Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	1	18	0	19
TfD	0	1	12	0	13
MfD	0	1	8	0	9
FfD	0	1	5	0	6
RfD	0	0	33	7	40
AfD	0	0	0	3	3

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 user-reported username for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 49 sockpuppet investigations
• 27 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 13 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 5 requests for RD1 redaction
• 37 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 27 requested closures
• 138 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 19 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (43 out of 8546 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Ibrahim Amin al-Sayyed 2024-10-08 23:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Significa liberdade Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom 2024-10-08 20:10 2024-11-08 13:53 edit and locking move protection as well Black Kite Anti-antisemitism in Germany 2024-10-08 19:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA ToBeFree Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East 2024-10-08 19:23 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I LuK3 Template:Border 2024-10-08 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2525 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:AFB game box end 2024-10-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II John Rustad 2024-10-08 07:26 2025-10-08 07:26 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Ramdev Pir 2024-10-08 06:03 indefinite edit,move Enforcement for WP:GS/CASTE; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates 2024-10-08 04:26 2025-01-08 04:26 edit,move Highly visible page Dekimasu Portal:Current events/2024 October 7 2024-10-08 03:40 2025-04-08 03:40 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Assassination of Fathi Shaqaqi 2024-10-08 00:04 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Significa liberdade Big Brother (British TV series) series 21 2024-10-07 23:27 2024-12-07 23:27 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Palestine–Saudi Arabia relations 2024-10-07 21:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Significa liberdade Israel's arms supplier countries 2024-10-07 21:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Significa liberdade Attacks on protected zones and civilians in Gaza 2024-10-07 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Significa liberdade Protests against conscription of yeshiva students 2024-10-07 21:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Significa liberdade Rebirth Administration 2024-10-07 21:16 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Significa liberdade Talk:Space sci-fi 2024-10-07 19:00 2024-10-14 19:00 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Module:Professional wrestling profiles 2024-10-07 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:AFB game box start 2024-10-07 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2504 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Israeli Special Forces' Operations in 2006 2024-10-07 15:33 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Significa liberdade 2014 Zikim attack 2024-10-07 15:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Significa liberdade Second Battle of Jabalia 2024-10-07 15:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Significa liberdade User:Masti 2024-10-07 11:12 indefinite edit Page-move vandalism Favonian Vuhledar 2024-10-07 05:27 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Chozhia Vellalar 2024-10-07 05:05 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case October 2024 Deir al-Balah mosque bombing 2024-10-07 04:30 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Citrus Series 2024-10-07 02:49 indefinite edit,move Repeatedly recreated despite an AfD result of "redirect" Muboshgu Cardinals–Royals rivalry 2024-10-07 02:48 indefinite edit,move Repeatedly recreated despite an AfD result of "redirect" Muboshgu Citrus series 2024-10-07 02:48 indefinite edit,move Repeatedly recreated despite an AfD result of "redirect" Muboshgu 1–70 Series 2024-10-07 02:45 indefinite edit,move Repeatedly recreated despite an AfD result of "redirect" Muboshgu Show Me Series 2024-10-07 02:20 indefinite edit,move Repeatedly recreated despite an AfD result of "redirect" Muboshgu Marlins–Rays rivalry 2024-10-07 02:20 indefinite edit,move Repeatedly recreated despite an AfD result of "redirect" Muboshgu October 2024 central Beirut medical center airstrike 2024-10-06 03:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case October 2024 Dahieh airstrike 2024-10-06 03:19 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Battle of Odaisseh 2024-10-06 03:13 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Battle of Maroun al-Ras (2024) 2024-10-06 03:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Emblem of Israel 2024-10-06 02:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Military Intelligence Directorate (Israel) 2024-10-06 01:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Rachna Banerjee 2024-10-05 20:31 2025-04-05 20:31 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Geniac Wikipedia:Sign up 2024-10-05 19:01 indefinite edit,move Common target for COI editors and no need for this to be edited by new users; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Stephen-Craig Aristei 2024-10-05 13:28 2025-10-05 13:28 create per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen-Craig_Aristei_(2nd_nomination) OwenX Shin Bet 2024-10-05 03:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case

Odd IP vandalism

I came across some IP vandalism on Peru-related articles that, on looking closer, seems to be broader than a few bits of vandalism, and wanted to bring it to admin attention.

If you look at this IP's edits you can see the type of edits being made - the particular phrase "Alex alexander huerta avendaño" appears in most cases. It popped up on several articles that I caught doing recent changes patrolling, mostly in Peru-related articles. The problem lies in the fact that this appears to have been going on for, literally, years and has not been caught on smaller articles. I did a Google search for that phrase, and found it all over the web, including lots of Wiki mirror pages that include it. I fixed this as one example, which had been there since last year. There are a fair number of law enforcement-related pages that seem to have been affected as well as regional articles, and it's possible these edits have slipped past. The editor appears to be on IPs starting with 181.176 for the most part.

I've left a note for WikiProject Peru to keep an eye out. Not totally sure what to do beyond that, honestly - the IP seems very, very focused. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, 'Alan alexander huerta avendaño' is presumably a reference to User:Alan Alexander huerta avendaño, FWIW. Hmm, I wonder if he is related to User:Wilmer Alexander huerta Avendaño? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The second one is exactly the same edit pattern, same article areas. I'm guessing the first would be tied to the whole lot as well. Whoever this is has made a living of making accounts and splashing that name(?) all over the Internet. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve protected DIRCOTE for a little while, that seems to be a current target. National Police of Peru has already been protected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Recently active in the last hour or so at Alexa[1]; User:181.176.98.133 blocked by Widr. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Just for reference, the range that seems to be creating most of these vandalistic edits is 181.176.0.0/16. It seems to be an extremely high traffic range. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:808A:F44B:E925:9190 (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, though I suspect it’s just a few people using highly dynamic IPs; there may be some proxy use in the mix too. Our friend 'Alex alexander huerta avendaño' has been active again. He appears only interested in a handful of articles so I've now placed a lengthy partial block - as this has been going on for some years - on the /16 range for four articles that they seem to favour. We'll have to keep an eye on this one. (cc Tony Fox). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got a few pages watchlisted. Persistent, ain't he? Tony Fox (arf!) 02:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

They're now spamming at Talk:DIRCOTE in the form of sections titled 'Alex alexander huerta avendaño' with material such as "policia" and "metalrock". 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3581:FAF4:6129:CFEA (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, already reverted. Will keep an eye on this. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I found another account User:Alex alexander huerta avendaño 10255323. And of course, User:Alex alexander huerta avendaño. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. And the second one was created in 2016! So two accounts that haven’t edited for a year and two that haven’t edited at all. None are causing a problem at present so I’m inclined not to do anything with them for now. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That's okay, but keep an eye out for more sleepers, in case they become active again. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:FC97:4774:E325:9B2B (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Will do, 2601. Drop me a line on my talk page if you see anything. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Time to start an SPI? This looks suspicious. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B1AE:A56E:B4C:3EB3 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Talking about vandalism; you might want to search for "Mia Khalifa" every now and then; I have found that she has been the "head-mistress" of numerous schools, etc; just now I removed her beeing the manager of a foot-ball club. I am reminded of the old saying: "Good girls goes to heaven; bad girls goes everywhere", Huldra (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Might ARBPIA-rules be needed for the war in Ukraine?

Many articles related to the war in Ukraine see heavy edit warring and frequent policy violations from IPs and very new accounts, to such a level that it becomes detrimental. A similar rule as for WP:ARBPIA would probably be beneficial, in other words, users would need to:be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days' tenure. While many disputes would no doubt continue (just as on articles related to ARBPIA)), applying this rule to articles related to the war in Ukraine might go some way to reduce the worst disruptions. Jeppiz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Usually when restrictions are proposed for entire topics at this board hindsight has shown they weren't really necessary in the first place, though the community usually doesn't agree to repeal them. See the Uyghur GS authorisation which has been used for 4 page protections, various other stale GS authorisations, and the topic-wide ECP restriction for India/Pakistan conflicts, which went largely unenforced though the community did eventually repeal that one. The ARBPIA WP:ECR rule is a huge exception to the rule, and only exists for two topic areas currently. There should be a very high burden of evidence required to institute the restriction on more topic areas. The evidence should include showing a chronic pattern of topic-wide disruption, to levels far greater than the disruption naturally present in any contentious event, especially current ones (e.g. consider anything current and American Politics related). In the meantime, there is WP:ARBEE and discretionary per-page ECP protections, which AFAIK has been working well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need for that at the moment - I think WP:ARBEE page-level and user-level actions are working well. A significant amount of the disruption I've seen has been from anonymous and/or new editors which can be contained via semi-protection, or ECP where warranted. Topic-level ECR would be using a sledgehammer to crack nuts at the moment. firefly ( t · c ) 09:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with firefly --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ditto, we already have tools in place to deal with this and by and large it seems to be working. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Jeppiz:, I fear that an external campaign is being organized outside Wikipedia to influence some articles related to the conflict, which would explain the arrival of brand-new and single-purpose users who are engaging in discussions on hot issues. I think there is a need to protect this topic. Mhorg (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg: Intriguing, I must say! Would you be willing to cite some examples/suspects? Because if this is true, we must assuredly do all we can to flush them out! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, I would like to show you this small collection of data. These are just the single-purpose or dormant users, who in these days have taken action to remove the "neo-Nazi" label at the Azov Battalion[2]. I fear that there is an ongoing campaign outside Wikipedia, perhaps through some blog\forum\reddit, to intervene on the article. Therefore I ask some admin to consider protecting the page from users with less than 500 changes. In addition to these users, there are dozens and dozens of anonymous users interventions, all pushing in that same direction:

• Good dog rex 2 total edits: he says that the Azov Battalion isn't a part of the neo-nazi movement [3]
• OlgaAlska 2 total edits: says that the current article is "Russian propaganda" [4]
• Baylrock 3 total edits: join a RFC and says that the paragraph about "Nazism" is "a potential lie spread by Russian propaganda"[5]
• JKWMteam 3 total edits: says that "This article is deliberately and regularly edited with disinformation describing Azov as extremist and neo-nazi guilty of military crimes, with questionable sources as proof." [6]
• Wked00 3 total edits: says that they want to change "neo-Nazi" to "right-wing".[7]
• Averied 6 total edits says: "Could we just add "presumably neonazi"??"[8]
• Metalsand 9 total edits: says the group "is not strictly neo-nazi"[9]
• Editdone 21 total edits: says that the current article "is being used for propoganda"[10]
• Disconnected Phrases 86 total edits, single-purpose user for Azov Battalion[11]: says that "The idea that the Azov Battalion is "a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine," is straight Russian propaganda".[12] Literally, it would be propaganda a 2021 RFC[13] in which dozens of users participated and defined that part of the text.
• Berposen 88 edits on the English wiki, 37 edits from 2020 to 2021: says that "neonazi faction separated from the battalion" therefore: it would mean that the battalion is no longer neo-Nazi.[14]
• PompeyTheGreat 376 total edits with 8 edits in 2022[15]: says "a lot of the claims in this article are either factually untrue, echo Russian propaganda"[16]--Mhorg (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Many editors note issues with the Azov Battalion page. User:Mhorg was already reminded about NPA and SOAP here. There is a procedure for dealing with socks. Infinity Knight (talk)

New editors make a lot of very good points. Many of those that are coming to the Azov Battalion page are in Eastern Europe, possibly are active editors on other wikis, and often have better access to the facts on the ground. They may not always be neutral - I wouldn’t be either if my children were in danger — but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are making stuff up, or that they need to be excluded.

For instance, the claims in the article absolutely *do* echo Russian propaganda. I suppose it is possible that Russian propaganda could be correct, as they have such a high regard for the truth, but I personally prefer my Wikipedia articles to have reliable sources. The sources absolutely *were* questionable, and it’s not me saying it, it’s the reliable sources noticeboard. There is an arguable case to be made that the battalion *is* right-wing, or once *were* neoNazi. I have not yet looked at the new sources for “is neo-Nazi”. Possibly the admin that got involved on the RS page has managed to get them to find some actual sources, in which case yay and I will believe them. But as of yesterday or the day before, the sources for “is neo-Nazi” in the lede at Azov Battalion had been uniformly laughable.

I think that valid input is valid input. IPs and new users or not, the fact that people keep coming to the page to say it has problems may just possibly be not so much due to an “Azov Battalion edit-a-thon” as some have suggested —-they are rather too busy keeping Russians out of Europe for that—- as it is to the fact that the page does indeed have problems. If meat puppetry is suspected, then an SPI case is the remedy, not excluding valid input Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian-originated meatpuppetry has been a commonplace on this project for several years, and looked exactly like this one - dormant and new accounts and IPs showing up out of nowhere to make a point, not bothering (pr pretending not to bother) to read previous discussions, and hoping to win by a sheer number of votes. In most cases, CUs can not help, only blocks and protections can. Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Ymblanter: for your opinion. Given this situation, and since we are having an important RFC on this issue, wouldn't it be possible to prevent users under 500 edits from participating in these discussions? Mhorg (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I can not act as administrator in this topic area, and honestly I think that a broad ban such as in PIA topic area is not yet needed. Even in the PIA topic area, non-extended-confirmed users may participate in the discussion. I do not have an opinion on the specific Azov discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, another dormant account jumped in the new RFC, Tristario with 12 total edits. I think it is not possible to have such an influence on the debate from this kind of users. There is a risk of distorting the content of the encyclopedia. @Rosguill:, sorry for the ping, could you please check if this situation (including the 11 cases listed above) is normal? Mhorg (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Another brand-new account, AndrewDryga (3 total edits) on the Azov, writes:[17] "Remove "neo-Nazi" from the definition of the battalion" Mhorg (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Another dormant user Mihaiam, first edit of the 2022, 120 edits on English wiki from 2007, says that[18] "It's disrespectful to the Ukrainian government" to show the political orientation of the Azov Battalion. Please, can anyone take a look at all these cases?--Mhorg (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Another brand-new account, Radar2102 (19 total edits) on the Azov, writes:[19] "The term “is a” neo Nazi unit conflicts with later information in this article that states the unit was depoliticized. It’s also very inflammatory".--Mhorg (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban review/revisiting/appeal

• SecretName101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Original ANI discussion
• Talk-page discussion
• Earlier appeal

It has been over five months since @El C: put in place a topic ban on my account. I would like to appeal now for a revisiting/lifting of the topic ban. El C has advised that, due to time limitations at the moment making it difficult for them to provide me with a timely verdict in reviewing the topic ban, I appeal to a user board such as this instead of to them alone.

I would like to first apologize for any and all pain or damage poor judgement on my part brought on Wikipedia. I better understand now that, particularly in editing articles pertaining to living subjects, there is a high level of caution that needs to be measured. I much better understand that, if a draft article that feels limited in scope an appears to paint a overly-negative picture, it is best for it to either go unpublished in the article space, or at least first go through other hands for review and revision first. I much better understand that, when such an article deals with someone who skirts the line between sufficient notability and inadequate notability for this project, it is best to practice particularly great caution.
___________

Months ago, I believe, El_C told me something along the lines of the best way to demonstrate that I contribute to the project with good faith was being that I proceed to make positive edits where I can.

Some of the work I have done over the past several months includes the following:

In related edits, I improved Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson, and spun-off/expanded Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, First impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson and Second impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson.

In related edits, I improved William McAndrew, expanded 1927 Chicago mayoral election, created William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign and Administrative hearing of William McAndrew, and made minor improvements to other related articles. William McAndrew was elevated to a "good article" by me.

I enhanced and created a number of other articles related to educators.

I improved Thomas Menino, and created the spun-off article Mayoralty of Thomas Menino.

I have made less major improvements to the articles of a number of long-deceased judges and politicians.

I made improvements to other articles.

I published new articles such as Michael Cassius McDonald, Benjamin Willis (educator), Unbuilt Rosemont personal rapid transit system.

In other edits, I undertook an ambitious change to the categorization of articles and categories related to United States constitutional officers and United States constitutional officer elections. I also made similar improvements for other United States election sub-categorization. I also created many redirects for election races described in sub-sections of larger articles. I also improved the category keys on many election articles. These involved thousands of edits.

I made other categorization-related edits as well.

I began work on drafts such as Draft:Impeachment inquiries in the United States.

___________
I hope the community will give consideration to this. If there are any questions or requests they have for me to help you in reaching a decision, I urge them to feel free to ask me.

SecretName101 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Permalink to relevant AN thread. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• I too happened across this and wondered what on earth was actually being appealed here, which led me to this lengthy talk-page discussion on it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• SecretName101, You mentioned the Thomas Menino article, so I took a quick look. How are this edit concerning Robert Kraft and this edit regarding Elizabeth Warren not violations of a topic ban "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed"? That's as far forward from the topic ban as I looked, because I came across these as soon as I started to look and wanted to stop there and ask this question first, before any further examination, in case I'm misinterpreting something. Begoon 13:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s been months, so I do not have a clear memory of every edit. But I suppose I must have seen those passing mentions as integral to a full biographic picture of Menino in their respective subsections. But seen them as merely biographical of Menino, not Kraft or Warren. Since it was a BLP ban, I figure I must have thought a passing mention that was necessitated to paint an integral fact on a diseased individual’s bio was not an biographical edit on on either Kraft or Warren. Neither changed a bit the narrative how Wikipedia portrays their bios across the project, I must have figured. I suppose I felt it problematic not to include his support or opposition of stadium construction, as that was a key development in its subsection. And Menino’s endorsement of Warren was well stated in other articles (such as 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts), so it was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretName101 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

So you thought it was ok, while topic banned from all edits concerning living persons, broadly construed, to edit about living persons anyway if you could mentally excuse it? Or you thought the topic ban was too broad? Or you didn't understand the topic ban? Or you just didn't take enough care? Sorry to be so inquisitorial, but I'm struggling to understand if you knew you were violating the ban, somehow thought it was up to you to decide if a very clear ban applied depending on your own flawed interpretation, didn't think about it at all, or thought nobody would notice? If you could clarify that it would be helpful in case I decide to look at any more of your edits. Thanks. Begoon 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not a photographic memory of every moment of my life, so asking me to recap my exact in-the-moment thinking on everything I have done in five months is an ask I cannot oblige. But I had, during my ban, asked for clarity before on what it covers, and how to navigate it, and been given very little guidance in return. I have attempted to navigate confusion over this. A moments, there have been edits where I went “shit, was the the wrong conclusion?” After I hit publish. SecretName101 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so you're basically saying you violated the ban but it wasn't your fault because nobody explained what "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" meant (despite the linked conversations above)? There's a viewpoint that would say - "Well, ok, nobody pulled him up for this as he went along." There's also one which says "Why on earth should we? it was very, very clear and we don't have time to police every sanctioned user who wants to edit outside a clearly defined ban. We can only really look when they appeal the ban and we discover they didn't comply with it, unless something is spotted in the meantime". Where do you stand on that? Begoon 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There have been small edits I have made after being un-fresh in my memory on the topic ban outline, and that I later (upon refreshing myself) went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. But they had already been published by that. Which has me paranoid here (and hesitant to appeal) out of fear I’ll be attributed intent to deceive or violate, rather than being understood to have practiced misjudgment or poor memory of how to interpret the topic ban. It’s been five months. Early into the topic ban, I was figuring it out. And later into it, my memory of how it works subsided or got foggy. So there are a few changes I would not go back and make, for sure. But I did not intent to sneak them in unnoticed or deceive anyone. It’s tricky to adjust to a topic ban’s outlines, and tricky not to have your memory of its rules fade amid five-months of drama-filled life. I apologize for mistaken edits, and would request leniency/understanding, instead of the usual rush-to-judgement and condemnation I feel I have been repeatedly met with in these months. The point of these bans is to negate damage to the project, not inflict pain or punishment upon the user, as I understand, so the question should be whether I have been or will be causing harm to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Let me ask you a couple of questions then:

• Why can't you indent your replies properly (half-kidding, but it's really quite annoying that you expect others to clean up after you - I've had to fix your posts 4 or 5 times now... If you wanted to show willing you could do something with the random snippet you plonked, unindented, below this while I was typing it - I have no idea what, if anything, it responds to... struck, because they finally did do that...)
• What did you do that led to the ban? Here I want you to describe what happened in great detail: why it was wrong, why you did it, what you think about it now, etc..
• How would you handle the same situation now - again, in great detail, please? Begoon 15:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The word concern had thrown me off at moments. “Concern” generally means “be about” “scrutinize” “analyze”, all which implies principal involvement and not passing relation. Passages like those you mentioned were about Menino, not the others. The sentences were about Menino what Menino did and how he acted, not the others. I am sure that my understanding at the moment was that those were not as clear a violation of the spirit or letter as you currently see it. SecretName101 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

For the question of what led to my ban: I created an article on an individual I believed surpassed the notability threshold for their business exploits (having established a nationally notable music club/bar and received accolades for it). In retrospect, since the article was an incomplete picture that leaned negative, and since the individual's notability was so-marginally above the threshold, I would have not published the article if I could do it over. Instead, if I desired to see it removed from the draft-space to the article space, I could have requested other users review it, modify it, and balance it out to the best of their abilities. I should have certainly asked for further eyes on it. More ideally, I would have instead created an article focused on the bar/club for which they were notable for running, and only had a redirect under their name unless I could create a more adequate article in the future. SecretName101 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that the article indeed was poorly-considered. It painted too negative a picture on a figure that do I believe is notable, but I also believe threads the line between sufficient and insufficient notability for this project.

I think I would have done a faster about-face to the community, instead of wasting time focusing on arguing with those who were attempting to prescribe malicious intent to my creation of the article.

The article was foolish, but was in no way an effort to defame the individual. The primary content that painted a negative picture was sourced to a reliable newspaper, and was not a smear. However, that still does not excuse that the article painted an unbalanced portrait on someone who did not urgently necessitate an article on the project. It would have been better to leave there being no article on the subject than an unbalanced one. SecretName101 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I also mistakenly did not take a closer look at one online source I used. It was not reliable. However, it was not a source that led to the unbalance of the article. Nevertheless, it was a giant f-up to include that as a source. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

These are almost encouraging answers. You still seem to think there are scenarios in which creating the article might have been a good idea though? Could you expand on that? Begoon 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think if the article had been far more balanced, and more thorough, there would have indeed been a case to make that it had a place in the article-space. The subject of the article indeed (in sources) appears to be an (at least regional) celebrity who founded a quite notable business venture. The subject also generated more recent headlines for more recent actions (such as fundraising for, I think it was, police carrying AEDs), a promised upcoming biography with headline-generating claims about their relationship with their ex-spouse, and other actions/ventures. There are grounds that this was indeed a notable figure. A balanced article on the individual certainly could warrant a place on this project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No. It really would not. I'm very concerned that you still profess to think that. Begoon 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Elaborate? SecretName101 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A topic ban is not to be given to someone simply because you disagree with the notability of a potential article subject. That's to be resolved in deletion discussions.

A topic ban is for someone who has given tremendous detriment to the project.

I myself have disagreed with the notability of articles the Wikipedia community has decided to keep. It is quite possible I am wrong to think there could be enough notability behind this subject, but that is not a heinous sin. But I would urge you not to render a verdict on your absolutist stance that there is no potential argument for this individual having been notable enough. SecretName101 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that this isn't the place to debate whether a totally hypothetical article could be justified, as opposed to the "...speedy deleted shady attack page of a subject whose marginal notability would qualify him having his bio deleted as a courtesy anyway" which we had, so, yes, let's not get carried away with that speculation. My apologies for the tangent. Begoon 23:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, disagreeing about whether a single individual has just-enough notability for Wikipedia or not is not a cardinal sin that should bar anyone from being allowed to edit parts of Wikipedia. So that should not be the crux of your judgement at all. SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to say that "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" was unclear because of the word "concern"? I don't, quite honestly, think that's a sensible thing to say to the generally intelligent people who will be reading this. Some of the things you are saying are close to plausible, but that is not one of them, and reeks of desperation. That's not how you'll get a topic ban removed. If you weren't sure then why didn't you ask? If I look at later edits will I find more cases of you ignoring the ban because you thought it was subject to your own interpretation rather than seeking clarification? It was very clear, regardless of your apparent intention to skirt it by the "letter" or "spirit". There was nothing open to interpretation however much you might like to wikilawyer it now. Begoon 17:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Concern" is the operative word. I never made any intent to ignore the ban. But I indeed have stated there are moments I am retrospectively worried were unwise edits with the ban, but at the moment had judged to be fine, either through fading of my memory of the language of the ban (which indeed happens over months) before I refreshed myself, or due to lack of initial clarity on what the ban entails. I am confident that a phishing expedition will find cases in which you will question my edits out of the 8,000 or so edits I have made in these months. If you want to make your vote punative based off of these, it is your prerogative to. But I urge you to instead judge on the principle premise: is my editing malicious and harmful to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Phishing expedition" (sic), "punative" (sic) - wow - any more ridiculous knee-jerk responses you want to utterly fail to understand then, for good luck, amusingly spell wrong and baselessly fling in my direction?

I don't think you are intentionally malicious, but I do think you lack BLP competence and nothing you've said here has really made me reconsider that opinion yet.

What, to you, is the most important consideration when we edit articles about living people? And how did you let us down?

Anyway, I'm conscious that I've already said more than I ought to in one discussion, so I'm going to make this my last comment and let the consensus form. Good luck. Begoon 18:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Most important consideratio? I mean, for the survival of the project, not getting a defamation lawsuit seems a major concern.

But in general having accurate well-sourced content that paints a proper (as-balanced-as-possible) portrait is the benchmark. SecretName101 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean, there are several “good articles” and b-class artices that I am the primary contributor of that are BLPs, so I do not think I am incompetent with BLPs SecretName101 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully this "competence" now encompasses an understanding of why "Subject is an American businessman and convicted fraudster" is not an advisable first sentence for an article on a person of no real notability, which would be the first google result for their name. Begoon 00:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It has been acknowledged that the article was ill conceived. That point has been run into the ground by me. To characterize one misconceived article as representative of my editing on BLP versus the totality of my previous contribution to it is simply unfair.

I have explained how I had seen similar (perhaps equally wrong) intros on articles of more notable subjects, and made the wrong conclusion that this was standard practice for articles on convicted individuals. I had not regularly created articles on subjects convicted of past crimes, so that was new territory, and I made a major misstep.

I have repeatedly owned that that article was badly conceived, have I not?

have owned that the article was badly conceived . Have I not? SecretName101 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What I'm still struggling to understand here, though, is that you claim general BLP competence, yet profess inability to properly understand an extremely clear topic ban "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" because your "memory of how it works subsided or got foggy". Can you see how that might be a concern? Begoon 13:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, I explained that the operative word "concern" is one that gave me trouble. "Concern" typically implies principal relation to something. SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I really don't appreciate that your first reason for voting against lifting is that you believe I denied "obvious" motivation for creating that article. I resent that users have been attempting to force a false-"confession" of malicious intent. I had no malicious intent, and I will not lie that I did. It is a sad state of affairs that the rule-of-thumb of assuming good faith on Wikipedia is being so blatantly violated, and I have been repeatedly reprimanded for not agreeing to make a false confession. I made a mistake, and I have admitted that repeatedly. I urge others to take that at face value please. SecretName101 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal of topic ban. The question is whether the BLP topic ban is still needed to prevent disruption to the project. Secret's statements indicate he understands what he did wrong and what to do (or not do) in the future. As he is a 12-year editor with >80k edits and an otherwise clean block/restriction log, I believe the block can be lifted without harming the project. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think they indicate that at all. I'm still unclear that the editor understands what they did wrong, and I'm concerned that they appear to have treated the topic ban as an inconvenience to be wikilawyered around, rather than a restriction to be complied with - but I'm going to wait until they clarify that and answer the questions, rather than !voting prematurely. Tentatively, I'm thinking that now that they seem to retrospectively be beginning to understand the problem and sanction we should let them comply for a few months more with that understanding, and then judge the results again, but let's see how it pans out... Begoon 17:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support lifting topic ban given their answers, it's unlikely that they will repeat the inappropriate behavior that got them sanctioned initially. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I'm not convinced that someone who created basically an attack BLP, and cannot, apparently, properly understand the extraordinarily simple parameters of the resultant topic ban is an editor we should extend BLP editing rights to. The parameters for BLP editing are simple and clear - we do no harm. An editor so prone to wikilawyering on the edges of rules and restrictions is not suited to the role. If they can't understand a perfectly clear, black and white, topic ban to the extent that they insist on wikilawyering it in their appeal and explain their misunderstanding as being because their "memory of how it works subsided or got foggy" then I have no real confidence that they will be able to respect the BLP policy itself, going forwards. And that could impact real people, again. They should give this serious consideration and perhaps appeal again later when their understanding is clearer. Begoon 13:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal of topic ban. If ever there is a clear cut case, I would think this would be a fine exemplar. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• With regret, I also oppose for now. This was an arbitration enforcement sanction, in response to the creation of an article that was speedy deleted as an attack. I revisited the discussion and the previous appeal, in which I made a statement, and am struck by SecretName101's responses to Begoon above, which do not show an understanding of why the article was inappropriate: the at best marginal notability of the subject, coupled with the wholly inappropriate emphasis in how it was written. Moreover, they show the editor has several times violated the topic ban, which forbade edits concerning living people "broadly construed". I appreciate that SecretName101 has found this a severely constricting topic ban given their interest in politics. I appreciate that they did ask for clarification, but editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons  ..., broadly construed is very clear: SecretName's responses above, and the edits given as examples by Begoon, show that they did in fact understand, they just didn't want to believe it could possibly be that broad a ban: There have been small edits I have made ... that I later ... went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. I am not imputing to the editor an intent to deceive or violate; but they should have reverted those edits when the realization hit, and tried harder to keep within their topic ban. [I]t was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia is neither here nor there. This editor was under a topic ban imposed for something rather grave and had already appealed once without success. They knew their next appeal would be evaluated in part on how well they'd honored it. But they violated it repeatedly, it appears, and hoped no one would notice, or that it didn't really matter. I'd like to give them full credit for continuing to write and improve articles, even though looking at the examples they cite, I still find their writing clumsy, stringing together bits from the sources. But maybe they dislike my writing style, too; this time I resisted the temptation to meddle. What matters, unfortunately, is that they still are unable to recognize the gravity of the problem with the Stevenson article, and they have not been able to adhere to the topic ban. So in my view, there is no basis for lifting the topic ban yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was extremely unimpressed by the original issue and the fact that the OP tried to deny what was very obvious in their motivation for writing that article, and I am equally unconvinced by the further evasive answers to Begoon and the fact that they still don't appear to understand the problem. Also, they're not even keeping to the topic ban anyway, as per the examples above - and also a number of edits like this. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The OP does not get why they were topic banned in the first place --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Heated discussion between two editors

Can an administrator perhaps keep an eye on this discussion, checking that WP:PERSONAL is not violated (too much). Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Some of the behaviour by Dakota Allie L. there is already beyond the pale, see for instance this comment. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 17:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I was considering going to ANI myself over this if the insults continued. Funcrunch (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I left a warning. That indeed is over the line. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Drmies - You beat me to it. ;-) Some users have taken to collapse that part of the discussion - I removed it. It is full of personal attacks, and very uncivil insults, tone, and demeanor. It has absolutely no place here, hence into the "remove pile" it goes! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Oshwah, thanks--I was wondering about that too but didn't have the time to look at it more carefully. In hindsight (20/20) I should have done that too. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Drmies - No worries! You can't be expected to do everything around here. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I didn't think it was my place to remove the discussion, so I chose the second best option which was to hide it. Thanks for deleting it, though. Isabelle ^{🏴‍☠️} 03:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Isabelle - No problem. The buck has to stop somewhere, right? So, I figured I'd be "that user" and do what really is needed. I really don't think anyone is going to run here and make a compelling argument as to why it should be kept. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Marcocapelle - Thanks for bringing this to our attention. There were a couple of editors who responded solely based out of personal emotions, thoughts, and feelings. I've responded to both of them. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah and Drmies: Unfortunately she is continuing the attacks on trans people. I recognize that she's trans herself (as am I), but this is absolutely unacceptable and I request you strongly consider a block at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Funcrunch - The user has been blocked for 36 hours for repeated incivility and personal attacks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thank you. Though based on her latest talk page remarks I think this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Funcrunch (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Not only NOTHERE, but this flies pretty firmly in the face of the gender/sexuality discretionary sanctions. I've made the editor aware of them now, doubt they will take heed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• The discussion seems to have been posted on Twitter, which seems to be why Dakota Allie L. and some other new accounts and sleepers have found it. Given that she hasn't edited anything outside of this discussion and given the content of her edits I doubt much will be lost by an indef here. Pinguinn 🐧 02:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Indef - Given this user's comments, especially the one noted above by Pinguinn, they are only here to right great wrongs, POV-push, and insult anyone who disagrees with them. They are not here to collaboratively edit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• She is still at it, by the way. Almost all of her contributions so far have been to discuss the gender identity of other users, including transphobia against non-binary users. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 21:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Looks like ToBeFree has blocked the editor indefinitely - thanks. Funcrunch (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, this was at AN too? Found this via WP:AIV. No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Tom Devine

I have been blocked to make further changes to my bio.
This is totally unacceptable:
- have had to make corrections to errors made by others.
- because of my public profile have attracted attention from hostile individuals who have removed information which has been validated in sources and recorded in bio to substantiate all information.
- this is the second time I have been subjected to this behaviour.
- I am now 76 years and not well.My recent changes to the bio have been to ensure my family have an accurate record of my career and achievements after my death.
- how can I be assured that this disgraceful unwarranted online aggression will cease with immediate effect?

Professor Emeritus Sir Tom Devine University of Edinburgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:1394:9C00:A887:AD76:C6A:5590 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you want to keep records for your family, I suggest you find a more appropriate place to do so. Meanwhile, it is down to Wikipedia to decide what it thinks is appropriate in a biography: an article about the subject, rather than one created on their behalf. Having looked at the article in question earlier, I'm inclined to agree with suggestions that it was over-filled with information about awards etc, and lacking in substantive content which gave much in the way of an indication of what the awards were for. A biography of a distinguished historian ought surely to concentrate on their work, and on its critical reception, if it is to serve as any sort of historical record. Or even just as an explanation for the casual reader as to who the subject is, and why they keep getting awards...AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

See also the thread on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. [20] It appears that there is work being done to rectify some of the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Well said, Andy--thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I am the editor who tagged the article for a promotional tone, and raised it at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and I had tried to tone down some of the language in it. I would like to assure Professor Devine that I have no hostility or animus against him, simply a desire to see the article conform to Wikipedia's standards. Indeed, one of the things I want to see in it is more in-depth information about his work over the years - the work that has led to him receiving so many awards. We want to know about it and its importance! Wikipedia is not the place however for an encomium, however well-deserved, and we do have strict rules about editing articles about yourself. I do appreciate how frustrating it can be for an editor unversed in our ways, and I hope the Professor makes use of Talk:Tom Devine to make constructive suggestions for the article. He may find it helpful to create an account, as that would, I think, make constructive communication between himself and other editors easier. DuncanHill (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Tom Devine. I am the admin who responded to the alert and who issued the block. Please note that this block is only partial. It does not prevent you from editing the article talk page, only the article itself. A discussion page which you are welcome to engage, with suggestions, corrections or anything else (you can also use the edit request procedure). Incidentally, I, too, am an historian, and though not familiar with your body work, it looks both impressive and interesting. Best wishes, El_C 02:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • From an occasional content writer: Appropriate block for the mess that I'm only the latest in a long string of editors, from JzG and Materialscientist through David Tornheim and Richard Nevell and Victor Schmidt and Diannaa (all reverting this perennial barrage of the same stuff over and over for three years now — e.g. Special:Diff/1008368927) to the present, to have done cleanup on.

    From an administrator: The 455 deleted revisions were from a foundational copyright violation from 2005, text just taken wholesale from a potted biography for a conference. This content was being written in the same way, including the very same misleading phrasing implying a Royal Medal instead of a Royal Society of Edinburgh Medal. (Special:Diff/895295467 is one of several times that this has been done by IP addresses.) There was also a Prize that became a Medal (no such Medal in 2013), that in fact went to someone else. Very appropriate block.

    Unfortunately, at this point I have to draw attention to Sweetpear2 (talk · contribs) ("I am an academic."), Sweet Pear (talk · contribs), and other IP addresses including 2A00:23C4:13B7:3C00::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A00:23C4:138D:8E00::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A00:23C4:1389:200::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and a bunch more. It might be that autoconfirmed protection is instead the answer.

    Uncle G (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

    • Oh. Well, shit. Okay, semi makes sense, then. To quote you-know-who: I will do it. El_C 12:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• I find it depressing when we get a "Do you know who I am!?" in a signature that holds a complaint. I woudl like to remind Tom Devine that even our founder has the same status in terms of his person in rank and status here, save for certain administration tasks, as does the least of our editors. I am sorry for your health conditions, Tom Devine. Wikipedia has no interest in what continues to be represented after your death nor in what you wish to say about yourself.

  Wikipedia does care about what is recorded about you in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources, and also has some interest in peer reviewed papers authored by you as references. It also cares about statements that disparage. "how can I be assured that this disgraceful unwarranted online aggression will cease with immediate effect?" is one of these. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that Prof Devine is a public figure of some significance in Scotland, and we have no confirmation that the IP editor actually is him: this could be an LTA joe job, or an attempt to publicly discredit him (think of the newspaper headlines - Tom Devine blocked from editing his own Wikipedia article). Prof Devine - if that is you, you can create an account and disclose your identity by following the guidance at WP:REALNAME - essentially, you would need to send an e-mail to info-en@wikimedia.org from your University of Edinburgh e-mail account, making the connection between you and the account. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Good advise. That's why I protected as WP:BLP, above all else, because we don't have actual confirmation. A matter which Uncle G's account of various long term problems further exacerbate. El_C 13:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Special:Diff/882335501 is a VRT confirmed edit request. Special:Diff/879550033/880776087 is one of these London-geolocating IP6 addresses making the referred to edits on the 29th. I really really want this to be an impersonation. But it was already good enough to fool info-en if so. Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh no. @Bluerasberry: courtesy ping. El_C 14:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Hello, I was the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team agent who responded by private email in the ticket at Talk:Tom Devine. This was in 2019, but as I review the ticket, I do not think anything about the VRT response should be a factor in deciding next steps. VRT was just the process by means of which a user got a message posted to the talk page. Wikipedia editors and reviewers can respond as if the user had posted the talk page message themselves. Unless someone has further questions I think my part in this as messenger is resolved. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
        • You put "from article subject" in your section heading. That's the relevant part. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
          • @Uncle G: I did not do any identity verification. If you would like to discuss the process of identity verification then I would join you at Wikipedia:Identity verification. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
            • m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information seems more appropriate. Part and parcel of not identifying people is not misidentifying them, either. As you had not checked, you definitely should not have stated this person to be the "article subject" under the banner of VRT, twice, explicitly associating the article subject with two IP addresses. Look at the consequences. You almost got the real Tom Devine embroiled in the academic equivalent of stolen valour, and edits like Special:Diff/1057479562. As I said above, I really really wanted this to be impersonation. The geolocation and the sheer abysmal quality of the writing made me want it so. Your misidentification of a public figure as an editor, under the VRT banner, outweighed that. And coming back with with effectively "Oh, I just passed the message on. I'm out!" and only when pressed telling us that you didn't check, is not right. You laundered an impersonator into "the subject of this article" through VRT. We're supposed to be able to trust that VRT people don't do this with identifications. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Admin (or experienced editor) required to close new inactivity requirements RfC

A week ago, it was suggested that Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements could be closed, with no serious objections. Could somebody who hasn't taken part in the debate do so? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Closed, as relatively straight forward.Slywriter (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note, this RFC has passed, the new requirements will be enforced starting in January 2023. This will be included in WP:ADMINNEWS. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I hope this gets some publicity in the Signpost and Admins' Newsletter. This is a big change for inactive or relatively inactive admins. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying I can't just write a quick hello to WJBscribe once every few years anymore? The nerve! El_C 11:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Liz there's going to be a seperate talk page message for all admins about this change. If you're interested in weighing in on the wording we're having that discussion here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Request about user message for MediaWiki:Sitenotice

Hi. Can You add this user message or similar for MediaWiki:Sitenotice with this text content:

Your RFC comment, on a one-time change of up to 3+% of all articles in the Main space, is welcome.

How long time period? Minimal one week, maximal 2 week.

Source of count page changes: User:Dušan_Kreheľ/Merging_simple_identical_references_by_bot#Impact_on_enwiki.

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dušan Kreheľ this might be better off at WP:CENT than as a site notice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. Now, this request on MediaWiki:Sitenotice is not actual. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

User talk:HitBlitzKrieg

Need a second opinion on this user name. I was tempted to block immediately (a "soft" one), but it's early and I don't want to make such a decision before I have more coffee. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: NinjaRobotPirate, if you're around, I'd like for you to run CU, where you will find a rangeblock you placed last year for "block evasion"--perhaps you remember something. You will also find a brand-new account there without any edits, and an earlier account but no valid ALT account reason that I can see (but with an interest in Nazi aces), so I think we're headed toward a bunch of CU blocks. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but their edits look constructive, and there's enough listings at Blitzkrieg (disambiguation) where it doesn't necessarily have to be related to something bad. I'd be tempted to let it ride until something with their editing posed a problem or suggested a link. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Eh, not seeing it here. If that's the case then we have a lot of users that need to be softblocked for having BlitzKrieg in their name. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

We do? That's not funny. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:List_users. Couple hundred it looks like. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore, I'd rather not--thanks... But two names of that list "are" this user. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That in itself is a different story then. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg is not a Nazi term, it was a term coined by the media describing a military tactic first utilized by the German military. I would not support it being flagged as a Nazi term. Blitzkrieg is not inherently evil or discriminatory in any fashion. Unless the user has been making any nonconstructive edits I see no reason for any sort of block. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear--Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, again. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I said nothing about war crimes of the German military during the period of the Nazi regime nor do I deny they ever committed any. I simply said Blitzkrieg is a military tactic, it is not a war crime or atrocity on to itself. Please do not put meaning into my words that I did not say. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

"Blitzkrieg is not a Nazi term" - The article for Blitzkrieg is in the Category:Nazi terminology cat. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't help that someone miscategorized it and would argue that it does not belong in that category. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Schwarzkopf's left hook in the Gulf War is commonly described as a Blitzkrieg attack, as are other amassed quick attacks. It also see a lot of usage outside of it's original meaning, including Metallica's "Blitzkrieg" and the Ramones "Blitzkrieg Bop". It ascribe it solely to the Nazi operations of WW2 is a very narrow view. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Would not be the first time nor the last time a wrong (or at least questionable) category was placed in an article. "Blitzkrieg" is an extension of the existing concept of Bewegungskrieg (maneuver warfare, which was not something particularly new by the time WW2 came around: what was new was its implementation with modern technology - although there again, if we're speaking of "Wehrmacht" and "myths", Drmies, a more à propos link in this particular instance would be something like this). But that's really a discussion for the article talk page and not for AN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they seem to be the same user that previously went by the nick User:RossiLeone, but as there is no overlap in time and the previous editor is not blocked, this isn't really an issue (though then they shouldn't pretend to be new[21]). A name with "blitzkrieg" in it, while not in the best of taste, is not blockable: the combination with "Hit" immediately makes one think of Hitler though, which puts it closer to the border between acceptable and unacceptable. If I were them, I would rename my account. Fram (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia, there are two major socks on that ISP. The first one is a genre warrior who often edits 1980s New Wave music. The other one disruptively edits the critical reception of Hollywood films. It's like a two-for-one special whenever you do a range block on that ISP because there's so little collateral damage, and that's what almost all of my blocks on that ISP are about. @LuchoCR: User:HitBlitzKrieg is a  Confirmed sock puppet of User:RossiLeone, who you blocked on es.wiki. User:BlitzkriegOle, too, but there are no edits to es.wiki (or en.wiki, for that matter). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

So, we have RossiLeone, who has edited a lot of articles on Nazi-related articles[22][23][24] and is happy to add their own book about the Germans who got the highest awards for bravery to nazi officials who got these awards[25]. I don't think someone with these interests who believes it is a good idea to use a clear Hitler reference in their username, and has shown at eswiki to care little about policies, is a good fit for here. The least would be to get them to pick a username without any Nazi-reference, but just blocking him now and being done with it may be the simplest in the long run. Fram (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New sock: User:Tuttiperlavittoria, IP 186.177.54.210 probably as well. Note that "tutti per la vittoria" was an Italian fascist slogan... Fram (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

One of the last edits of the previous incarnation was this antisemitic edit. Fram (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Any one of those things would probably be cause for a bit of concern at ANI: the usernames with questionable fascist overtones, the undisclosed alternate accounts, falsely claiming to be a new editor, etc. The combination of them is probably blockworthy. I've blocked the accounts, but I'll leave the sock master's account blocked with a more generic block rationale so non-checkusers can resolve any unblock requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't see how that's antisemitic. There are 20 languages with the same official "recognized minority language" status as Yiddish in Romania, most of which are much more widely spoken; unless there's a particular reason to include Yiddish but not (e.g.) Polish, I'd say that's a correct call. (The word 'Yiddish' doesn't appear once in the article, so I assume the town doesn't hold some kind of special significance to the Yiddish language or vice versa.) ‑ Iridescent 15:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You're usually better at this, Iridescent :-) The article has a long section about the Satu Mare#Jewish community there, with special attention to what happened in WWII and the ghetto in the city. In 1941, of the 53K inhabitants of the city, 13K were Jewish or nearly 25% were Jewish. This is not some random place where a few Jews lived, it was an important center. Plus, when you have an editor with these other characteristics (name, interests, name of socks...) who is keen to add the German pronunciation of Danish cities, but who then suddenly removes the Yiddish name from a city like here, then to me the only logical reason for this is antisemitism. Fram (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Fram, NinjaRobotPirate, thank you so much for your help. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Educate me, bad usernames

at 21:41, 14 April 2022 I see two bad names created, according to the abuse filter log [26], 𝙱𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚎𝚜𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚕𝚒𝚏𝚎12377 and 𝙴𝚗𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚘𝚜𝚞𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚏𝚊𝚗 except that isn't their names as there is some math code fudged in there to make linking to them impossible for me at least. Not sure what to do about those. Can't even click over to block them, so someone that knows more than I do might want to look. It has to be the same person, both triggered the same filter 1 minute apart, for characters and LTA, so a checkuser might be handy. And educate me on what to do so I understand a little, if you don't mind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

If you see the word 'disallow' in the log, and you get the " is not registered on this wiki." error message, then they weren't created. See filter 1168 (hist · log). People use weird unicode characters all the time (or try to) - I currently see no need to run a CU. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Got it. That threw me because I saw LTA trigger as well, and two of them in a row, which was my only reason for thinking a CU might peek, but that makes sense. Ok, learned something new then. The "is not registered" I did see, btw, but wasn't sure if that was glitch, or it was denied, but again, now I understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool. I'll take this opportunity to point out, generally, that the filter log is a minefield of false positives, testing filters, non-block-worthy conditions, multiple log hits for the same edit, and often some rather unhelpful descriptions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, I have noticed that as well, lot of good edits marked with a warning. Interesting though. That is why I came here to ask, to better understand. Basically, it's something I haven't done too much of, which is why I'm working on it now, to learn how to at least be competent at it. Something new. The "examine" feature is the ugliest and most piss poor example of "information" I've ever seen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hear hear! I hate it. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Appeal to End topic Ban

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

---

Hi friends! In February 2021, I was unblocked by 331dot, agreeing to the topic ban about WP:ARBIPA for six months. There has been no breach from me in fourteen months. I request the topic ban should now be removed, so that I might keep on editing the maximum number of articles I know about. Thanks Sinner (speak) 03:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC) Sinner (speak) 03:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This editor has just scrubbed their talk page, in an unsuccessful attempt to hide the context behind this topic ban. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazim ZarSinner shows that they simply do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and are trying their hardest to keep a mediocre self-promotional autobiography that utterly fails WP:AUTHOR. Cullen328 (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. See also self-promotional linkspamming [27] and this promotional draft [28] where Saair/Nazim ZarSinner refers to himself as an 'important poet'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll agree with the decision made by administrators, now I want to create an article about well-known Indian poet and writer Koshy AV. I'll begin it in draft space and shall submit it for review rather than introducing it to article space myself. I agree, I have gone too much about myself and shall abstain from mentioning myself in article space in future. But, articles related to WP:ARBIPA should be considered separately from my person, they are about cities, cultures and festivals of mine and neighboring countries and will be a better space for me to participate than other topics. Sinner (speak) 06:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Except, Nazim, if we can't trust you to follow some fairly simple rules about autobiographical content, then that will also make us reticent to believe you can engage in a controversial space effectively. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since being unblocked 14 months ago you have made 42 edits, 16 of which have been to articles. Of those 16 edits 13 have been self promotional spamming, two have been trivial punctuation fixes and this edit to an article on a village [29] (and your comments on it's associated talk page [30]) seems to be skirting the boundaries of your topic ban from WP:ARBIPA geography. Your remaining edits consist of you scrubbing your talk page of warnings, removing information that editors used to identify your COI, changing your username and trying to prevent your autobiography from being deleted. You have made nowhere near enough edits for anyone here to be able to judge if the issues that lead to the topic ban have been resolved, and many of the edits you have made are problematic in other ways. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Insufficient editing since sanction to demonstrate an ability to play nice with others, the actual few edits you've made haven't really helped the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as noted above you haven't made many edits since being unblocked, which means we don't have much evidence to tell whether you will create issues in these areas if you are unbanned. Normally for a request like this we would expect a substantial editing history which allows people to make that determination. The few edits you have made include deleting a load of relevant material from your talk page and defending an article about yourself at AfD, which is not a good start. And the topic ban wasn't for fix months, you weren't allowed to appeal it for six months. Hut 8.5 09:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

RaeLynn

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

---

RaeLynn was moved to RaeLynn (singer) against consensus and without a move request. Can someone please G6 and move it back? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, can you point to where you have discussed this routine content dispute with the other editor before escalating to WP:AN? Have you left the required notification at User talk:Bookworm857158367? Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I thought that was only required at ANI. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There are other articles about people also with the given name Raelynn and I just wrote Raelynn (given name), an article about the given name. Raelynn is properly a disambiguation page, Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why there's need to WP:G6 anything nor why this needs to be at AN even if this had been discussed with Bookworm857158367. Just make a WP:RM/TR for reversion of an undiscussed moved like normal. What's so special or urgent about this case it can't simply be handled with a technical request? Also unless I'm missing something it was possible for an ordinary editor to reverse this move before TenPoundHammer added the G6 tag [31] as there were no other edits either on the old title [32] or old title's talk page [33] so I'm even more mystified. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I would oppose moving the article back for the reasons given above. That page should probably be a disambiguation page for people called Raelynn, not a redirect to the article about the singer. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, thanks for responding to one of my two questions. Can you please respond to my other question: can you point to where you have discussed this routine content dispute with the other editor before escalating to WP:AN? Cullen328 (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason I brought it to AN is because every single time I ask for a "speedy" deletion, it somehow takes three days to pass through the queue. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

, TenPoundHammer that is most decidedly not an answer to my question can you point to where you have discussed this routine content dispute with the other editor before escalating to WP:AN?. Do you intend to answer, or are you planning to blow off my question? Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I did not discuss it because I didn't know I had to. I was only looking to get a mod's attention to fix a technical request, nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: (multiple EC) precisely my point. Why on earth do you think this is so special that it needs to happen more urgently than is normal for the reversions of the however many undiscussed moves that happen every week? Do we need to topic ban you from AN? Also your comment still makes no sense even if we accept there was urgency. Why on earth would you do something preventing yourself or some other editor from reverting the move just so it can be moved? Why not just complete the move yourself or at least leave it so an ordinary editor can revert the move? And WTF is a mod? @Bookworm857158367: WP:RMUM is quite clear that while you can do bold moves in some circumstances if they are disputed and it hasn't been long enough for the new title to be established then they should be reverted. If you still think the new title is better than start a normal RM and make your case. Really it seems this is a very simple case that could have been handled by Anthony or whoever at RM/TR as I think many such cases are each week which from reason has been blown up by TPH into something it didn't need to be. Nil Einne (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, there is a big red and orange box that displays whenever you edit this noticeboard that says in caps at the beginning READ THIS FIRST BEFORE PROCEEDING!. You have been here for many years and have been blocked six times in twelve years. I, on the other hand, have never been blocked. Are you really trying to convince us that you were unaware until April 2022 that you are supposed to discuss content disputes with the other editor before escalating to administrators noticeboards? That explanation strains credulity. Cullen328 (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't seeing it as a content dispute, but as an overly hasty attempt to fix an uncontroversial page move which I felt didn't need any other intervention. Bookworm857158367 (talk · contribs) acted in good faith and I thought I was too. The page has been fixed and I'm working on smoothing things over with Bookworm now. Can we please drop this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, I also see that at 03:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC), only five days ago, you received on your user talk page the exact type of WP:AN notification that you should have given the other editor. So, claiming that you did not know that this was "a thing" is pretty flimsy. We can certainly drop it when you acknowledge how this whole thing went sideways, and commit to avoiding this type of inappropriate filing in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You're right. It was an act of haste, and I didn't think Bookworm needed to be notified because my sole goal was "can an admin G6 this because I always have shit luck with G6's somehow getting lost in the shuffle and queueing for days" -- something which I thought didn't need any intervention on Bookworm's part whatsoever (after all, I don't think Bookworm is an admin and therefore cannot delete something). I did make sure to notify Bookworm when this was pointed out, and I'll make sure to notify any other editors whenever I bring something to AN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, WP:G6 is for uncontroversial actions. If another editor disagrees, it is by definition no longer uncontroversial, right? Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Isn't "reverting a page move that was done without consensus" uncontroversial though? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, TenPoundHammer. Editors boldly move pages all the time without obtaining consensus, and there is no requirement to obtain consensus before moving a page. There is nothing obviously disruptive about this particular page move, and the other editor's argument is somewhat persuasive and far from spurious. You are supposed to discuss these things per WP:BRD, instead of dragging the editor you disagree with to a noticeboard. I know that BRD is not a formal policy but it is widely respected by experienced editors. You skipped that "discuss" step, and crawled out on a limb at this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Teyora - Development first look!

Hi! I'm Ed6767, the original creator of RedWarn, now one of the most popular tools on the English Wikipedia that's been used by over 1,000 Wikimedians to make over 300,000 edits since mid-2020 that's been praised for its user friendliness and ease of use, but criticised for its limited functionality. I'm leaving this message as I think it may be of interest here - I left the RedWarn project in November to develop Teyora, my successor to RedWarn (alongside Chlod's UltraViolet). It's a new in development web app that uses some of the latest web technologies to create a highly extendable all in one editing tool with a focus on administration, counter vandalism and general patrolling - not to mention, it'll work on every Wikimedia project without any prior configuration and can be used by any user with at least auto-confirmed rights*. Now, I'm ready to give the Wikimedia community a first look at what I've been doing over the past six months and what to expect going forward.

You can check out the 20 minute first look at the in development version on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzlpnzXdLP4.

There's lots more to expect too! Why not read the full details page at meta:Teyora and leave any feedback, comments or wishes at meta:Talk:Teyora (please leave any correspondence there to keep discussion centralised). If you're interested, you can leave your signature

*with basic features, advanced features require configuration. To prevent abuse, auto-confirmed users will be in a restricted mode until approved by an admin or via rollback rights.

All the best, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 22:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of my confirmed and extended-confirmed user rights

I have no intention to edit articles locked by the grey and blue locks, though I had done so multiple times in the past. I do understand that this can be seen as an unnecessary move, however, I don't really like having user rights but not using them much. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: It's impossible to add or remove autoconfirmed status as it's an "implicit user group" that is applied by mediawiki. Extendedconfirmed can be removed though. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

192.76.8.70, I never knew that! Still, I don't think I'd have a need to edit blue-locked articles, as my main topic of interest is about aerospace stuff. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done here. Should you want it back in the future, you can leave a message at my talk page or request it via the usual means. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended confirmed isn't really a higher bit, it just makes you a "normal editor". Not sure I like removing that from editors, and I worry that will cause more problems than it solves, as there will eventually be an article they want to edit that requires it. EC protection on articles is becoming more common. Normally, removing EC is only done as a sanction for gaming the system, and again, it isn't an advanced bit, just a normal one for anyone that's been here a few months. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand it when people request removal for philosophical reasons, and kind of understand it when the removal is intended as a symbolic "break" from Wikipedia. I share your ambivalence about other instances too, but it's certainly possible not to come across extended-confirmed pages for long periods of time if you don't edit in contentious/sockpuppet-ridden areas. For this case, if someone doesn't want it (and knows what it's about), I'm not going to force them to hold on to it. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "The map shown of INDIA"in uranium deposit

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

I as an Indian requesting Wikipedia to take action on the issue as mentioned above. That the information about the uranium reserve country the map of India is not correctly showned as per Indian govt map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:518A:3179:0:0:1468:68AD (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a content issue. Please raise it on the article talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Koavf’s behavior

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

---

Hi. I think that Koavf is about ready to be unblocked, because of his behavior on other wikis and more than 1,000,000 edits on this wiki.

Procedures:

• Please warn Koavf on his talk page that he is reminded about WP:3RR.
• Report any continous incidents to WP:ANI/WP:AIV/WP:AN3RR.

I respect your help. Regards, 172.58.19.84 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If Koavf wants to request an unblock, he should do so the normal way that we expect every blocked editor to do, not have some anonymous IP do it for him, no? CUPIDICAE💕 21:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Prax, This is just an community/advice thing. I did not expect you to reply immediately. 172.58.19.84 (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Your expectation of a reply is irrelevant, if Koavf wants to get unblocked I'm sure he knows how to do request it. CUPIDICAE💕 21:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Proposed motion to modify the Arbitration Committee Procedures

The Arbitration Committee is voting on a motion to modify the procedures to clarify activity expectations for its clerks.

For the Arbitration Committee, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Guerillero, where do I confirm [my] desire? El_C 22:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Password resets blocked for blocked IPs?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T109909

I posted a question/section at Help talk:Reset password#Why is Special:PasswordReset blocked for blocked IP ranges? that may be of interest to administrators. The purpose of this section is to inquire why IP editors subject to a block (direct or range) do not have access to Special:PasswordReset, and I assume there may be administrators that either know why this is, or even may question why editors not logged and using a blocked IP do not have access. (I'm posting this notice here since I assume there are not a lot of page watchers for Help:Password reset.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Steel1943: this sounds like phab:T109909. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thanks for finding that phabricator ticket. Seems that means this is an unintentional situation, and has been reported but not fixed after ... wow, almost 7 years. Dang. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Steel1943 seems like it may have initially been a side affect, but may have become sometimes useful. I won't go in to the WP:BEANS issues here, but the overall situation appears not be upstream - not a local setting that we can do anything about. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux I noticed the same. I've added my grievance to the issue in the ticket notes, and I may add more based on the inquiry you stated since maybe this needs to be something that each individual Wikimedia project decides on rather than making it global. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounds to me from [34] that maybe the problem isn't so much that no one has bothered to fix it, but that's disagreement among developers over whether it should be fixed. However making it a setting each project can choose, that may involve a fair amount more effort. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like something that the communities (plural) should decide, rather than devs, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Fuck, if you'll pardon the expression, me. I had to jump through hoops (and get treated like an idiot along the way) to get back into my account when hit by this years ago and it's still not fixed? DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

For the moment, it looks like blocked users see MediaWiki:Blockedtext when they visit Special:PasswordReset. It might be helpful to add a link or some information to that page about what users can do in this situation. Anomie pointed out on Phabricator that any other user not affected by a block can reset another user's password, so the solution is as simple as using the IP talk page or UTRS to request that a reset link be sent. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Well it does require divulging your private email address. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it can be done with just the username? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Depends if the user opted in to Send password reset emails only when both email address and username are provided. or not I suppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Editor Praxidicae Has Violated 3RR Rule

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

---

Soborno Isaac is Da Vinci Laureate (South Africa) & Hon. Mayor of Little Bangladesh.

The editor Praxidicae has violated Wikipedia's 3RR Rule, by reverting edits on one page at least three times in a 24-hour time period. Furthermore, that editor has repeatedly nominated the page for deletion, claiming that the subject of the page is not a "7 year old Professor", even though the page does not mention that. And even though the subject of the article is the Honorary Mayor of Little Bangladesh, Los Angeles, this editor took the liberty of going to the Little Bangladesh page and remove not only the subject's name, but also his citation, whilst citing "lol no". Finally, he wrote that the subject of the article is a "joke and hoax," which is derogatory language unfit for Wikipedia. Please take action.

--AnonMan64 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This is patently ridiculous. I reverted obvious vandals REMOVING AN MFD where the instructions state "DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE" until it's closed. That is specifically WP:3RR exempt. I edited the Los Angeles page once and it wasn't reliably sourced and we don't generally include honorary mayors, especially without a reliable source in infoboxes, which you'd know had you bothered to even discuss it with me.CUPIDICAE💕 19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also for the final time, I am not male. CUPIDICAE💕 19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing actionable here as far as I can see. First off I only count three reverts in the page history ([35], [36], and [37]), and secondly two of those three involve reverting the removal of a MfD notice which is forbidden to do, and which I would count under the vandalism criteria of WP:3RRNO -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that Praxidicae has repeatedly used defamatory language to describe the subject of the article, stating they "appear to be a joke or hoax" and leaving the comment "lol no" after removing the subject's name from the Little Bangladesh page. Furthermore, there are other editors who can revert the MfD -- there is no need for Praxidicae to do it repeatedly. All of this suggests that Praxidicae may have a personal interest in the subject. KizWhalifa (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Get with the program, the wording that referred to it as a hoax is a DEFAULT WIKIPEDIA BASED TEMPLATE DECLINE. Get over it. CUPIDICAE💕 20:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Stating that the article submission is a joke or a hoax is a description of the article, not the subject of the article. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! May I ask how you found your way to this draft article after only a dozen edits? MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The answer to your question awaits, MrOllie. CUPIDICAE💕 20:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• That's an interesting user name pattern I've seen before about 5-6 years ago when a certain editor was blocked ... but as far as I've known, then never socked, so this is probably someone else ... but all that will probably be discovered in the sockpuppet investigation. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, turns out the editor I was referring to does have archived SPI reports, but none of the socks have the same naming pattern as the master, so feel free to disregard me on this! Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

COI edits attempting to scrub/delete Monica Gandhi Wikipedia entry

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

---

The Monica Gandhi article has been repeatedly altered in the last few days by sockpuppets from University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), which is where Gandhi works. They have been deleting cited passages. In addition, one of the sockpuppets added the deletion template to the article a few hours ago after protection on the page lapsed:

• Monica Gandhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Monica_Gandhi (AfD discussion)

Accounts in question:

• Wikiscientist578
• 128.218.42.66 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 128.218.42.191 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 128.218.42.215 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 128.218.42.189 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 128.218.42.107 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 69.181.180.133

Asking for extended page protection and intervention with the sockpuppets. Thank you.

TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems like it would be better suited to WP:COIN rather than AN. CUPIDICAE💕 19:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The unregistered editors all had their last edits before User:Wikiscientist578 was created, so I see no sockpuppetry here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

ECP protection seems to be unwarranted at the moment. Furthermore, while COI-edits are likely and a concerns, TheNewMinistry's ascribing those edits to the subject herself as in this section title, and in edit-summaries, is a BLP-violation, as are comments such as this one and this one. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've redacted one of the BLPvios on the talk page. TheNewMinistry, you may want to self redact the others. BLP applies to talk space as well as article space. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I blocked Wikiscientist578 indefinitely. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• I ran into this by RfPP patrol chance, but it seems like Monica Gandhi (whom I've never heard of prior to that) has some enemies. Perhaps deservedly, perhaps not, but it'd be best if whatever is going on there is kept away from Wikipedia. And who is TheNewMinistry (an account created a couple of weeks ago), a user who erroneously thinks that the point of the protection was to retain that addition, like, by fiat (what, because the original RfPP requestor labled that removal as "whitewashing"?). I have argued in detail that that this addition is WP:UNDUE, an argument which TheNewMinistry, upon reverting, did not respond to substantively. This is weird stuff and it makes me uneasy. El_C 22:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  My account was created over 16 years ago.TheNewMinistry (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  In which case you should have been fully aware of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. Still, weirdly unsubstantive. El_C 22:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  User:FlightTime asked the now-blocked user on the talk page to wait for concensus before removal, but you went ahead and removed it anyway without allowing discussion. I was completely in the right to revert your edit, especially since you were playing the "I'm an admin but this isn't an admin edit" game.TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  They can ask whatever they like, but WP:ONUS is still a thing. And I wasn't playing. After adding Ds/talk notice|topic=covid an hour earlier, I thought it was worth mentioning. El_C 23:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  And I could have invoked WP:BLP or WP:COVIDDS as an admin to remove that addition (at least until consensus for inclusion was clearly demonstrated), but I chose not to. Perhaps I was too naïve about the prospects of a reasoned and... substantive engagement. So maybe I should have done that. But it looks like more WP:BATTLEGROUND, either way. El_C 23:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• There's an emerging consensus against it, so I've removed it until there is consensus to include. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It is a recent contested addition that is obviously BLP-sensitive, so it should at least wait until there's a clear consensus to include, yeah. --Aquillion (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Just to emphasise what Phil Bridger said above, there's nothing wrong with an editor editing from IPs then deciding to register an account and only using that single account, actually it's very normal state of affairs and is definitely not sockpuppetry. Also editing without ever having registered an account is still something we allow, and this includes when using dynamic IPs. Again it's not sockpuppetry. The only exception would be if an editor uses the multiple IPs in such a way that they imply they are multiple people e.g. if they participate in a discussion and say I agree with the other IP even though the other IP is them. If an editor has an account and still edits without logging in, or edits from multiple accounts, that gets even more complicated but from what I can tell, there's no evidence that happened here. Since the account was blocked, if another account appears, or editing from those IPs resumes that would be a problem if they are indeed the same person. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I saw just now an edit summary where someone removed something for being "NPOV". People get the terminology mixed up, which really does not help. Ironically, it's "conflict of interest" in the section heading above. I edited without an account a long time before registering an account, too. Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• And I now see Special:Diff/1077745306 and Special:Diff/1077922015 to Ashish Jha, which casts Talk:Monica Gandhi and Special:Diff/1083326240 in a different light. Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

TheNewMinistry is clearly and unambiguously using biographies of living persons to promote a conspiracy theory: see Talk:Monica Gandhi, where this is made explicit. I can think of no reason at this point why at minimum a topic ban wouldn't be appropriate. To my mind, the only question is as to the scope. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important for people looking up media talking heads on Wikipedia to know they may have ulterior motives. Otherwise this is just LinkedIn. Gandhi only has a page here because a user who has created thousands of profiles for arguably non-notable physicians authored Gandhi's page in July 2020 and then announced it on Twitter like she had completed a paid gig. I have a problem with that, and anyone concerned with the site's integrity should too.TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever read the Law of holes article? If not, I'd recommend doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're the one issuing threats, I'm just explaining myself. No hard feelings, friend. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not 'issuing threats'. I'm making suggestions as to the appropriate response to someone who seems unable to understand even the basic principles of fundamental Wikipedia policies, and seems intent on self-destruction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I want to run a hypothetical by you. You know, since anything I say is a conspiracy now. Let's say, hypothetically, Emily Oster, leading advocate that kids don't get sick with COVID and that schools should never close, has been proven to be funded by billionaires Charles Koch and Peter Thiel. Let's say, hypothetically, that connection was reported at this link. Wouldn't it be prudent, since COVID cases are rising again, to include that disclosure as part of Oster's Wikipedia page? Wouldn't parents want to think twice about her dozens of op-eds claiming that masking children is akin to violence? Couldn't including that information on Wikipedia, in turn, save lives? TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what's prudent. What matters is what reliable secondary sources say, taking into account WP:BLP, WP:DUE weight and WP:NPOV in considering what we mention, which will entail considering things like the number and quality of sources. If you're here to WP:right great wrongs, you're at the wrong place. Start a blog or something. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

TheNewMinistry is now using this noticeboard as a platform for multiple WP:BLP violations

See their posts in the section immediately above this one (and those at Talk:Monica Gandhi for further evidence). At this point, a topic ban, as I suggested earlier, may well not be sufficient. Wikipedia is not a platform for conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You implied I was a communist on Talk:Monica Gandhi and now are trying to silence me when I nicely ask you to discuss a reliable source whose topic raises a larger question. Same as it ever was. TheNewMinistry (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And for the record, AndyTheGrump admitted that he isn't neutral and always sides with the subject of articles regarding BLP matters when he was recently disciplined:

"And frankly, going off-topic slightly, I'd show a little more concern for Wikipedia's insistence on civility between contributors if Wikipedia wasn't routinely obnoxious to outsiders who get featured in e.g. biographies they haven't asked for, and complain, only to be showered with waffle about 'conflicts of interest' (which doesn't actually mean what Wikipedia thinks it does), and generally treated like something the dog dragged in for complaining that we've got things wrong. There are double standards involved, and they really don't cast Wikipedia in a good light."

I don't think anyone with this view should be addressing BLP matters and should recuse himself. TheNewMinistry (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I stand by everything I wrote in that comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And I am asking you to recuse yourself. You have two dozen blocks on your account, so it seems like you don't know when to quit. I don't want any trouble, just a fair shake from someone without bias. Thank you. TheNewMinistry (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

'Recuse myself'? What the hell is that supposed to mean? This isn't ArbCom... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're trying to punish me for my political leanings - please do the proper thing and hand the case off to your contemporaries so you don't let emotions influence your conduct. Since you've been the only admin keeping this conversation going for the better part of 6 hours, I'd say you might alone in that pursuit. Can we be friends now? TheNewMinistry (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I've never claimed to be an admin. I'm just someone who "sides with the subject of articles regarding BLP matters" when Wikipedia contributors abuse their editing privileges and violate fundamental Wikipedia policies to push their own agendas. And no, I'm not 'friends' with such people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Topic-banned: I have, as a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBBLP, topic-banned TheNewMinistry from making BLP-related edits because over the course of this multiple-day discussion (here and at Talk:Monica Gandhi) they have demonstrated no understanding of the BLP policy or an intent to follow it. A longer explanation is available in the sanction notice. Abecedare (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  (subst:AN-notice) template was never left on my talk page to inform me I was subject of discussion on the administrator's noticeboard per Wikipedia policy - AndyTheGrump misrepresented himself as an administrator and started new heading about my conduct without properly notifying me. TheNewMinistry (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  • You started the discussion. You could have left yourself a message if that made you feel better. Subsections of existing discussions don't require new notices to be sent out (only if they include previously unaware editors). Furthermore, you were aware of this new subsection, you replied 9 minutes after it was opened. If you are trying to get a block in addition to your topic ban, feel free to continue with this wiki-lawyering. Otherwise, it might be wiser to drop this line of discussion completely. Fram (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    @TheNewMinistry: can you provide evidence AndyTheGrump has ever misrepresented themselves as an admin? Every editor who isn't restricted from doing so is welcome to participate at AN, so if you assumed that AndyTheGrump's comments meant they were an admin, sorry but that's your own fault. (There's virtual nowhere on Wikipedia which is restricted to admins with the exception admin sections on WP:A/R/E but non admins can still participate there just under a different section.) They definitely aren't the only non admin participant here besides yourself, there's me and others I won't bother to name since it's irrelevant. As for the rest, what Fram said. Since we analyse every participant's behaviour at ANI if you start a discussion you need to pay attention to it, no one is likely to inform you if we start discussing a boomerang. It doesn't matter whether we discuss it under the main thread or a subsection since that's simply a way of better segmenting or managing things, this discussion is still clearly part of the thread you started. Further you quickly became aware of it anyway so your complaint is just silly. Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    I requested admins address an issue I had on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding COI. The situation was addressed and I thought it was a closed topic. But then I kept getting notifications from the Administrators' noticeboard yesterday, and like an admin confirmed to me last night, AndyTheGrump is just some random person who likes to backseat moderate and cheerlead. He has more edits on talk pages than he has actually contributing content to the encyclopedia. If I knew he was just some random person and not an actual admin waving his dick around (like I thought he was based on the way he was talking / threatening sanctions on my account) I never would have escalated/continued my conversation with him. I apologize to the admins - to the rest of you pretending to have authority...I don't know what purpose you serve here and ask that you stop confusing people. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    You may want to lay off commenting on someone's edit ratio when they still have more mainspace edits than you have total edits. The ratios can be misleading, like my own. I've answered near on 10,000 edit requests, so I have a huge number of talk space edits.

    As for authority, Wikipedia runs on consensus, so for the most part admins just have additional buttons, not much additional authority. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Bad faith editor at Intensive farming (possible sockmaster)

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

---

Lately I have been noticing that Wikipedia has an unlikely number of "incest" typos.

For example, the name "Winchester" is often mis-spelled as "Wincester" (wincest is an internet meme, for the few innocent souls who weren't aware by now).

While in certain cases these are accidental, in other cases they appear to be intentional.

See, for example, Keyboardwarrior23's edit at intensive farming.[38] He mis-spelled "insecticide" as "incesticide" in the wiki but not in his edit summary.

I would have filed a COI case, but I don't know which sock this could be linked to, and the SPI are too heavily burdened right now for me to do that on a good conscience. Sorry, I just had to lay it on you folks for tonight. Thank you for your time. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• In that diff, they spelled "insecticide" correctly once and incorrectly once, and the rest of the content they contributed seems reasonable. It may be that people are trying to sneak the word "incest" into the encyclopedia, but I do not believe this is a deliberate instance and I think you should look for patterns of behaviour before singling any individual editor out. Reyk _YO! 00:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Noted, but see the username, and lack of other edits. It is puzzling to me that someone could accidentally mis-spell something when this appears to be copied & pasted, with the typo conveniently outside of the edit summary. But it is definitely happening elsewhere.[39] -- Hunan201p (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

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

New(ish) edit non-admin closing AfDs - queries being ignored on Talk page

KevinNov3's account was created on 22nd January 2022 and immediately set about making gnomish edits on templates. Strange editing behaviour for a "new" editor. Their most recent bout of edits involved closing AfDs as a non-admin closer. This resulted in a number of editors questioning the rationale on KevinNov3's Talk page, including me. So far, the queries have been ignored even though this editor has made contributions since some of the queries were posted. I've looked through some of the AfDs including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Makers (2nd nomination) which I commented on and a non-admin should not be closing these AfDs (and in my opinion, many of the close decisions are wrong). I'm not sure what the solution is but I think the AfD closes should be reverted and perhaps an admin might advise/warn this editor to keep away from AfDs at this time? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, between 0712 and 0720 UTC today they closed seven AfDs in eight minutes. Even if they are correct in their close, that's not much assessment going into it. It's not as if any of them were snow/speedy, with 20 !votes all saying keep, that hardly needs examination at all. But these are nuanced. Having said that, they do seem to have started at the back of the queue, which makes a change  :) SN54129 18:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Huh. Well they`ve certainly found the gadgets preference page. It`s however disconcerting that they do not respond to any comments on their talk page. Oz\^InterAct 18:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I am still on the first page of their contributions and I have reverted three AfD closes so far. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Sinitsyn (closed as Keep despite a 6-3 Delete count) is a shocker - especially when you look at the Keep voters. I am going to keep combing through these and may partial block the editor from Wikipedia space if there are any more really egregious closes. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I see you, like me, considered Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hippogonal an OK close  :) but then, even a blind pig can find a mushroom in the dark... SN54129 18:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a couple are fine. I've since found two more that were wrong, though, so I've partial blocked the editor from Wikipedia space until they respond. They don't appear to be using a mobile device so they should be seeing their messages. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you also revert the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Makers (2nd nomination) please so that I may respond to the latest comment? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Keep in mind that any experienced editor, or anyone for that matter, can revert an obvious case of a WP:BADNAC close. You certainly don't need to be an admin to do that. :) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies @HighKing, I just saw this request. I'll revert my close. Wasn't aware of this thread at the time. Star Mississippi 02:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A short block, partial or no, may get their attention. Looking at the contribs, I am not entirely sure this editor is acting in bad faith. They`ve just dived into actions better left for more experienced editors or admins. I also found on their talk page one word response to one notice, so at least they have responded to something. The user page indicates they are from the Philippines, so due to a possible language barrier, they may not understand completely what they`re doing. Oz\^InterAct 18:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's more than just disconcerting that they do not respond to any comments on their talk page. WP:ADMINACCT requires that you explain your actions when questioned. Failure to do so led to three desysoppings by arbcom earlier this year. When you're performing a WP:NAC, you're acting in an administrative role, so this applies to NACs just as it applies to admin closes. The pblock from project space which was imposed seems entirely justified. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Black Kite, I think that was the right call. Yesterday, I had to revert a particularly ambitious close they made at TFD that I wouldn't have attempted myself! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a shame we can't do partial blocks from e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/*, because this does mean that KevinNov3 can't participate in this discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is - I did mention in the block notice that they should respond on their talk page, but to be honest the unblock request that you just declined does not fill me with hope anyway. Black Kite (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment AfD is tremendously important, because it is the (almost) final arbiter of what material we have in Wikipedia. It's not logical that we permit anyone to close an AfD while we're very fussy about who carries out AfC reviewing, despite the fact that (1) AfC's criteria for acceptance defer to AfD (see WP:AFCPURPOSE), (2) anyone can bypass AfC at any stage, and (3) when this happens, it's AfD that makes the decision on whether the article stays. To create a practical example, if Joe Bloggs creates an account jbloggs and edits an article about Joe Bloggs (amazing person) and gets it declined at AfC, all he needs to do is move it to main space himself, wait for the nomination to AfD, create a suitable sock and close the AfD discussion as "No Consensus" despite all the sensible people saying "delete". The only way out is then to come to ANI, or start a sock-puppet investigation and all these time-consuming things. Wouldn't it be better if all AfD's were closed by trusted individuals who've demonstrated adequate knowledge and skills to do the job fairly? I appreciate that this isn't in keeping with Wikipedia's philosophy that all editors are equal; but we've already abandoned that philosophy in AfC, so shouldn't we also abandon it in the - more influential - AfD? Elemimele (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if all AfD's were closed by trusted individuals who've demonstrated adequate knowledge and skills to do the job fairly?

It would be lovely, but there just aren't enough people willing to do the job for it to work that way. The backlog would become insane rather quickly. It's better to leave it open for non-admins to close the easy ones, and just deal with the occasional problem like this one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced we don't have enough admin willing to do the job. Some AfD discussions linger, because they're hard ones, but there are certainly more admins who close AfD discussions than any other XfD I'm aware of. Instead I see a fair amount of non-admins, as here, who jump at chances to close discussions rather than doing it because there's truly some backlog or need. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought Black Kite's pblock to force discussion was a good action and anticipated that this discussion would end with some sort of topic ban from closing discussions (given Liz's comments about problems extending beyond AfD). However given their unblock attempts, the idea that a Wikipedia pblock might actually be what's necessary after all is increasing. Their inability to understand what was being asked of them - to communicate here - or even what the problem is suggests that they perhaps don't have the competence to do project space work. Hopefully they can still turn that around. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for closure

Hi

I ask and admin or an experienced user to close Talk:Eastern_Ukraine_offensive#Requested_move_18_March_2022. There are consensus to move to Donbas offensive.--Panam2014 (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)