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. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	6	17	104	127
TfD	0	0	2	1	3
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	10	18	28
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 8 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 87 sockpuppet investigations
• 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 10 requests for RD1 redaction
• 30 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 44 requested closures
• 167 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 33 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (49 out of 7867 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Writers Against the War on Gaza 2024-06-18 22:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the Netherlands 2024-06-18 21:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Municipal resolutions for a ceasefire in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 21:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case University of Texas at Austin stabbing 2024-06-18 21:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Palestinian sports during the 2023-2024 Israeli invasion of Gaza 2024-06-18 20:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2024 2024-06-18 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Noam Chomsky 2024-06-18 20:29 2024-06-21 20:29 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: Reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated Muboshgu Reaction of university donors during Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case European Union reactions to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Akash Anand 2024-06-18 19:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated TomStar81 TJ Monterde 2024-06-18 18:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Template:Getalias2/core 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2508 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Getalias2 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2511 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Jain temples, Pavagadh 2024-06-18 10:32 2024-07-18 10:32 edit,move Persistent vandalism Black Kite Rick and Morty: Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty – Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Heart of Rickness 2024-06-18 02:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Crisis on C-137 2024-06-18 02:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Infinity Hour 2024-06-18 02:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Sukhoi Su-57 2024-06-17 20:07 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Meragram 2024-06-17 17:18 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Union Council Khot 2024-06-17 17:17 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ivanvector User talk:Aviram7/Editnotice 2024-06-17 16:20 indefinite edit,move user request UtherSRG Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Talk:Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article Ad Orientem Timeline of the 2014 Gaza War 2024-06-17 02:28 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Elli DWYE-FM 2024-06-16 21:40 indefinite create Liz DWIP-FM 2024-06-16 21:39 indefinite create Liz Calls for a ceasefire during the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-16 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Hashim Safi Al Din 2024-06-16 19:44 indefinite edit,move raising to ECP as requested Daniel Case Module:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II J.Williams 2024-06-16 14:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit J. Williams 2024-06-16 14:03 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit Naznin Khan 2024-06-16 05:30 2024-09-16 05:30 create Repeatedly recreated Billinghurst 2024 University of Pennsylvania pro-Palestine campus encampment 2024-06-16 04:56 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Chetsford User:Ajaynaagwanshi 2024-06-16 04:02 2024-06-23 04:02 create deleted as inappropriate is exactly that, do not redo the same editing Billinghurst Wars of the Deccan Sultanates 2024-06-15 22:48 indefinite move reinstate earlier protection due to move warring Graeme Bartlett Leve Palestina 2024-06-15 19:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2026 Cricket World Cup Qualifier 2024-06-15 19:30 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Template:Reference column heading 2024-06-15 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2505 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Abbreviation 2024-06-15 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Dinosaur of Ta Prohm 2024-06-15 14:35 2024-07-06 14:35 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content UtherSRG 2019 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:41 2024-07-15 11:41 edit edit warring Valereee 2014 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:39 2024-07-15 11:39 edit edit warring Valereee 2009 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:38 2024-07-15 11:38 edit edit war Valereee 2004 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:37 2024-07-15 11:37 edit edit war Valereee 1999 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:35 2024-07-15 11:35 edit edit warring by AC users Valereee 1994 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:33 2024-07-15 11:33 edit It's an AC user, too. Please discuss. Valereee

Requesting cross-wiki investigation against Darul Huda Islamic Academy

The legal name of the madrasa is “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” but the name they proclaim publicly is “Darul Huda Islamic University” and its acronym, “DHIU”, which is intended to mislead people. They misuse Wikipedia editions, Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata by creating and maintaining articles in various languages to protect their own interests. I don't know if the institution could be called a university or not and the articles was eligible to be kept on Wikipedia or not. I do not recommend deleting the following articles but I request a cross-wiki investigation including meatpuppetry. Admins can discuss and make the necessary decisions themselves.

Name

• The name was given as “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” when it was registered under the Society Act in 1989 and filed as an NGO in 2019.
  • NGO Reg ID: KL/2018/0211502
  • Registration date: 12 March 2019

• Darul Huda has been promoting itself the term "university" and DHIU since 2009, which is incorrect.

• Their homepage was changed from darulhuda.com to dhiu.info in 2009 and to dhiu.in in 2016. They launched a Facebook page called “Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU)” in 2011.

• Four bank account details, including two branches of State Bank of India, Canara and HDFC, are listed in the footer of Darul Huda's website. There the name of the account holder is given as "Darul Huda Islamic Academy".

• Leading universities in India refer to the institution as “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” (2019) and “Darul Huda Islamia Academy” (2017).

Recognition

• Maulana Azad National Urdu University has approved Darul Huda's Madrasa Course as one of 220 Madrasas for the 2019-20 academic year and Jamia Millia Islamia for the 2017 academic year.
• UGC has not yet recognised Darul Huda even as a Deemed University.

Institutions that are not accredited by UGC should not be used as a university in India. Even UGC-accredited Deemed Universities have no right to use the term University. Then how can Darul Huda, which is not even recognized as a primary school by Government of India or Kerala or any School boards like CBSE, ICSE and KHSEB, use the revered word "university"?

That's why, instead of changing the legal name, they only give the promotional name on their websites, profiles and biographies of students and alumni published in different websites, Facebook and the self-created Wikipedia articles.

Suspected accounts

Some accounts were involved in the campaign on various wiki projects. Most of these are students or alumni of the Darul Huda:

1. Faizalniyaz @ Faisal Niyaz Hudawi [1]
2. Fazal kopilan @ Fazal Kopilan is a former student[2] and Sub Editor of Thelitcham Monthly, [3] published by Darul Huda.[4]
3. Suhail hidaya @ Muhammed Suhail Hidaya Hudawi [5]is a staff of the Darul Huda[6] and Associate Editor of islamicinsight.in published by Darul Huda.[7]
4. Ashrafnlkn [8] and Ashrafulkhalq [9] are two accounts of Ashraful Khalq from Nellikunnu (nlkn). He is the major contributor of the article Nellikunnu. His both names are mentioned on his Twitter account.
5. Kunchava KK
6. Abjad3
7. Mckrntr
8. Nadwi Kooriyad
9. Bahauddeen Muhammed
10. YusufMohamedHudawi @ Yoosuf Hudawi
11. Tinkvu @ Rinshad C is a student of Darul Huda. °[10]
12. Suhail Chemmad @ Suhail from Chemmad. This seems to be Suhail's secondary user account.

English Wikipedia

Faisal Niyaz Hudawi, an alumnus of Darul Huda and current CEO of the Islamonweb, an Islamic web portal managed by its graduates, started an article entitled “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” in 2006 and another alumnus and current staff member, Suhail Hidaya Hudawi, renamed it “Darul Huda Islamic University” in 2011. After that, they often try to maintain their interest by creating/canvassing different accounts. A Wikipedia admin moved back to old name, Darul Huda Islamic Academy as per my request recently.

Students and alumni of the Darul Huda, including Suhail Hidaya has created numerous articles related to it on various Wikipedia sites, including English, Malayalam, Arabic, Français, Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Melayu, Türkçe and Urdu, and uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, and modified related Wikidata items.

Articles

1. Darul Huda Islamic Academy
2. Darul Huda Islamic University
3. DHIU
4. Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU)
5. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi (deleted many times)
6. User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi
7. Draft:Bahauddeen Muhammed Jamaluddeen Nadwi
8. Dr.Bahauddeen Muhammed Jamaluddeen Nadwi
9. Draft:Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi
10. Bahauddeen Nadwi (deleted twice)

Updated the list now Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias

Articles created by Suhail Hidaya related to it in various Wikipedia projects:

Malayalam

1. ദാറുൽ ഹുദാ ഇസ്‍ലാമിക് യൂനിവേഴ്‍സിറ്റി
2. സി.എച്ച്. ഐദറൂസ് മുസ്‌ലിയാർ
3. തെളിച്ചം മാസിക
4. ബഹാഉദ്ദീൻ മുഹമ്മദ് നദ്‌വി
5. ഫെഡറേഷൻ ഓഫ് യൂനിവേഴ്സിറ്റീസ് ഓഫ് ഇസ്ലാമിക് വേൾഡ്
6. സമസ്ത കേരള ജംഇയ്യത്തുൽ മുഅല്ലിമീൻ

Français

1. Académie Islamique Darul Huda

Bahasa Indonesia

1. Academy Darul Huda Islamic

Bahasa Melayu

1. Akademi Islam Darul Huda

Türkçe

1. Darul Hüda İslam Üniversitesi

Urdu

1. دار الہدى اسلامک اکیڈمی

Arabic

1. جامعة دار الهدى الإسلامية
2. بهاء الدين محمد الندوي

List of related domains

Darul Huda

• dhiu.in: Darul Huda's main website.
• darulhuda.com: the first domain name of the Darul Huda.
• dhiu.info: a redirect to main domain, it was early used as main domain.
• islamicinsight.in: a journal by the Darul Huda.
• islamonweb.net: an Islamic web portal by Darul Huda's graduates, Hudawis.
• thelicham.com: a online monthly published by Darul Huda.
• hadia.in: official website of Hadia (Hudawis Association for Devoted Islamic Activities), the alumni of Darul Huda.

News Agencies

• suprabhaatham.com: website of Suprabhaatham Daily. Bahauddeen is the editor of the daily.
• gulf-times.com: A Doha based daily and news portal. Shafeeq Alingal also called Shafeeq Hudawi is the Staff Reporter of Gulf Times[11] since 2019[12] and former Senior Reporter of The New Indian Express[13] and TwoCircles.net.[14]

Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Updates

An article moved to new title

Tinkvu @ Rinshad C moved the Darul Huda Islamic Academy to Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU) and removed old contents containing the real name and related sources of “Darul Huda Islamic Academy”. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the old contents which wasn't referenced correctly. @Sabeelul hidaya is bringing his personal hate to the university over Wikipedia!!!

I am not a student, alumni or any employee of Darul Huda Islamic Academy. I have been contributing to Wikipedia articles for 5 months and you can check my contributions on my User's page (And if needed, I can give you the records of my current University).

@Sabeelul hidaya Please note that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and as a contributors, we need to make it best. Please stop bringing your personal hate to Wikipedia.

Thank You! Tinkvu (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be seen as a place to tell lies alone. Is it not a lie to say that you have not studied in Darul Huda yet? Did I say anything without the necessary references?

Why are you trying to mislead Darul Huda as a university?

Isn't Darul Huda an institution operating in India?

Isn't UGC the accrediting agency for the India-based universities?

Has the UGC or any other government-recognized council even recognized Darul Huda as a primary school?

Why did you omit the word "UGC did not recognize it even as a Deemed University until 2020" added to the article to avoid misunderstandings? This idea was contributed to this article by @Gab4gab:, not me.

Why did you remove the author's first name and last name from the citation linked to the http://www.bhatkallys.com/career-education/kerala-islamic-university-spread-wings-south-east-asia/ it was copied from a post that posted in Two Circles by Shafeeq Hudawi. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sabeelul hidaya I removed nothing from the citation as you're talking. The citations are auto-generated and it shows like this. Tinkvu (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What you say may sometimes be true. You answer other questions as well. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I did'nt get what you're talking about! Tinkvu (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I will make it clear to you.

Darul Huda Islamic University is a Private University under the managing committee, Darul Huda Islamic Academy. And it's because of the managing committee is Darul Huda Islamic Academy, all the bank accounts are under the academy.

There are a lot of institutions and other NGO's under Darul Huda Islamic Academy. Tinkvu (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tinkvu: I do not intend to discuss their name or the notability of the organisation or to interfere with their freedom, they can use names they like.

There are many Islamic institutions in Kerala, both large and small. They do not use the word university in a way that misleads students, high educational institutions and organizations, both at home and abroad, nor do they offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by universities.

I speak out against a group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists in leading news agencies like The New Indian Express and Gulf Times, and news portals like TwoCircles.net, and Wikipedians, presenting an institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(@Sabeelul hidaya) You have mentioned the wrong facebook account, Here's my facebook profile[15] and here's my LinkedIn.

And @Sabeelul hidayais a fake profile created by the haters of University to harm/destroy University. Sabeehul Hidaya Islamic College is a college affiliated by Darul Huda Islamic University and the @Sabeelul hidaya is a fake profile created only for harming articles related to Darul Huda Islamic University.

Please help Wikipedia grow, not to bring your personal interests on this Global Encyclopedia.

Thank You! Tinkvu (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Sabeelul hidaya is an Arabic word meaning "way of guidance". I do not think there is anything wrong with this name, contrary to username policy. However, there is no objection to change if the admins suggest me that you behave. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Okey! Agreed.

Can't be there different people with the same name? its not me that you're talking about above!

Prove your identity first and please help Wikipedia to be clean, not to be scrap. Tinkvu (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sabeelul hidaya Can you please mention about your previous Wikipedia User Account here or in your profile? User talk:Sabeelul hidaya#Previous account(s)?

If you have an old account, you should mention it on your User Page. Tinkvu (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tinkvu: Would you like to collaborate with this discussion? Just talk if you're interested or I have other work to do. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Rules are rules, always (You have to know it first).

And stop searching for the students of DHIU (who don't even have any user account on Wikipedia) with the same as that of the users contributing for telling that the article's self published.

I can prove that you're wrong. Tinkvu (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tinkvu: Try to prove it with strong evidence. My first question. I have established on the basis of evidence that Suhail Hidaya is the major contributor to all Wikipedia articles related to Darul Huda. Can you prove otherwise? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And I've replied to all your questions and please check if you have'nt seen.

Thank You. Tinkvu (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

List of references removed yesterday from the article Darul Huda Islamic Academy:

1. MANUU: In this source mentioned that the Darul Huda Islamic Academy's madrasa course has been approved for admission in 2019-20 academic year
2. About the vice principal
3. About former principal
4. NGO details at NGO Darpan, Gov. of India
5. Google Books
6. Kochi Post
7. Jamia Millia: In this source mentioned that the Darul Huda Islamic Academy's madrasa course has been approved for admission in 2017 academic year
8. AMU (dead link)

Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Discussion (Darul Huda Islamic Academy)

What do we needt do do at en-Wiki? Given the above I would suggest the article is moved back and move-protected. The Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi article is now at draft:Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi - moved by Barkeep49 as the result of a request. As an unreferened BLP that has not been worked on in eighteen months or more, I sugest that it is deleted and both draft and article titles are salted. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Darul Huda Islamic University is a recognized university in Kerala and Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi is the vice-chancellor of the University. Do not delete articles related to the university and do not take any actions against the Wikipedians because they are published on English, Malayalam and Arabic only after checking the grammar and making good sources and necessary news coverages. This is not a promotion. We have provided accurate information about this university. We write clearly on different Wikipedias so as not to be misunderstood by the general public, universities and other institutions that search for information about the university on Google and other search engines. Even if you delete it now or later, we will rewrite it with the help of Wikipedia's admins. I'm asking the admins what's wrong with using the university's real name on Wikipedia. You should not use Wikipedia to protect your interests. Suhail Chemmad (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

What is the meaning of promotion? Taking action against articles and accounts is not my goal. The rules should be the same for everyone. I started the discussion here when I saw activities that were against the rules. But the rules do not apply as long as there are paid editors to help you. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I am curious Suhail Chemmad, when you talk about editing Wikipedia, why do you speak in such a plural tone (we have provided ..., we write clearly ..., we will rewrite it ...)? I'd assumed it was a matter of differences in language but seeing: "I'm asking the admins ..." indicates more fluency than I'd originally thought. I'll simply ask: do you edit Wikipedia as an individual or are your efforts coordinated with and for others, perhaps even while sharing accounts?--John Cline (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't carefully read this whole thing but I would suggest on the article front we don't need to do anything - my refunding of the article to User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi (not the Draft version) and full protecting it ensures it's not put into mainspace. Since many of the editors identified aren't suspect to be socks I'm not sure what else we need to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wrong place, if you think a AfD is appropriate for Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU) and it passes a good faith BEFORE then so be it, but I personally would probably be !voting a keep for most sorts of higher education establishments with RS regardless of country, ideology etc. Regarding Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi has at least one viable source as far as I can tell, I wished i'd moved and stewarded into draftspace rather than letter CFORKs. The newer CFORK draft is way off mainspace requirements at this point. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Common names are fine. Loads of organisations don't use their legal name. Secretlondon (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for devoting your precious time to this. I do not intend to discuss their name or the notability of the organisation or to interfere with their freedom, they can use names they like.

There are many Islamic institutions in Kerala, both large and small. They do not use the word university in a way that misleads students, high educational institutions and organizations, both at home and abroad, nor do they offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by universities.

I speak out against a group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists in leading news agencies like The New Indian Express and Gulf Times, and news portals like TwoCircles.net, and Wikipedians, presenting an institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

1 January 2021

Tinkvu is still trying to misrepresent the madrasa. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Meatstuff resumes

@Djm-leighpark and Barkeep49: Are TheAafi and Irshadpp involved in this conspiracy? Can their accounts also be included in the suspected accounts?

Tinkvu, TheAafi and Irshadpp are likely to be paid writers. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Suhail Hidaya, Aaqib Anjum Aafi and Irshad are not any relationship to the University. They are respected contributors and promoters of the Wikipedia. Don't drag anyone into controversy unnecessarily. It will destroy their sincerity. Suhail Chemmad (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in this discussion. Your account also listed in the suspected accounts. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Having spent rather more time on this than I'd planned, it seems clear that there is an active and sophisticated brigade of accounts - meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets - dedicated to claiming for the Darul Huda Islamic Academy the status of university, to which it has no right. The appropriate action on their article Darul Huda Islamic University is being [16] discussed elsewhere, the possible relevance for this board is admin action on the puppets. I'd have thought a Wikimedia-wide topic ban to be appropriate. Hunc (talk) 10:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Shafeeq Hudawi or Shafeeq Alingal

In the "Darul Huda Islamic University" article currently 9 references are listed and cited in 12 places. Most are from Two Circles and one is from "bhatkallys.com" (but that too is reported from “Two Circles”). The other two are references from the official website, dhiu.in. All the reports came in "Two Circles" are between 3 May 2015 and January 2019. During the same period, Shafeeq, an alumnus, worked as a reporter there. He worked for The New Indian Express between April 1, 2013 and March 1, 2019. During this period, 5 reports related to Darul Huda and Telicham magazine were published in "newindianexpress.com". After resigning from "Two Circles" in January 2019 and TNIE in March 2019, he joined the Gulf Times in 2019. Since then, there has been no news of Darul Huda in the above two websites and he is now continuing his promotional work at gulf-times.com. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:Veneta1 on article Dua Lipa

• Dua Lipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Veneta1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This was archived on 24 December without any comments (diff), so i brought it back.

This is a textbook case of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, as explained here. User:Veneta1 has been trying since March 2021 to either alter the meaning of, or totally remove reliably sourced content pertaining to the maternal ancestry of the subject. The diffs below pertain to reverts over the course of 9 months. He/She has been reverted and warned multiple times in the past by a number of editors, yet continued with the same disruptive editing; even after being reported at WP:ANI on 20 December. This needs some attention, and hopefully an admin will take a better look, now that i brought the report back from the archives.

Diffs of User:Veneta1

1. 01:48, 10 March 2021
2. 03:17, 15 March 2021
3. 20:47, 6 April 2021
4. 21:36, 6 April 2021
5. 22:23, 6 April 2021
6. 00:04, 27 April 2021
7. 21:48, 28 April 2021
8. 00:07, 29 April 2021
9. 15:16, 30 April 2021
10. 22:46, 31 May 2021
11. 19:30, 5 June 2021
12. 21:27, 26 June 2021
13. 16:34, 18 July 2021
14. 05:44, 23 August 2021
15. 19:48, 23 August 2021
16. 22:06, 23 August 2021
17. 09:18, 24 August 2021
18. 09:01, 1 September 2021
19. 21:52, 1 September 2021
20. 00:01, 9 September 2021
21. 05:27, 12 September 2021
22. 07:03, 16 September 2021
23. 22:49, 30 September 2021
24. 08:00, 15 October 2021
25. 18:55, 20 October 2021
26. 08:23, 17 December 2021
27. 17:24, 17 December 2021
28. 13:16, 19 December 2021
29. 14:00, 20 December 2021
30. 01:14, 27 December 2021

Diffs of edit warring warning

1. 02:29, 7 April 2021 by User:Binksternet
2. 06:02, 23 August 2021 by User:Binksternet
3. 20:40, 23 August 2021 by User:LOVI33
4. 10:41, 2 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
5. 15:17, 9 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
6. 23:00, 20 October 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
7. 13:49, 20 December 2021 by User:Demetrios1993

Sidenote: I initially reported the user at the "Edit warring" noticeboard, but was forwarded here, since this is a long-term issue. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The editor should be given an warning, and avoid repeating these edits unless they discuss it first on the talk page and seek consensus, providing that they have reliable sources to back their edits. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Nope, they shouldn't be given another warning, because they've had seven warnings already. They've edited their own talk page so we know those warnings have been received. They've been informed of what policy says. We're now well within sanctions territory. Suggest a pblock from editing Dua Lipa, which would be revocable once they indicate an intent to edit within policy.—S Marshall T/C 10:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I agree; a WP:PBAN seems like the most appropriate sanction. Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Closure of J. K. Rowling RfC

A request was made at Wikipedia:Closure requests for closure of Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead. I'd have closed it myself, but quite a few participating editors requested a panel of three admins. I don't personally think it's an RfC so complex or significant that it needs a panel of admins, but in deference to those who feel it does I'm posting it here, since this is a better place to find three admin closers than WP:CR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I've no objections to it being closed by a single editor, or a panel of editors. I only hope, everyone there will accept & respect/implement the decision. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am reading through that RfC and am tabulating some information on how which points were argued and who supported what and with which caveats. I am not yet 100% sure if I want to be the/a closer, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: closed the RFC, hours ago. Brave fellow. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

New admin tools

Hi all, for those who don't know me, I'm Ed6767 (talk · contribs). In 2020, I developed RedWarn, which is now one of the most used counter-vandalism tools on this Wiki. It's been continually praised by its users for its user friendliness and other quality of life features, however, it was optimised only for non-administrators. Myself and Chlod spoke at Wikimania this year, where I discussed my motives and the history of the project.

I moved on from RedWarn in November to begin development on a more advanced project called Teyora, which aims to fix everything I did wrong when making RedWarn, whilst also aiming to provide an actually viable, accessible and user friendly web based Huggle alternative (no, it's not a userscript, but a separate fully fledged web app) that still carries forward the good things about RedWarn, without the bad. It also will have both reporting features for non-admins, and blocking, protection and other features for admins, and have a basic operating capacity on every Wikimedia wiki (more advanced features are planned to be achieved through community sourced/first party extensions). At the moment, for the sake of creative freedom this is a personal project at the moment, of course with plans to expand into a team when I'm ready - but I need to do a bit of market research :p

As this is mainly a question for administrators, and the village pump is often ignored, I think this is the best venue for my question, which is this:

What do you dislike about current administration tools (blocking, reviewing reports from AIV, page protection, etc)? What would you like to see to make your life easier?

Which of these planned features, if any, would you benefit from? And what concerns do you have about them?

1. Quick revert and block - you can revert an edit and immediately/quickly apply a temporary block (with a 30 second grace period to allow you to cancel the action)
2. User info - User contributions, whether they have been warned in the past month and why, and ORES scores all quickly available on a diff/other pages to allow for more informed decisions
3. Moderating multiple Wikis at once - fancy moderating Simple English and English Wikipedia at the same time? (**different Wikis will be made clear, and if you have under 10 edits in a wiki you will be reminded to check local policies before you edit**)
4. Both a static and live feed - see live edits as soon as they're made and/or a "static" feed that is updated every few seconds that can contain your watchlist, edit filter hits, a page category (think copyvios, requests for admin help or pending edits) or other things
5. Workspaces - use different extensions, Wikis, configurations, filters and feeds for different workflows, like patrolling uploads vs monitoring recent changes, or patrolling Commons vs patrolling Wikipedia, etc. You can also share and use first party workspaces, or those made by the community, or just create your own from scratch!
6. User watchlist - watchlist users for a limited amount of time and get notified (time limitation is to mitigate hounding)
7. Alert on change - get a notification when a page is edited (this is present in RedWarn, but will be much more refined). This could be useful say for monitoring when new AIV or RFPP requests come in and you want a bit more of an alert.
8. Quick protect - one click to protect a page for whatever reason, again with a 30 second grace period before the action is made
9. Reading list - add articles you come across whilst patrolling to a reading list, separate to your watchlist, similar to the Wikipedia mobile app
10. Watchlist folders - divide your watchlist into folders and share watchlists with the community
11. Ask for help/flag an edit as "unsure" - you may have a time where you encounter an edit that may be disruptive, but you my be confused or stuck for any number of reasons. For example, you may not know a topic too well, or a figure may have been changed that you're unable to verify, so you can flag an edit that you're unsure about to get a second opinion.
12. Add citation needed in edits - add citation needed to any part of a change, a good faith alternative to reversion (no promises here, may be added on enwiki if technically possible with an extension)

These features are only planned, so there is no guarantee you will see any of them in the finished project. Please avoid checkuser/oversight etc comments as I can only test and develop for sysops as I only have sysop on Test Wiki - other than that any and all feedback, comments or questions is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your feedback in advance! ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 04:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Caveat of I am not an admin, but watchlist folders would be extremely useful for me and I'd imagine for most users in general. Flagging edits is also an interesting idea. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  I should clarify, these aren't admin exclusive. All these features other than the ones that require admin rights will be available to all users :) ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 04:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way, but I'm frankly not understanding what point 3 does. Hog Farm _Talk 04:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Typically recent changes is fixed to one Wiki, i.e. English Wikipedia. However, the way Teyora's server is set up is that it listens to all changes made on every Wikimedia project, and the Teyora client can subscribe to whichever Wiki(s) you're using. This allows you to choose more than one project to be shown in your recent changes feed, and your configuration (warning templates, etc) will be changed seamlessly as you go between wikis, whilst still having a single unified recent changes feed. It's a new concept, so it's harder to explain, but I hope this clarifies. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 04:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would love an easy way to see how many times a user has been warned in the past X period of time. While I'd personally love a user watchlist, I worry about misuse. I would use alert on change; just because something is on my watchlist doesn't mean it's important enough that I need an alert, but there are a few pages I'd like to make sure I see. (And I'd like to be alerted when certain pages get a new section opened, ditto.) —valereee (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• User Info and User Watchlists would be really helpful for determining if someone is a vandal or just made a one-off bad edit. Watchlist Folders might be really useful for helping communities keep track of related topics, especially if changes to the original propagate to all followers. Flagging an edit as Unsure would be a very helpful tool, but it might get buried by subsequent edits, so I'm not sure how well it'd work out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• A user watchlist would be a real concern. The WMF has recently done an accidental end-run around this, and a formal mechanism (temporary or otherwise) would be of concern even though it would be immensely useful. User info, especially showing warnings which might have been blanked, watchlist folders, and I take a static/live feed as "standard" since mediawiki itself offers it. The 2nd opinion proposal is interesting and I'd like to see more about it. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear: as edits are public, there are many ways you can build your own "user watchlist" - you can even use a wiki page, example: Special:PermaLink/1063005226. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  Of course, using a wikipage doesn't make it secret who you are watching - but there are numerous ways to build that client-side. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear, I'm aware of the concerns of user watchlists and have considered some mitigation protections, some I've considered are:

• You can only have a user on your watchlist for 3 hours at a time, as if you're watching a vandal that's typically the longest you'd need to, however, you can renew a watch manually up to 4 times for a total of 12 hours before having to wait 24 hours before you can start watching a user again (i.e. watching a user has to be deliberate)
• User watchlisting gives an intrusive notification whenever they make an edit, not just a log showing in your feed for example
• Only approved/trusted users can use the feature
• Use of the feature is logged and publicly visible

Whether or not these would work, we wouldn't know until a trial period is run, but I'd appreciate your opinion or any further situations. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 18:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability

As I wrote here at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and as I was suggested to by Tayi Arajakate, I am asking with no prejudice that an admin review the RfC, and a close review for a reclose/amendment. As I wrote there, I am not sure that "[e]ditors achieved a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable. [emphasis mine; strong consensus and successive close wording is bolded in original], and in general did not seem to account for Option 1 and/or Option 1/2 comments when stating that "there is strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable" — e.g. it appears to be there was no clear or strong consensus on whether it was 1 or 2, with a minority supporting 3. I think both sides gave good arguments for either 'green'-rating (with bias and attribution like The Intercept and Reason) and 'yellow'-rating (no consensus).

It is not so easy to tell which colour better reflects consensus, and if a review would change that; however, my main issue is with the closure's wording that should be revised and/or improved, and if so, also amend on the same grounds the current (RSP entry), which appears to be too wordy and could be further improved, perhaps due to the similarly too wordy closure that may be, at least in part, due to being closed by a non-admin. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would support scrapping the close followed by a re-close preferable from an admin, especially after the closer's response at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Jacobin (magazine). To start, the close is very long and quite hard to navigate. It consists of a lot of redundancies and over-emphasises particular arguments, some of which only had the support of one or two editors. On the other hand, it downplays and in some cases completely ignores other policy based arguments, including those that directly addressed the other set of arguments and enjoyed wider support. In the end, the close somehow ends up coming to a conclusion that is even harsher than most of the opinions expressed by Option 2 !voters and more in line with those expressed by Option 3 !voters. If the response to this is simply that the arguments were stronger, then this is a supervote and not an appropriate summarisation of the consensus. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Any updates? Davide King (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Not yet, it seems. Hopefully, others would eventually comment after looking into it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

---

I'm unarchiving this section, as it did not recieve sufficient participation and the closer has till now been largely irresponsive to concerns depsite contuining to uphold the close. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Jacobin (magazine). It would be helpful if the community could please weigh in on it and resolve this.

To clarify a bit upon why I said what I said in the previous comment, I'll give one additional example. The close assesses the arguments for poor "sourcing practices of Jacobin" to be stronger than those for "the use of Jacobin as a source for facts by reliable sources". The former argument was expressed or supported by 4 participants and explicitly argued against by 3 participants, while the latter argument was expressed or supported by 6 participants. Note also that the former links "sourcing practices" to WP:LAUNDER, an essay that wasn't even linked by any of the participants and might as well be a novel argument. In contrast, WP:UBO is part of a content guideline.

In addition, looking at the closer's degree of involvement in the topic area of American left wing politics, I do not think they are sufficiently uninvolved. Take for instance, The Grayzone was mentioned by participants in their arguments around sourcing practices, which was prominently reproduced in the close summary, all the while the closer has considerable involvement on its article. This is a fairly controversial and complex RfC, involved significant participation from a number of experienced editors with well articulated reasoning for their positions, but was closed by an involved NAC. My position is therefore to Overturn and reclose by an uninvolved admin regardless of whatever it is, with a close summary that is more concise and coherent. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm lost as to what your position is and exactly what the complaint is. If I understand right, your ultimate concern is that its designation is yellow on WP:RSP, rather than green? And that the closer did not close with an option 1/2/3/4 response? On the latter, I don't think that's a requirement; I've closed RSN RfCs with statements not resulting in a clear option answer. RSP regulars can turn the closing statement into whatever colours/entries they think best represent the statement. As for the former, there's no consistency on how that's handled. e.g. The Spectator is pretty decent, but WP:SPECTATOR is yellow. Reason wasn't subject to an RfC and I'm not sure its RSP rating is actually indicative of the consensus in the recent discussion (which, incidentally, it appears I started). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not my concern. The concern is the summary in the RSP entry does reflect the close but the close doesn't reflect the actual discussion. It overweighs arguments presented by those favoring general unreliability. One central point being that it concludes that there is "a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable", which is not reflected in the discussion as it implies that either some form of additional considerations should apply or that it is generally unreliable. Most participants who !voted Option 2 don't indicate support for this kind of position so it appears plain inappropriate. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

On a sidenote, the recent discussion on Reason took place after the Jacobin one and the participants supporting "Option 2" make explicit references to the Jacobin. Its entry is not indicative of the consensus of the last discussion though it is for those before it. So it seems instead of the practice shifting, this is an inappropriate close making us deviate from WP:RSOPINION for the sake of consistency. Incidentally, the closer of the Jacobin themselves is the sole person expressing support for the general reliability of Reason with a WP:UBO arguement which is quite ironic. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Reason thing, it is not an outlier. I would point out that the closer has extensively weighed in on RSN discussions over sources perceived to have a left / right bias, virtually always, relative to the average of the discussions, on the side of low reliability for left-wing ones and high reliability for right-wing ones eg. dubious right wing sources [17][18][19][20][21][22] vs. an eagerness to depreciate or limit the use of left-leaning ones [23][24][25][26][27]. On top of that, Mikehawk's top-edited talk pages include Uyghur genocide, Mass killings under communist regimes, and The Grayzone, staking out clearly positions on socialism, the far left, and left-wing media coverage in general. It's fine to hold those positions (eg. believing there are a lot of left-leaning sources we use that we shouldn't is a valid position to take), but when it comes to closing RFCs where that is a major focus of discussion - like, say, a source called Jacobin - they are plainly WP:INVOLVED to the point where I'm honestly slightly shocked they thought it would be acceptable for them to close it or that it escaped notice until now. Would anyone involved in that discussion on the other side have been happy if, instead of weighing in with my opinion in the proper way, I had waited a bit and then closed it as generally-reliable (which I do think is the accurate reading of the consensus?) People knee-deep in something like that should not be closing RFCs about it, especially not in close or controversial cases, and especially not with closes that are so obviously at odds with the actual discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• The close is from September and it is almost January. I think we have passed the point of a reclose --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  I've seen older RfCs being closed though I suppose it can be overturned and just left as is, not the option I prefer. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• That close doesn't sufficiently reflect the discussion that gave rise to it. It should be overturned and reclosed, regardless of the amount of time that's passed. A mistake doesn't become less mistaken because it's an old mistake.—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with S Marshall; all else aside the close is plainly a WP:SUPERVOTE, not an accurate summary of the discussion. Numerically the numbers favored option 1; and the closer did not even attempt to argue that the arguments otherwise were stronger, yet they baldly claimed that there was a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable, which is inaccurate to the point of absurdity. No plausible good-faith reading of a strong consensus to that effect exists. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Bishopfinger vandalises my user page, refuses to talk, adds unsourced content, (meat)puppet master

User:Bishopfinger has vandalised my user page (in multiple edits) due to my disapproval of his addition of unsourced content and WP:FICTREF at Reformed Old Catholic Church.
I have tried to explain the user on his/her talk page the edition and vandalism issues, to which the user vandalised my user page a second time.
Furthermore, the user seems to also be the same person as User:149.86.88.78, as they both insist on adding the exact same unsourced content around the same period of time (Bishopfinger: [28], [29]; IP: [30], [31]); it is at least meatpuppetry. Veverve (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is clear-cut vandalism, and I have blocked for 31 hours. I've added an indef partial block on Reformed Old Catholic Church --though it seems that this removed the earlier block? Veverve, they're likely just editing while logged out--not OK, but not a big deal. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Drmies: Now there is this IP's edit summaries which are all personnal attacks. I think the page Reformed Old Catholic Church (and possibly its AfD) should be protected. Veverve (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry you had to endure more of that, Veverve. So it did turn into a real socking case--two accounts blocked, IP rangeblocked. Thanks, and all the best, Drmies (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
    • No problem; thanks for your quick interventions. Was User:149.86.88.78 a sock of Bishopfinger in the end? You did not indicate anything on this IP's user page. Veverve (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, You did not add the Template:Sockpuppeteer to the user pages. I would add it myself, but from what I read in the documentation it is an admin's duty to add those. Veverve (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not necessary to tag every blocked user. Often there is no point and it looks like that applies here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

2021 review of RfA complete

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to facilitate this Barkeep49. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Your username or IP address is blocked from doing this.

Account creation error Jump to navigation Jump to search

Your username or IP address is blocked from doing this. You may still be able to do other things on this site, such as editing certain pages. You can view the full block details at account contributions.

The block was made by ‪Johnuniq‬.

The reason given is:

Disruptive editing: per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for extension of partial block

   Start of block: 01:51, 6 December 2021
   Expiration of block: 01:51, 6 June 2022
   Intended blockee: ‪2A02:587:0:0:0:0:0:0/32‬
   Block ID #12237660

If you believe you are seeing this message in error, you may submit an appeal on the administrators' noticeboard, on your talk page, or by UTRS.

Return to Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses.

As per the above notice, my IP address has been blocked. I don't remember having a Wikipedia account. Maybe I had created it a long time ago. Can you please explain to me why my IP address is blocked? Is it by mistake? Please remove the block so that I can use your services. Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:1882:4800:905B:6BEE:26C2:582A (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

You should be able to edit any page not listed in the block log. The block reason should now be using this link for an explanation: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#Request_for_extension_of_partial_block. @Johnuniq: Did we mean to also block account creation? This is a huge range with no obvious history of multiple accounts. The previous block allowed account creation. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@zzuuzz: Thanks for pointing that out. I took the defaults and failed to notice that "Block account creation" was applied. I have reblocked with it removed so IPs can now create accounts. Re the above IP's question, on 28 December 2021 I was pinged to User talk:2A02:587:180E:5CD2:EC21:B139:6F77:45FC with a similar question by another IP in the range. The first block I applied was on 6 December 2021. It's a big range of IPs but it is a little strange that two of them have tried to edit one of the articles (1, 2, 3) they are blocked from.

@ 2A02:587:1882:4800:905B:6BEE:26C2:582A: The IP you are currently using has no edits other than the above. What article would you like to edit but cannot? What changes were you thinking of making? Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a few more talk pages where you didn't get the ping.[32] At least one of those is probably collateral from a sub-range block. As I understand it, when a partially blocked IP says something vague like "remove the block so that I can use your services", or "Somebody blocked me", they are probably not attempting to edit the blocked pages (the IP user is welcome to correct me). It seems to me that IPs within this range are reassigned at least once per day, so I'd expect almost every IP to have no other edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, that's pretty weird. I've never been an IP editing from a range with a partial block on three articles so I have no clue what happens. I would have thought that the only way I would know I was blocked would be if I tried to edit one of the three articles? Or does MediaWiki show a banner with the block details when a partially blocked IP visits wikipedia.org at some other page? It's the wrong time of year to ponder that, maybe later. Re the IP who did ping me—they are obviously experienced so it is inconceivable to me that they wrote that ever-so-innocent question and failed to look for a response when they would have answered my gentle question. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Jomart Allaguliyev and socks

On 15 October, Canterbury Tail blocked Jomart Allaguliyev for disruptive editing. I do not exactly what the story was, and this is not important for now. 15 December, Jom Allaguliyev was registered and started editing. A couple of days ago I have realized that he are a sock of a blocked user, and blocked him for block evasion. Today, I saw Jo Allaguliyev on my watchlist. The account was registered yesterday, and I have blocked it as well. The guy does not seem to care that he is blocked, he just registers a new account every time and continues to do what he is doing. I am not sure whether anything should/can be done.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I have  Confirmed that these three accounts are operated by the same person. I agree that not much more can be done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably we just need to block on sight, and I do not see what else we could do.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The account has been abandoned for months, but there's also User:Jomart Allaguliyev (real) which is obviously the same person. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked this one--Ymblanter (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, J. Allaguliyev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would appear to be them also. FDW777 (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this is clearly an account registered after I have blocked the previous one.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Maunsellp.214

Please can someone undelete File:Maunsellp.214.jpeg, which was deleted with the summary "The result of the discussion was: Deleted - may be undeleted in 2022", and which is now out-of-copyright? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done, courtesy ping to J Milburn--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Unblock review of Neutralhomer

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

---

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

I blocked User:Neutralhomer indefinitely back on October 20th with a rationale of "continuing to baselessly accuse other editors of racist [sic; I meant racism], after a very clear warning to stop, and a generally over the top battleground mentality for the last 3 days straight". He has requested an unblock on his talk page. I am not going to unblock him myself, as I find the unblock rationale unconvincing. Since CAT:UNBLOCK is backlogged, and (more importantly) since he seems to be questioning the legitimacy of the original block, I'm bringing it here for review.

• The original ANI thread that was the locus of the previous problem is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081#Completely lost and in need of help regarding the use of parameters in bibliographic sources in articles against antagonistic editors who try to undo those improvements
• The warning to stop mentioned above is here: [33] (copy of my email to him, posted with my permission
• The final straw edit I mention above is here: [34]
• His unblock request rationale, and a discussion with User:HighinBC and myself about it, is here: [35] (permalink as of the time I created this review)

I'm not consistently around, so if any editor notices that NH has asked that something he's written on his talk page be added here, please transfer it over. Finally, it's pretty hard to balance providing sufficient background with not poisoning the well, so I haven't provided many details. I'll answer any specific questions anyone has, but there might be a bit of a delay in my response. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Addendum Based on the comments so far, I agree that what I’m requesting and where it should be requested is a little fuzzy. I would not have requested a review of the original block if NH hadn’t requested I post to ANI. If it's framed as a block review, then if people think the original block was fine, but the unblock request is ok, then I’d hate to have to have a separate conversation about that. After reading the comments so far, I think what NH is asking for is a review of the unblock request - only a part of which is the idea the original block was wrong - so my earlier framing might have been unfairly focused on the wrong thing. This should really be an unblock review. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. This editor is continuing right now the very same style of prickly, combative, "I was wronged" type of behavior that has led to the current sanctions. It is all well and good to say in an unblock request I apologize to everyone for being a complete asshole and a jerk but that admission loses its impact quickly when that very behavior resumes while discussing the unblock request. I am particularly taken aback by the comment I work in a custodial/construction-esque type of world. Outside of when the teachers and kids are in the school, we cuss like sailors. I worked as a hospital janitor nearly 50 years ago and have worked in "construction-esque" work environments ever since, including 28 years of owning and operating a "construction-esque" type business, and I can attest that cussing like sailors has never been acceptable in any work setting I have ever been involved in, and I have been working part time or full time for nearly 60 years. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  (copied over from NH's talk page - floq) @Cullen328: First off, a hospital with patients and an empty school with just us custodians are two very different things. I have worked in both environments, so I am familiar. Behavior and language is different when teachers/students are in the building, clearly.

  Second, the two quoted sentences were from two seperate replies and not from the same sentence or same reply. The second quoted sentence that you used, when fully quoted is As for my "I fucked up" and "I was an asshole", I work in a custodial/construction-esque type of world. Outside of when the teachers and kids are in the school, we cuss like sailors. It takes a lot for one of us to say "dude, I fucked up, I'm sorry"...but we do and that's why we work so well together. Guys, typically, don't go into long, flowing apologizes....we just don't. For some of us, "dude, I fucked up, I'm sorry" is as good as it gets. It's genuine, but we are of few words. You get the entire context.

  Third, "prickly" and "combative"? I don't think I've ever been called "prickly" and I am most certainly not being combative, just the opposite.

  Fourth, I noticed from your userpage that you are from Michigan and now live in California. I'm not sure how they do things there, but I grew up around the Navy (sailors), my Dad was one, I work in a "custodial/construction-esque type of world", there is cussing. Generally, you get a bunch of guys together, we're gonna get relaxed, shoot the shit while working, and we cuss. But all of that that has ZERO barring on this website or my ability to edit it, nor should it. If anything, I have shitty morals.

  Hopefully, this helps you understand things a tad bit better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support- I"m aware of no rule that requires grovelling, or complete agreement with the block. Reyk _YO! 04:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - It would be best if Neutralhomer waited the full six-months, before requesting an unblock. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note Wikipedia:Administrative action review is the current venue for reviewing administrative actions, including blocks. isaacl (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, please see addendum above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Lovely, more bureaucracy. Eventually, the "government" will be larger than the "country". Perhaps we should have some sort of triage noticeboard with a clerk in the cellar deciding which noticeboard to send someone to.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: Well, it really decides whether you want abuse or an argument; and complaints are next door. SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't really a block review. Nobody is really contesting the original block was legitimate, afaik Neutralhomer didn't clearly say he was either. It's more like a block appeal to the community. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just a note, as I understand it Floquenbeam is requesting a review of the original block rather than the unblock request. So ideally comments should focus on whether the block including duration was justified based on the circumstances of the time, rather than whether their current request justifies an unblock. Editors could of course consider whether NeutralHomer has said something which helps demonstrate that the block wasn't proper. I won't comment on this myself since it seemed like what I said early on may have been part of what resulted in NeutralHomer eventually saying what they said. Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, please see addendum above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. It occured to me a few hours later that I should have also said although the (original) focus may have been to review the original block, if editors did want to review the unblock and there was consensus, then this should be actioned even if the original block was considered correct. Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Per Nil Einne this is framed as a block review. But looking at the thread on Neutralhomer’s talk page the spirit of what he’s looking for is a response to his unblock request - albeit he he may not be totally clear on the procedural niceties. It’s a little unfair on him to not have his unblock request looked at (I’m guessing a block review would almost certainly fail.) DeCausa (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, please see addendum above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with this editor but I was rather shocked to see their block log. By my count this is the 23rd time Neutralhomer has been blocked, and the 4th indefinite block. Even if not all those blocks were justified I have a hard time seeing why we should unblock someone who apparently keeps doing block-worthy stuff. Hut 8.5 14:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• The editor keeps insisting the fact that they didn't evade their block is a reason (perhaps the main reason) we should unblock them. e.g. I keep bringing it up because it shows that I'm basically serving my "sentence" with a door to the "prison" wide open for "escape". Really, it's more like having a door open for escape, with a sniper waiting outside for anyone that is silly enough to go out. Block evasion is a fast-track trip to a community ban that will be harder to undo, and (if kept up) ventures into WP:3X territory. It's a truly awful idea. Not block evading isn't really a valid point in a block appeal, unless the original block was for block evasion. It's just the bare minimum expected. Other things on the usertalk page are also not indicative that the problems have desisted yet. I also think this isn't really a wise idea for someone trying to be unblocked, since per WP:CBAN if this fails then really further appeals also need to be considered by the community. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Usually I'm the first to call, "unblock per ROPE", but Floquenbeam's original block reason combined with Hut 8.5's comment make me pause; unfortunately something slightly more convincing than usual is required, and I'm not sure I'm seeing it right now. Of course, that could in turn be due to a confusion of process as mentioned by DeCausa. SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• I am not among the great nor the good of Wikipedia, so I am not even sure I should weigh in, but I think everyone deserves second (and third, etc.) chances, and I do see some self-reflection here. That said, NH's addendum above gave me some real pause--I don't like the "it's just the way I am" defense, and the trick of being combative and prickly while denying being prickly and combative is...something. All that said, I would lean towards unblock with the knowledge that further interactions will be held to higher scrutiny. But I will leave the decision to wiser folk. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. This is pretty bad as far as unblock requests go. Better than "it's all everyone else's fault," but still bad. Going right to "... but I could have gotten around the block" is not a good sign, as well as the multiple attempts to blame it on his mental health (while simultaneously being angry at other people's use of colloquialisms as somehow being attacks on his mental health). I say wait the standard 6 months before even considering an appeal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support for a very productive long-time editor, which counts for something, who has given a very good apology including an honest explanation of how some men apologize. Now, going forward, I hope he remembers something well, relating to his own words: "Outside of when the teachers and kids are in the school, we cuss like sailors." Sir, who do you think edits Wikipedia and reads your comments? Teachers, kids, women, men, children, the general public, mothers, whores, bellmen and thieves. Some of those won't mind rough language, and would pay for it, while it may chase others away from this encyclopedia that we all work on. You are responsible for Wikipedia's reputation and name as much as Jimbo Wales or the tens of thousands of others who edit but, in your case as a good long-term editor, you should either be proud of working here or at least pretend to be. Wikipedia holds up the honor of knowledge, and people volunteering here - all of them but especially the long-termers like yourself - believe they have something to share with the world and the project. When you say anything on a talk page maybe imagine you are talking to a 12 year-old girl, because you very well might be. Do good work, live a clean Wikipedian life, and wash behind the ears fella. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - FWIW, no administrator has yet accepted or declined Neutralhomer's unblock request at his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks GoodDay, I've added a "hold please" template to the unblock request as discussion here may affect its outcome and its better to have everything in one place at a time. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Hut 8.5. User has been getting blocked, apologizing very sincerely, and getting re-blocked for the same behavior since 2007. This is clearly not a case of a young person who will mature with time, nor a short-term issue caused by temporary stress, but fundamentally part of how this user edits. Some people, however talented or intelligent, are just not temperamentally suited to working in Wikipedia's collaborative environment and I think that's the case here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not a fan of the "Okay, but this is the very very very last chance, and we mean it this time!" approach. I think after a certain point, the community needs to make a decision as to whether or not someone with 4 logged indef blocks represents a net negative to the project.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Hut 8.5 and PMC. I usually never comment about these things, but I watched this whole thing unfold and was taken aback by the sheer anger NH displayed. Someone with twenty-three blocks and four indefinite blocks to their name should've learned years ago that their approach isn't working, but I guess it hasn't sunk in yet. Also the whole "I have a mobile account and could've socked but didn't" argument is so weird and speaks for itself really. JCW555 talk ♠ 21:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There comes a point that you have to cut your losses and move on. One indef? Sure, it's possible someone had a bad day of things. But 4 indef blocks? That's a pattern of behavior that obviously is not compatible to working withing a collaborative environment. It's not a matter of if they commit an act to cause yet another indef block situaton, but WHEN. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having reviewed the links above, this battleground behavior is unacceptable. This, this, this, this, and this cannot be brushed away. WaltCip is spot on here. GAB^gab 22:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I am not going to oppose, but I am certainly not going to support. I recommended this user take advantage of the standard offer and wait of full 6 months but they did not take my advice. I don't think they are ready to come back at this point, they are not yet in a collaborative mood frankly. They are a very long term contributor and I sincerely hope at some point I may be able to welcome them back. But I feel it is too soon. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment on block log There’s a few comments above about Neutralhomer’s block log. I would just highlight that the vast majority of his blocks (and all the heavy duty ones excluding this onE) are pre-2013. Then, there’s nothing until 2018, then 3 short blocks before the current incident. Yes, it’s not great but not as bad as the headline looks. There’s a distinction to be made between his first clearly rocky 5 years and his last 10 years. He’s also made 75k edits (half to article space) and created 400+ articles. Not saying that excuses anything - just giving some additional context beyond the current behaviour which is obviously sub-optimal. DeCausa (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Still don't know why he's posting about his real life employment. That's irrelevant material, in association to this 'review', he's requested. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per that whole thing where he called me a racist. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Hut 8.5 and PMC. It takes talent to get blocked 23 times with 4 indefs. And that talent spells out WP:CIR and net negative. Fool Wikipedia once, shame on you. Fool Wikipedia 23 times (with 4 indefs), shame on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Edited to add: The unblock request, and in particular the Look I didn't even block evade even though I could have easily subverted that Wikipedia policy [like he's been subverting and ignoring Wikipedia policies and racking up the 23 previous blocks], is wildly inappropriate and wildly misunderstanding of the spirit of Wikipedia and to me adds to the reasons he should not be unblocked. This is in addition to responding to every single !voter here by pinging them on his talkpage. Please stop digging your HOLE any deeper than it already is. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support unblock Ok, I am not an admin, but I see repentance sufficient in my view to warrant the handcuffs being taken off. Granted, without admin goggles I cannto see everything. Even so, and considering their prior track record, I believe this block is able to be lifted. The basis for my opinion is the concept of prevention versus thag of punishment. I think the block has acted preventatively and that use has now expired. I feel we have moved into a less than appropriate phase of punishment. If it is felt that it "should last some time longer" then that is a topic for discussion. If that is the feeling of this discussioin then give it a limit. Make that a couple of days past the close of this discussion, make it a couple of months, but make it finite whatever you decide. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Softlavender. This has gone on for more than long enough, and the unconvincing unblock statement indicates to me that this editor would benefit from a lengthy period away from Wikipedia if they want to come back. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hatting boorish behavior. Please keep it on topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - Neutralhomer. We're all happy that you're proud of being a custodian. Mention it enough times on your talkpage & perhaps we'll come up with a medal, to pin it on you. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC) @GoodDay: Do we really need snark?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC) We don't. But, I do tend to get annoyed, when it appears as though our time might be being wasted. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Every person has a right to a spirited defense. WaltCip-(talk) 16:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Cool? Don't recall GoodDay saying he didn't. And GoodDay has just as much right to say what he did. --Golbez (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC) It seems like kicking someone when they're down. And I do not want to encourage a culture where anything people say in their own defense is to be snickered at. Reyk YO! 19:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I could be missing context, but NeutralHomer's edit here appears to be saying that if one says "competence is required," they are a racist and a bigot? Really? Please tell me I'm missing something, because for someone to say that after having been here for 14 years is rather shocking. --Golbez (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The context is buried deep in the original ANI discussion, so it's easy to miss. The short, short version is that NH misunderstood a comment about a user having the same name as a Mexican film as disparaging that user's heritage, and then took the CIR comment as somehow supporting this imagined attack on said user. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose now and later. I see a decade-long appetite for personalization, insults, assumptions of bad faith, and slap-fights. It's time one of these indef blocks actually sticks for good. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose utter time sink. User shows interest in re-fighting the same battles and displaying same temperament rather than even fake contrition for the sake of being unblocked. No indication this will end differently than any of the prior indef/unblocks. Time for both sides to move on. Star Mississippi 22:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC) ETA: I've seen his response to me, it doesn't change one bit of my comment and reinforces my time sink belief. I stand by my oppose. Star Mississippi 01:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - If Neutralhomer 'still' hasn't evaded his block in anyway by April 2022. I'll support his unblock. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

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

further discussion

Not mentioned in the close is that interpreting this as a discussion of whether to unblock has led Beeblebrox not only to close Neutralhomer's open unblock request but to interpret the closure of this discussion as converting the block into a CBAN, requiring the editor to go through the ban appeals process: diff. I don't think that's fair: conversion into a CBAN was only mentioned once above, by ProcrastinatingReader, nor do I think that was in Floquenbeam's mind when he opened this section; there's discussion above about exactly what the focus of the section should be. Also, while as I have stated on Neutralhomer's talk page, no single human can master the totality of this project's bureaucratic rules and procedures, I disagree that a section not explicitly intended as a community appeal of a non-community block in lieu of a talk-page appeal using the unblock appeal template must or should be treated as the last chance appeal that exhausts regular appeal options. This section changed focus as it went and was never defined enough to play that role; Neutralhomer's not realizing it would be interpreted that way was fair enough, and I've pinged Floquenbeam (although I'm sure I'm bothering him in so doing) because I'm not sure he saw it that way either. As I said in my contribution that I took too long typing and had instead dumped on Neutralhomer's talk page (partly because I hadn't read that bit from Beeblebrox and hadn't imagined that would have been the interpretation of the force of this section), what I took from the discussion above is that Neutralhomer needed to file a better appeal (endorsing Floquenbeam's reaction). In my non-expert view, Neutralhomer's vindicated the decision to restore his talk-page access. No admin had actually come by and rejected that open appeal; it was placed on hold and then procedurally closed. Do we lose anything by letting him try again in the regular way to craft an unblock request that somebody will accept? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A site CBAN is just a block that requires community consensus to undo. When a block appeal is referred to the community, and is considered and declined by the community (i.e. not just immediately archived or receives minimal participation), then it's only right that the community has to consider future block appeals. Given that the community has now said it doesn't support an unblock, it would obviously be inappropriate for a single admin to unilaterally undo it, thus it is classed as a community ban. This is outlined in WP:CBAN, Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Routes to unblock, and resulted from clarification in an RfC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly this, if I had intended to tell NH he could now only appeal to ArbCom, I would have said that. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that the relevant section was, as far as I know, boldly added six months ago, and I don't believe that is long enough for the onus to shift from those who might want to keep it to those who might want to remove it, particularly as it appears based on Yngvadottir's comments to have gone largely unnoticed in that time. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The relevant text has been present on the Wikipedia:Banning policy page since 2007. It typically is mentioned during unblock requests that are reviewed by the community. isaacl (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed that. BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think it is a logical non-sequitur. The community not coming to a consensus to unblock an indeffed user at this time is not the same as forming a consensus to community ban a user. I have not seen this being done in practice much historically. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Yngvadottir. We didn't decide to CBAN Neutralhomer.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What did we decide? GoodDay (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

We decided not to unblock at this time.—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between 'not coming to a consensus to unblock' as HighInBC puts it and 'consensus has formed and is not to unblock'. The latter is what triggers a defacto CBAN per the above. Of the outright !votes above, 3 supports, 12 opposes, and assorted other comments that were overwhelmingly negative. In order to judge the consensus you need to look at the comments themselves rather than just the support/oppose. This was not a 'consensus has not been formed' situation. It was very much a 'this editor should not be unblocked' from both the content and tone of the comments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Our problem

Deny. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hello everyone, 205.237.30.142 is a school IP. Our principal wants students to be able to create account in school, could you please only cancel the account creation blocked? CFDG123 (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC) @Materialscientist: this is your block, would you be opposed to restoring account creation? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC) @Ivanvector: just an fyi, but MS has his notifications turned off so doesn't get pings. SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC) But the school is public, in French Wikipedia, the IP is blocked, but the account creation is open. Seeing that it's a school IP which is used by different school, could you please block it until the end of school year 2022? CFDG123 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC) We often suggest that students to create an account at home (or anywhere else outside school) and log in to that account when they want to edit from the school. Hut 8.5 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC) This block lasts too long, could you please block it until the end of school year 2022? CFDG123 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Do many students at your school want to edit the English Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Yes. Please give us a chance. CFDG123 (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Is it for an English class? It otherwise seems odd that French students would want to edit the English Wikipedia. They can create accounts at home or elsewhere. If they have accounts that they use on the French Wikipedia, those should work here, too. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC) We are in a bilingual school, Édifice Filion. The school year will be over on June 2022, could you please block it into June 2022 to give us a chance for next year? CFDG123 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Why? This IP address has a long history of vandalism, and the current 3 year block was imposed after a previous 1 year block expired and the vandalism continued. School IPs with histories of vandalism are commonly blocked for long periods because it's just not worth allowing them to edit. As I've said for anyone who does want to edit Wikipedia at this school there is a solution. Hut 8.5 20:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Use your cell phone or home internet connection. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC) If there were a trusted editor at the school already, perhaps we could grant them event coordinator (or account creator, I forget which is normally granted when)? GeneralNotability (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Wouldn't solve the problem. Account creation blocks are absolute and cannot be overcome even by stewards. Account creator/event coordinator essentially just allows you to not have a rate limit on account creations and use your home IP instead of the blocked IP the other person is at. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Account creation blocks are necessary, but can someone change the during of block? CFDG123 (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC) You've given us zero reason to do so. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC) On the French Wikipedia, the entire /24 was blocked for five years, not just the single IP of the school. I would not support lifting the enwiki account creation block. Per the above comment of 331dot, nothing would prevent people from creating French Wikipedia accounts that would also work here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC) ACBs prevent local account creation of SULs, so it would. But we can force account creation if school staff emails the WP:ACC email address with a list of accounts created on other projects that need local account creation here. That being said, the by far simplest solution is for people to create the account at home or on their mobile network. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC) The block (regardless of its current duration) does not prevent students already with an account from being able to edit English Wikipedia. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC) I think it's a bit weird your principle specifically wants students to create an account at the school? It's probably safer for all parties involved to have the students create accounts on their own devices. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Pardon the "bah humbug" tone of this post but this IP address is blocked on en-wiki and fr-wiki for persistent vandalism. There is presently no evidence that this unblock request is from a school principal and - as others have said - even if it was from a principal the simplest solution is for students to create accounts on their own devices. The school might also make contact directly rather than via a throwaway account with an oddly detailed knowledge of Wikipedia noticeboards. On which basis, absent any new and startling info the block seems thoroughly preventative and this request should be declined. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request lifting of editing restriction

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

---

It has been over six months since I volunteered an interaction ban with Fæ. I still have no intention or reason to interact with them but the iBan also prohibits other, unrelated behavior such as WP:CLEANSTART and WP:VALIDALT, and there may be more that I am not aware of. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support I firmly believe that we can take GM at his word here. Girth Summit _(blether) 02:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as procedural move, trusted editor. Star Mississippi 18:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• I don't see how an iban makes it impossible to have a valid alt account. It does make a clean start impossible, but announcing you are doing a clean start also does that. Additionally, it is very easy to avoid interacting with a user who is blocked and has not made any edits in the time since the iban was agreed to. I'm not saying I oppose lifting it, I just think these factors should be pointed out in the conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see how an iban makes it impossible to have a valid alt account. Apparently being under any kind of sanctions means you cannot use more than one account (c.f. the Encyclopædius mess). I don't know what policy that stems from but I assume it's accurate. Regarding the clean start comment, sure, but you'd still be in violation of policy, and so if you're checked for some reason you'd probably be blocked once the connection is discovered. As such, I don't personally think either of those factors are valid. Plus some people just don't want to be 'an editor under sanctions', which I personally think is fair enough. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Re: "I don't see how an iban makes it impossible to have a valid alt account", That's not what I was told at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guy Macon/Archive:

  "Gonna jump in because I [Tamzin] was the one who, when asked, advised Vati that there was a policy violation here (although I was neutral on whether an SPI should be filed).

  The editing restriction was an unblock condition, and is logged at WP:Editing restrictions, so, while it may have been voluntarily entered into, it's not "voluntary" in the sense that Guy can walk away from it anytime he likes, and thus does prevent him from using an undisclosed alt. That said, given that he hasn't violated the IBAN under the DSX account, and given that blocks are not punitive, now that Guy acknowledges that he controls both accounts, I agree there's no harm being done, as long as he links the accounts on their userpages or commits to only using one of them going forward." -Tamzin (emphasis added)

  Re: "is very easy to avoid interacting with a user who is blocked and has not made any edits in the time since the iban was agreed to", No. It isn't. For example, I cannot in any way discuss the reasons why I stopped editing articles on Wikipedia, because that would involve mentioning Fæ. Beeblebrox, I said I have no intention of interacting with them. If you think I am in the habit of lying about that sort of thing, please provide diffs showing that sort of behavior.

  --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  So the question is one of disclosed versus undisclosed alts. WP:CLEANSTART says A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks, or sanctions (including but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account. For undisclosed alts that aren't clean starts, I'm not sure there is any one place in WP:SOCK that says the same, but I've generally understood it as implicit in WP:SCRUTINY: Simply put, if one has active sanctions, but is editing under an undisclosed alt, how can anyone keep track of whether those sanctions are being followed? For a disclosed alt, there's obviously no issue, seeing as you're using one.

  All that said, it seems to me that if the community can rescind a sanction, it can also resolve that a sanction doesn't prevent creation of an undisclosed alt or clean start (perhaps with the undisclosed alt / clean start disclosed to ArbCom and still expected to quietly abide by the sanction). Just a thought. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin I think "something disclosed to ArbCom that the person is still expected to quietly abide by" is unworkable in practice. ArbCom is not equipped to monitor editors. Further, if it does become aware of a violation, enforcing it presents its own challenges. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• There are a growing number of areas where "good standing" (as defined by a lack of all restrictions) both on project and in movement. For example, the WMF has a habit starting back in 2020 of restricting all movement/committee positions to those in good standing. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Interaction bans only serve a purpose when they are actively preventing conflict by preventing active users from interacting with each other. Voluntary or not. If the users are not interacting in any way, and one/both are not active, the ban serves little purpose. And since Fae is unlikely to be returning anytime soon (short of the community collectively deciding it wants to usher in 2022 by praising the drama gods) the potential for future interactions is minimal. The only real concern for me is "I cannot in any way discuss the reasons why I stopped editing articles on Wikipedia, because that would involve mentioning Fæ." - well you can - its not that difficult to say "I got into conflict with someone" without going into extended detail, but it would be disappointing to remove the restriction only to shortly have posted an extended rant about said conflict and the other person. While I do not expect that in the case of Guy, I trust my point is made? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point. No, I am not goind to waste everyone's time by posting an extended rant.

I actually have nothing good or bad to say about Fæ themself regarding this issue because they did not complain about or comment about the actions that resulted in my 3.5-hour block, but I do have something to say about Floquenbeam (notified[36]) regarding calling me a liar ("I'm not going to participate further in the conversation on Guy's talk page if the entry fee is having to pretend he is being honest")[37] a troll, ("trolling by Guy Macon removed.")[38] a transphobe ("intentionally mocking someone's gender")[39], blocking me without giving me any warning or opportunity to keep my 16-year clean block record by stopping the behavior, and specifically threatening to indef me over this thread. I think Floquenbeam should agree to ask another admin to handle the incident if they think I am violating a policy.

I stand by my conclusion that I currently cannot say anything at all -- no matter how general -- about the reason I quit contributing to mainspace articles without violating the interaction ban.

To be clear, I have no intention of posting an extended rant about Floquenbeam either. That ship has sailed and he is well aware of my opinion on the subject. I expect to do exactly as I have been doing; quietly maintaining essays such as WP:YWAB and WP:1AM and avoiding any editing in mainspace. If this restriction is lifted, don't expect any change in my current behavior. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Oid. --JBL (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per other policy based supports and WP:AGF. I kinda trust him!!! -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Meh. It's difficult to reply without getting sucked into an argument about the incorrect statements Guy has made above; I've tried twice and keep getting sidetracked. Third draft: If lifting this iban makes it easier for him to be considered Officially in Good Standing^(TM), and as long as he doesn't use the opportunity to unilaterally dump on Fae, I don't object. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC) p.s. did anyone notify User:Ritchie333 of this thread? He's the one who accepted the iban as a condition for unblocking. Knowing Ritchie, I'm confident he wouldn't object, but he should still be aware of this, and I don't see a notification or discussion with him anywhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• If maintaining alternate accounts is important to Guy and having a logged edit restriction prevents him from doing that, then I don't have a problem with it being lifted if he continues to stay away from Fae's talk page. It is true that Fae is indefinitely blocked but that was also the case before the iban.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - For what it's worth, it's easy to reverse course on the IBAN if for some reason an issue occurs that necessitates it. With the likelihood of that being low, it doesn't seem that the IBAN serves a purpose anymore. --WaltCip-(talk) 15:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support The restriction was voluntarily requested and so should be lifted when requested, for the reasons put forward. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: I don't have a problem with lifting them either, but to be clear, the restriction was agreed to as a condition for an unblock. There's "voluntary", and then there's "voluntary". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. No convincing reason not to, and a net positive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: it seems clear to me that Guy Macon always follows rules to the best of his understanding. Indeed, I came into minor conflict with the user last year over what I view as an overly rigid personal interpretation of rules that escalated a content dispute. However, he's not on trial here, and the only question is whether Guy Macon (the person, not the account) can be trusted not to engage in interactions with Fæ or involving mention of Fæ that will cause disruption. I believe the answer to this question is "yes".
  Let's say, completely hypothetically, that Guy Macon gets a clean start (not that he's said he wants to). I would be happy for him to do this, and would hope that de-escalating situations (such as by just walking away), being more open to other viewpoints and not bludgeoning would be areas for personal reflection that he could work on without high-pressure scrutiny. I have no doubt he would observe very carefully that the behavior of [a clean start] account determines whether it is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny. — Bilorv (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Good editor. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I can support this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested BLPDELETE

Following consultation with an Oversighter, I am requesting the deletion of Juliewiththebooty and Jack Murphy (author) under BLPDELETE. This is under the provision that:

"If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. ... Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard."

I believe that while G10 does not apply, the BLP concerns override the usual need for us to wait a week (be it through the PROD or AfD process). Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Christ the internet was such a huge mistake. --JBL (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that should should be deleted post haste. I also concur with JBL. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The first one is a pretty clear A7. The second one is a bit more marginal, so if someone disagrees with me deleting it I suppose we'll take it to AfD. Either way, both are now gone. – bradv^🍁 01:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. I think the second was a clear attack page. An article saying what that did sourced to blogs, with a quick mention of a shooter watching his videos is pretty beyond the pale. Also, gotta make sure we jewtag him! I was in the process of cleaning it when you deleted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. For what it's worth, I didn't tag either under A7 because the sourcing by itself provided some claim of significance in my view. I just didn't believe that it met BLP standards. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Good call on the deletions. Good grief, why anyone would think they were suitable for an encyclopedia is beyond me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

sockpuppet

Dear wikipedia administrators, I am a sockpuppet of User:Skh sourav halder. Bihadokbm (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Blocked, per request. – bradv^🍁 07:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)