't helpful. Other than that rather ranty bit of advice for anyone who might want to implement a good plan for fixing the problem (do it or don't, I don't really care) this is NOT an admin issue, as noted above. There is nothing for admins to do here. --Jayron32 23:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this a real series of Ru Paul's Drag Race? Oh. How boring. Imaginary series of Ru Paul's Drag Race in sandboxes are a recurrent topic at MFD, and are deleted. A real one is so boring, and can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Closure request

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

---

Requesting an uninvolved admin to close the following RfC: Talk:Shusha#RfC - Displaying significant alternative name "Shushi" in boldface in the lead section noting that the article falls under the AA2 area. To me the discussion seems like policy vs tendentious arguments with a clear result but as an involved editor I don't get a say in that. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Creating a page for Lira Luis

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

---

Hi, I'd like to write an article on Lira Luis but when I try to do so, there is a message that creation of a page with this name is blocked due to previous creations in 2008 (the message is " this page is protected from creation"). How can I write this article? TIA! MurielMary (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

MurielMary I imagine an administrator will be along to unprotect the page shortly, but for future reference: there are two steps to get a page un-protected. Firstly you should ask the admin who protected the page to lift the protection, if they're still active. If the admin isn't active or is unwilling to unprotect the page then as a second step you should post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level using the templates at the top of the page. For a creation protected title the instructions at WP:RFPP suggest that it is a good idea to have a draft article prepared in draft or userspace. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

MurielMary, I've removed the protection so you can create the article. As you are an experienced editor, I don't believe the issues with the original article will now be appropriate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both, for the quick responses, appreciated! MurielMary (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Vauxford again

For the discussion, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents § Vauxford_again.

I just recognized that I just put this to AN instead of ANI. I hope it's okay, to move it over there. For the history of the discussion please see history of AN over here. I'm sorry. Mea Culpa.--Alexander-93 (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

About vvikipedla.com

What is it, is it some kind of phishing site or just a "relatively-safe" wikipedia "mirror"? I've noticed that the site is even referenced from the wikipedia itself, specifically [39] and [40], shouldn't the users making these edits be warned/banned? Sasha1024 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sasha1024: it is not a WMF property, registrar goes to: Name: DYNADOT, LLC IANA ID: 472 Here is what they say about the registration. We can put it on the spam blacklist I suppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Those are certainly not reliable sources, and I've removed them from the articles. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Follow up at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#vvikipedia.com. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

xaosflux, thanks. As for King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, shouldn't we revert to this version? (As it seems that the two previously existing references, as well as the sentence about Wiki Arabi 2, were valid. However, I know nothing about the topic, it's just an intuitive feeling.) Also, shouldn't the users (Witus2 and DiatovKianov) who have introduced these edits be penalized or at least warned? (It seems they made almost no other changes except introducing vvikipedla.com links.) Sasha1024 (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sasha1024: they seem to be good faith attempts to add this ill-advised reference - not concerned about their one-time additions. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note vvikipedia has been added to the global blacklist. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Uhh, this thread is about VVIKIPEDLA.COM (upper case to emphasize the difference). MER-C 17:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@MER-C: thanks for the note, the global SBL now contains:

\bvvikipedia\.com\b
\bvvikipedla\.com\b

— xaosflux ^Talk 19:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As really, neither of these should be used. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Request to revert the article's name.

Hello admins, I don't know if my request is applicable in this section, but if this request is not meant to be posted here, please move it to another board in order to address the concern. I have an article named "He's Into Her (BGYO song)", I named this way because the song is a soundtrack of the series of the same name which is "He' Into Her". The article intended for the series is already in the main space that is why when I made the article for the song I added the phrase "BGYO song". Unfortunately, it has been deleted by Fastily before, maybe because of the name of it and then moved to draft space by CommanderWaterford. Then, lately, Souradip Mandal renamed the article of the song from "He's Into Her (BGYO song)" to "He' Into Her", in this case it will create conflict with the article intended for the series, I discussed my concerns to Souradip Mandal but as of now still no response. I tried to undone the edits but it has been protected and it says that only admins can revert the the concern. That is why I came here to asked assistance with this matter. Thank you. Troy26Castillo (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Troy26Castillo: I have moved it back to Draft:He's Into Her (BGYO song) for you. Souradip Mandal is a new editor who perhaps doesn’t yet understand that the bracketed phrase (BGYO song) is used to distinguish the page from the article He's Into Her (should the article about the song be moved into article space). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: thank you for the quick response. Much appreciated.Troy26Castillo (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Citizens Bank PLC

Hello, there is a request to review this Article. Please review the Article impartially. Thanks Maruf Hossain (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)