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	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	3	25	28
TfD	0	0	4	0	4
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	75	17	92
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 9 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 176 sockpuppet investigations
• 34 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 9 requests for RD1 redaction
• 38 elapsed requested moves
• 5 Pages at move review
• 26 requested closures
• 118 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 25 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 8223 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Narayana Guru 2024-08-11 04:27 indefinite edit Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq User talk:Yamla/talk/talk 2024-08-11 01:17 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem User talk:RickinBaltimore 2024-08-11 00:17 indefinite move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Draft talk:Farlight 84 2024-08-10 21:28 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Al-Tabin school attack 2024-08-10 13:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: Per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Wikipedia talk:…/talk 2024-08-09 23:34 indefinite create LTA target Ad Orientem Wikipedia talk:… 2024-08-09 23:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: LTA Ad Orientem 1999 East Timorese crisis 2024-08-09 23:18 2025-05-14 00:00 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Category link if exists 2024-08-09 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3481 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Taxila Business School 2024-08-09 17:05 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Draft:Sabit Yeasin 2024-08-09 16:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Hahaha 2024-08-09 16:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Israel Olympic football team 2024-08-09 15:16 2024-11-09 15:16 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Israeli incursions in Tulkarm 2024-08-09 14:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato MrBeast 2024-08-09 14:01 2024-11-09 14:01 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Draft:Battle of Height 383 2024-08-09 04:51 indefinite edit,move persistent readdition of page to categories no matter how many times it's removed on WP:DRAFTNOCAT grounds, by an editor who's already been told to stop it Bearcat Lipetsk air base 2024-08-09 04:35 2024-09-09 04:34 edit move protection was not needed here Red-tailed hawk Hawkesbury, Ontario 2024-08-09 00:37 2024-08-16 00:37 edit,move Persistent vandalism Anachronist Baalveer 2024-08-09 00:14 2024-11-09 00:14 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Disruption resumed as soon as the prior protection lifted. Anachronist Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Piermark 2024-08-08 20:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie Special military operation 2024-08-08 18:19 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Muboshgu Template:Proper name 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2518 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Election box gain with party link no swing 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Disestablishment category in country by decade/core 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2586 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Palestine at the 2024 Summer Olympics 2024-08-08 12:46 2024-09-08 12:46 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Kursk 2024-08-08 12:39 2025-02-08 12:39 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User talk:194.28.84.109 2024-08-08 08:08 2024-11-08 08:08 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot PhonePe 2024-08-07 22:02 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry, block evasion and WP:UPE The Wordsmith Steve Shapiro 2024-08-07 21:43 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo Sudzha 2024-08-07 18:17 2024-08-14 18:17 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Less Unless Hollywood Creative Alliance 2024-08-07 17:33 2024-08-21 17:33 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Discussed at WP:ANI Cullen328 Misandry 2024-08-07 17:28 indefinite edit Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/GG -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Buuhoodle 2024-08-07 14:51 2026-08-07 14:51 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Case Oh 2024-08-07 12:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Muhammad Hassaan 2024-08-07 11:59 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Titan Cameraman 2024-08-07 10:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Administrator changes

DanCherek • DatGuy • Femke • Z1720

Aldux • Graham Beards • Nyttend

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

WMF Board voting closes on September 6

I want to specifically highlight the last bullet in the newletter, that voting for the WMF Board of Trustees closes on September 6. Only 16% of administrators who are eligible to vote have done so, here's the list of admins who haven't voted yet. This seems rather low to me given how many administrators care about or are affected by decisions the WMF makes (everyone, really). I encourage you to:

• Review the list of candidates
• Watch/read answers to community questions
• Vote!

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Odd, I voted prior to this post and I'm on the list as not voted. When I click the link to vote it said I already have. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

There are a few different lists on that page; it looks like you're listed in the "Have voted" section. DanCherek (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

...I'll just get my coat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: indeed, you're all set. Thank you for voting! Legoktm (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Reminder, voting closes in about 21 hours at 23:59 UTC today. The vote-tracker says 24% of eligible admins have voted, which is great improvement! ...but we can do better :-) Legoktm (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to widen scope of WP:GS/UYGHUR

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding a proposed expansion of the scope of WP:GS/UYGHUR. The thread is Proposal to Expand GS/uyghur to include the Uyghurs more broadly. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have listed this discussion for closure on RFCLOSE. Uninvolved closure by an administrator would be appreciated. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Scabab

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

---

I didn't know where to report it so I reported it here. User:Scabab is indulging in edit war and original research (although yes I did edit war with him at the same time too) on Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero.

The dispute as you can see from Talk:Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero arises from Scabab insisting on mixing and matching numbers from various sources for the movie. Comscore reports a $60.6 global cume without the Japan gross for the movie and $34.8 million in US by Sunday [1].

According to Box Office Mojo the Japan gross is $18.5 million and the US gross is $34.9 million, while the global is $77.1 million [2].

However the BOM gross includes the estimate for US Monday gross which is $394,000 while Comscore only includes an estimate till Sunday. This also means that per BOM the domestic gross was just $39.5 million by Sunday against ComScore's $39.8 million. That said it's nothing unusual as different sources report different grosses.

Scabab has taken it up by himself to combine the highest figures from all sources to make up his own gross and he prefers Comscore as being the correct source. However common Wikipedia practice has been to prefer BOM or The Numbers.

He is edit warring over it and using OR.

He also seems to be using socks. 92.30.64.172 for example also likes to lurk on Dragon Ball articles a lot like Scabab and used the same reasoning to revert me.

Not to mention, that he also made condescending remarks towards User:TropicAces in Talk:Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero telling him he has no clue and when I told to tone it down he derided me by saying he didn't ask for my opinion.

I request a sock puppet investigation, though it might not be needed as it seems obvious, and a block for his behavior regardless. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That IP address does appear suspicious... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Didn't start the edit war. Gave sources for the information.

Comscore (and Deadline) listed the global gross as $60.6 million without Japan. With Japan it stands at $79.1 million. Box Office Mojo lists Mondays estimated gross separately from Comscore as that only updates each week. Box Office Mojo also did not include Thursdays gross for the movie which is why there's a difference.

Comscore is the primary source for Box Office information which Box Office Mojo gets its figures from to begin with.

It also was not a sock. It was simply just an edit I made whilst logged out on my phone while I was using my tablet to find the source that I put in (while logged out) which he only removed anyway. Not a sock....I just didn't log in.

Oh and also, the last four movies grosses are all mixed and matched. That's nothing new for anime movies when Box Office Mojo does a poor job of tracking them. Demon Slayer for example is $50 million lower than the actual amount listed on here. Comscore is the one to go by. Scabab (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you're starting it or not. But you did by reverting me [3].

In addition using different figures mixed up from various sources doesn't mean you're actually reporting what the sources say. It's original research. We

Also given that you've been using that IP for months while logged out and haven't once bothered to declare that it was yours, even though it's fixed and not dynamic, until others started catching up to it makes it further clear that you've been using a sock puppet.

In addition the Demon Slayer gross on Wikipedia is 50 million higher than BOM because The Numbers reports it as $506 million [4]. BOM states $453 million [5].

It's worth noting that you refused to consider The Numbers which reports a lower gross of $58 million for Dragon Ball Super [6].

It's clear you just decide which source is correct based on your preference and which has a higher number. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Original research is required when the sources specifically say that the grosses aren't including Japans gross. You obviously require pulling from different sources unless you want an incorrect gross like you kept putting in.

Why would I possibly declare a non logged in account? It's not another user. I've made plenty of edits without bothering to log in.

The Numbers hasn't even updated Super Hero's gross for over a week. Even when it did update, the overseas gross was just all the listed individual grosses added up together, not the actual overall gross.

The only gross that will ever matter is the correct one. If you are going to bother to include a gross there is zero point in doing so unless it is correct. Neither Box Office Mojo or The Numbers are correct. Comscore and Deadline were correct and even then, again, specifically said that the Japan gross was not included. Scabab (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

OR was never required, you decided to do it on your own based on your preference. It's better to avoid incomplete data.

We wouldn't know an IP is yours until you declare it and socks can be used to create a fake consensus. Why have you avoided it mentioning it for so long until people suspected you?

How do you know which gross is correct and which isn't? It's clear you're only using Comscore because it has a higher number than BOM. Also Deadline relies on Comscore as well. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• How about you two step away from the article and let other editors sort it out? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Because I didn't care to declare it? I'm not an active editor, I mainly just edit the gross for the Dragon Ball movies to their most accurate figure. I'm not bothered whether I'm signed in or not.

  I know exactly which gross is correct. What difference does Comscore having a higher number than Box Office Mojo have to do with anything? Last week Box Office Pro said the movie was at $80+ million. That wasn't put in either because again it was a mistake.

  Box Office Mojo is completely missing a days gross, theres no Thursday there where there is for Comscore. So why are you using an incomplete gross from a site that gets most of its figures from Comscore....over Comscore?

  Where is the confusion here? Comscore has a gross for the movie as of Sunday not including Japan. You take that gross and you add Japan's figure and you get the most accurate figure. Why would you not go with that but go with something that's incorrect and missing an entire day? Scabab (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  The confusion here lies in treating this noticeboard as a content dispute resolution venue. If people would discuss this in a civil manner (i.e. not accusing others of being idiots) it should be possible to reach a decision on the content on the talk page without touching the article until things are resolved. Just do things without sockpuppetry and without throwing accusations around. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was discussing it just fine on the appropriate talk page. Everything was explained clearly on my end and he still continued to put in an incorrect figure.

  As was mentioned there too, it's not really a matter of opinion. The facts are the facts, if Comscore says that it has made that amount then it has made that amount as they get their figures from the studios themselves. Scabab (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, you were not discussing it fine. You were saying things like someone who hasn't got a clue, he knows nothing at all, You rather obviously have no clue whatsoever about this and I gave up after three examples of your incivility. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes that was true. If he had a clue then he would have put in the correct gross and there would be no issue in the first place. It's because he doesn't know what he's doing is the problem. Scabab (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please stop making the disparaging comments about other editors. Continued incivility may result in you being blocked. Donald Albury 17:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to be an active editor to declare something and you're basically making excuses for your attacks on others Scabab.

Yes BOM seems to be missing a day's gross (although it could be possible that it just simply added the gross for many days) but you're still mixing and matching numbers based on what you like. You're also admitting you're aware that you're using an unreliable source. Either stop using BOM or Comscore. Why are you adding BOM and Comscore figures when they don't match? That's OR. The number isn't going to be higher than $500,000 at best given the usual day gross in that week before weekends [7]. It'll be around $77.5-77.6 million at best. It still won't be $79.1 or 79.5 million. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether I need to or not, I dont care whether I'm signed in or not.

No BOM did not add a days gross. Comscores gross was used as it was the most accurate and the source of most value (which has now been revised further). The daily grosses displayed on BOM, because they won't do such a thing on Comscore will be added to that gross.

It was at $78.7 million as of Sunday and Deadline is now saying $584,000 for Monday which would make it $79.3 million. Scabab (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This condescending attitude of yours is troubling. You should declare a long-held IP so people can be sure who it is.

And again if you want to consider one source as reliable, go ahead. But please stop using OR and mixing and matching sources. If you think BOM isn't correct then don't use it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Please delete the user status page of a blocked user

Please delete a blocked user's status page see here under the criteria WP:G5. He's a sock of an LTA disrupting Wikipedia for years now. Thanks! 170.80.110.5 (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Disinclined to delete, since it's just a user page. I've also converted your elink to a wikilink. Primefac (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Straight Through Processing

Resolved

Please can I be unblocked from editing Straight Through Processing. I invented the system back in 1992 whilst I was working for the London Stock Exchange. I am have been credited with ther invention by the University Of Cardiff and a number of articles in the UK press. https://theeverydaymagazine.co.uk/opinion/james-karat-and-straight-through-processing https://www.belsizevillage.co.uk/new_stories1.htm https://www.ftni.com/blog/the-journey-to-attaining-the-holy-grail-of-ar https://www.aspectenterprise.com/wp-content/uploads/STP-Inforgraphic.pdf https://hyperleap.com/topic/Straight-through_processing https://issuu.com/dartfordliving/docs/dartford_living_april_2022 https://figshare.cardiffmet.ac.uk/articles/thesis/Operational_efficiency_of_industrialised_information_processing_systems/20272275

Many thanks James Jasperk1975 (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Please initiate a new talk page discussion on the proposed content and sources at Talk:Straight Through Processing, as requested by the blocking admin[8]. If consensus forms to add the content, then you can re-request an unblock by placing the following code on your talk page: {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Remember to replace "Your reason here" with why you think you should be unblocked. DrKay (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jasperk1975: Well, I'd say you need t discuss content and sourcing at Talk:Straight Through Processing

as you have a conflict of interest -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Lightbreather unban appeal

The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather (talk · contribs). Interested editors may give feedback to the committee at here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Lightbreather unban appeal

No decision made. I ask for authorization to restore the status quo...

Discussion also ongoing at WP:ANI#World Cup race podiums in Infobox of the alpine skiers, one location for this is already more than most people want
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
.. and that is the podium table in the World Cup in the infoboxes of active skiers, before the Marbe166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed its at his unquestionable and incontrovertible decision, with obviously overbearing reverts if someone restored its, not just me incidentally. Here is a summary of the story. A week passed, from August 30, even to the ANI without any decision. Here is the summary of the attempts made. Attempted in user talk: no result; Attempted in the infobox talk: no result; Attempted in the talk of the two related projects: no results; Attempted at the Teahouse: no result; Attempted to dispute resolution: no result; Attempted in the talk of the skier: no result; Attempted ANI: no result --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Kasper2006, administrators do not adjudicate content disputes and neither does the Teahouse. Administrators do not "authorize" things like this. You are at the wrong place. Focus on Dispute resolution, which describes the various options for dealing with content disputes. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Per Cullen. A week is a very short amount of time, Kasper, to get sufficient feedback to break a deadlock between two editors who are in a disagreement. There are LOTS of options listed at WP:DR for you to follow, but many of them need time for other volunteers to find the discussions, contribute, and build a consensus on how to proceed. It takes considerable time to do that, moreso when one or both parties overcontributes to the dispute to where no one else feels like helping out. --Jayron32 19:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Meanwhile, Kasper2006 has not done any of the things mentioned above, but instead continued to add the disputed content to a few more skiers (Sofia Goggia, Henrik Kristoffersen, Petra Vlhová, Ragnhild Mowinckel, Michelle Gisin) despite being clearly told not to whilst the discussion is ongoing. Kasper2006 seems to have a problem with realising that what he claims to be the "status quo" is, in fact, not. That is disruptive behaviour. If Kasper2006 wants to add the information, which is interesting and relevant, then it can be added as a separate table in the main body of the articles, but it should not be in the infobox, since it is not medals and it clutters the infobox with too much information. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Perhaps it is not clear to you that the bully is you. Here for months, no administrator has made a decision about your destructive behavior. I repeat and I tell the administrators, the STATUS QUO was the table in the infobox, so it is still in 90% of the articles for years, YOU ARE ONLY YOU to think differently. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Again, you don't seem to realise that what you claim is the "status quo" is not the status quo. The status quo is that the MEDALtemplate in the infobox is used for MEDALS, i.e. Olympics, World Championships and Junior World Championships. I am only reverting because you are adding information that is the subject of the discussion, and such changes should not be made when the discussion is ongoing. Marbe166 (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC) My friend "status quo" is something that has been going on for years tacitly from Stenmark to Odermatt everyone has always had the tables since 2005, only to arrive in the last year and take it away only to some active skiers. It is not clear to you yet that the "medaltemplates" is used but it is explicit in the title "podiums in World Cup". --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC) No, it has not been the case for everyone. Like I said in another of our exchanges, it has been the case for many Italian skiers and a few others, like the ones you mention. The vast majority of skiers do not have the WC podium table in the infobox. (Here are 5 examples: Anja Pärson, Pernilla Wiberg, Nicole Hosp, Lindsey Vonn, Wendy Holdener). Marbe166 (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC) In any case, you are holding on to a trifle. You want to show that since the template is named "medaltemplate" you only have to put competitions that give medals. But this is not the case, as in the German wiki, if you use the template by changing the title "podiums in world cup" you can give this VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION already in the infobox, thus helping the millions of Wikipedia users in the world (not editors like you and me ), seeking help perhaps while watching a ski race. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC) <Don't fool us. If you that you have always taken away see here --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC) As I wrote above the discussion has been stagnant for months, I have made six attempts in six different places and when one intervenes one tells me: try the Teahouse, try the "dispute resolution". Already done! Already done! --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC) See in the chronology how many poor users Marbe166 do the revert has done with his: "not medals" ... "not medals" --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Marco Odermatt saved himself from the madness of Marbe166 and with him, as I said, 90% of the skiers who have this table that I have certainly not set over the years. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC) I ask the administrators if I can warn in their talk of the presence of this discussion the dozens and dozens of users overbearingly reverted by our friend. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC) Among other things, I find it even crazier that you have quietly edited, for example in Lindsey Vonn, they leave the table for four years from 3 February 2018 to your cancellation on 30 January 2022 --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC) I'd like to make any administrator (if any admin is reading this...) aware of that Kasper2006 has now diverted from civilised discussion and resorted to a personal attack here, accusing me of lying. --Marbe166 (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Marbe166, you are wrong I did not accuse you of lying at random, but I proved with the Lindsay Vonn chronology links that you knew that the status quo (table you allowed to last 4 years) was "table yes", so it was "don't say a true thing knowing it" when you said the status quo was "table no". But I proved what I said (see opening discussion in Lindsay Vonn's talk), you weren't able to. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding updating WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE

WP:VPP#RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE, regarding consideration of off-wiki evidence in blocks for on-wiki misconduct, and relating to ArbCom's statement last month about such blocks, may be of general interest to administrators. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Request to lift some restrictions

I was blocked by admin El_C on 16 February 2022 and was unblocked by Deepfriedokra on 7 March 2022 with conditions All new article creations through AfC and vetted by AfC before main spacing. One edit per day per AfD thread. And please, avoid losing your temper/ being rude/ making personal attacks/not assuming good faith when under stress..
Following the restriction, I have created 94 articles "vetted by AfC" out of which a 32KB+ article Operation Bajrang - and Robin Hibu, Viplav Tripathi, G Bidai, Tapan Deka and Sajid Mir under WP:BIO - 2013 Jhankar Saikia mob lynching, and Lynching of Deben Dutta under WP:CRIMINALPROJ, - Ellora Vigyan Mancha and Ajmal Foundation under WP:WPORG.

About my stubs/starts of WP:NPOL and WP:GEOLAND - I had no other options left to be "an editor as WP:HERE".

I, truly understand that the restrictions imposed on me might not be uplifted. I honor all decisions of the Admins and I am following their advice. Despite my conversations with @Deepfriedokra on their talk page, I have changed my mind to come here for consideration.

To date, I am building Wiki with mostly citations on unsourced articles. I guess my citation work helped Wiki, though I might not be correct.

But restriction for all articles "vetted by AfC" is a bit of an extra hammer for my WP:GEOLAND works.

Hence I appeal to remove some restrictions imposed by admin @Deepfriedokra. For example, WP:GEO and WP:NPOL really don't need much in AfC (where NPP will work). I am appealing to remove my "vetted by AfC" restriction in WP:GEO and WP:NPOL as I have created AfC articles understanding the WP:THREE.

Also creating articles through AfC, I have learned the method of AfC reviewer, which I want to apply. Further, I declare that, whatever the outcome will be here, I shall continue with it. Regards _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral I've received negative feedback from users I trust on removing the AfC requirement in particular, so I sent NT4M here.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  PS> Almost forgot. AfC reviewer is and will be a hard no. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Based on talk page messages, it looks like the last AfC rejection was in June with many accepted since then. I don't know all ^{(actually, I'm not sure I know any of the background that lead to the AfC requirement)} the background here but, assuming I'm not missing something, the AfC requirement seems to be a waste of reviewer time. PhantomTech[talk] 09:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) @PhantomTech whatever AfC draft I failed to complete, I gave up. Every draft is evident of it. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 09:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  If the issue that caused the AfC requirement was creating articles that were effectively drafts in article space then I'd at the very least support allowing NeverTry4Me to self-publish their own drafts once they feel they are ready. Again, I don't know the background, but based on talk page notifications for AfC submissions it seems NeverTry4Me is capable of creating articles that meet Wikipedia's standards and determining when those standards are met. PhantomTech[talk] 09:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  @PhantomTech If you're going to look at their talk page messages you need to check the page history. Nevertry4me keeps the messages where their drafts have been accepted and deletes the declines without archiving. They had a draft declined yesterday [9] but deleted the notice with the edit summary - clean-up, nothing important [10]. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) IP vote? Sometimes AfC reviewers skips WP:NPOL which is you are talking about. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 10:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I checked for declines by searching edit summaries in the last 500 talk page edits, or at least that's what I thought I did. Clearly I did something wrong because not only did I miss the September 7th decline but there was also a decline in July. I have no idea what I did that caused me to miss those but I was under the impression that of the last 500 edits to the talk page, there was only one AfC decline and it was in June. Thank you for pointing this out to me. PhantomTech[talk] 10:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm hesitant to make another claim about accepted/denied AfC drafts, but it looks like the submission decline rate since July has still been low at 2-3%. There seems to be a very sudden drop off in declined drafts around the end of June/beginning of July which could mean that whatever issue was causing the declines has been resolved. That said, I'll reiterate that I don't know the background here, and also note that I've only commented about the AfC restriction so far. Assuming that there's no reason to think that article quality will significantly decline, the AfC requirement question seems to be: is it worth requiring AfC reviewers to review 50-100 draft stubs and frustrating the author to keep one that may not meet WP:GNG out of mainspace? PhantomTech[talk] 11:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Weakly Leaning Oppose. I think that independent review of your articles is probably still a good thing and a worthwhile exercise. I don't think your English language skills are quite at the level required to be writing new articles directly in main space, e.g. the sentence About my stubs/starts of WP:NPOL and WP:GEOLAND - I had no other options left to be "an editor as WP:HERE". from your appeal doesn't make any sense. There's also been some other editing by you that raises WP:CIR questions in my opinion, e.g. your constant attempts at hat collecting and requesting user rights that you don't qualify for and in many cases don't even seem to understand [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19], your attempt to become an AFC reviewer while banned from creating articles [20] and your recent block for violating this topic ban by accepting your own articles at AFC. I certainly don't think you are in a position at the moment where you should be becoming an AFC reviewer. The AFD restriction definitely needs to remain since we have had recent issues with you bludgeoning discussions here even despite the topic ban [21] and likewise And please, avoid losing your temper/ being rude/ making personal attacks/not assuming good faith when under stress... is clearly still necessary given your response to your most recent block. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Is a topic ban on requesting permissions an option? Their apparent obsession with headwear is silly and a waste of time. – ².O.^Boxing 11:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm curious about this. Is NT4M emailing editors to imply they'll be blocked for being on the wrong end of an AFD decision? As for the lifting of restrictions and wanting to review AFC submissions, the declined article is evidence that NT4M needs more experience. They seem to be under the impression GNG can be ignored if NPOL is satisfied. – ².O.^Boxing 11:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Regarding your ref, you should appreciate that I have helped the article The Sporting Age without !vote on the deletion discussion. I have added refs that helped to survive the article. Was that my fault? _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You're avoiding the question. No-one here is asking about whether you added references to the article, you are being asked if you were emailing threats to other editors to try to influence an AFD discussion. @MPGuy2824 as the recipient of the email you should probably be aware of this discussion. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Pinging MPGuy2824 for a clearer consensus. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I shall stop here for a consensus. The AFC reviewers and NPP who reviewed my accepted articles "vetted by AFC" will answer my capability. I am not going to ping any Admin, reviewers, or NPP for it. Let them decide. I shall follow the final decision. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I checked back through my mail, and that quote from the mail, is accurate, so i'm not entirely sure what else to do here. Personally, I didn't take it as a threat, but more of a friendly "take note". Side note: I monitor new Indian articles and have come across a few of NT4M's village article creations. They are quite acceptable even before the AfC reviewer touches them. Given that, I like Tamzin's suggestion below of repealing the ban, but tentatively for 6 months. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That email is certainly troubling and inappropriate and is a good example of why I should not remove the 1 edit per day AfD restriction unilaterally. Since I'm deferring, I'll let y'all decide what to do with it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra MPGuy2824 already clarified. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose no reason shown for why he can't use AFC despite not wanting to. The backlog claims are weak. There's no reason he has to have live articles (which require cleanup anyway) right now. Unclear communication style present even in this discussion. If this is ultimately accepted, he cannot have NPP. Articles need too many eyeballs. Star Mississippi 15:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  further lack of communication skills. At User_talk:Deepfriedokra#Is_the_partial_removal_request_ok?, NT4M said I have decided to go to WP:AN. Despite your suggestion, I did so. Please pardon me for that. when what @Deepfriedokra actually said was When the admin who placed a restriction declines to remove it, the next step in the process is for the appellant to ask the Community at WP:AN I think NT4M means well, but lacks the English language communication skills to create articles without external review. It's the poor communication skills that have unfortunately led to many of their prior visits to these boards. Star Mississippi 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (Le sigh.) I think I only said to take it here like three times, but who is counting? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Having blocked NT4M last month for violating this sanction, I don't love the idea of repealing a sanction someone violated so recently. That said, sanctions should be preventative rather than punitive, and I don't see a lot of evidence that this AfC requirement is currently necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. That's all somewhat speculative, though, so where I come down is: Support suspension of AfC requirement, with any uninvolved admin allowed to reïmpose for the next 6 months. The suspended sanction would be listed at WP:EDR for those 6 months. If it were not reïmposed by the end of those 6 months, it would be considered fully repealed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

Given today's announcement about the health of Her Majestey, and the fact that she is 96, we may need to face the fact that she could be coming to the end of her long reign. Extra admin eyes on her article, and those closely connected to her would probably be no bad thing. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I semi-protected Operation London Bridge for 3 days for disruptive editing/vandalism. Of course that can be extended should circumstances dictate it but I think 3 days is a good starting point. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II has been extended-confirmed protected indefinitely by DrKay. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Question Do we need to move protect the Charles, Prince of Wales article? I can forsee the article being move warred over once the Queen passes. Move protecting would allow for time to discover the new King's regnal style, at which time the article need be moved once, and once only. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe it's already move protected (for other reasons). DrKay (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, good. Padlock only showing for semi-protection though. That might be an issue for discussion elsewhere. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not guaranteed that it will need to be moved "once and only once". Assuming he takes the name Charles III, will we move the disambiguation currently at Charles III to allow the new king's article to be there (as is the case with every British monarch from George III onwards, other than Queen Victoria), or will it go at Charles III of the United Kingdom? Whichever answer the mover chooses, it will probably be challenged by someone who thinks the other is correct, and there's no way to know which will win. Animal lover |666| 17:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I've a feeling that if he sticks with Charles, it will be Charles IX, under Churchill's rule, as there were King Charles's in Scotland before the joining of the English and Scottish Crowns. He could take, for example, George VII as his title. Which is why I suggest waiting for an official announcement. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'd agree with that. Charles can pick any regnal name, and we may not know for a few days what that may be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

My point still stands: assuming that we currently have a disambiguation at his chosen name, do we move the disambiguation page out of the way and place the king's article there, or do we add "of the United Kingdom" to that name? This could go either way. Animal lover |666| 17:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

IMvHO, Charles III should be a disambiguation page. We should use the "of the United Kingdom" disambiguator, whatever regnal name is chosen. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this. While "English speaking" people are indeed most likely to look for the UK Charles, there is no harm in disambiguating, and they will immediately identify it in the search results. We should avoid regionalising and putting different language wikis out of sync. English-bias should be avoided. El Dubs (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace has just announced the death. BBC News source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Charles has been king from some time this afternoon. There is no need for an encyclopedia to reflect that until things are clearer. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Liz Truss just gave a statement from Downing Street, named the new King as "King Charles III". Suggest we wait for now on a move to "Charles III of the United Kingdom". Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A request to admins, could the article stop being made until a verified statement has been released by Buckingham Palace with regards to the regnal name of Charles please? Such an announcement will come, but for now one has not been made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And of course, seconds after I made this request, an official statement was actually made that the regnal name is Charles III. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Something to keep an eye on: evidently Clarence House is also starting to refer to the former queen as "Elizabeth the Great". Not in an official capacity, it's just something that someone mentioned on the CBC live feed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope that doesn't catch on. Surely the job of monarch and head of state has been, for the last few hundred years, not to be "great", and Elizabeth has performed that part of her job well. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Churchill's rule would still be Charles III, as pre-1707 England & Scotland only have each two monarchs named Charles, who happened to be the same people :) GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, compare the following beginning of Charles II of England:

Charles II (29 May 1630 – 6 February 1685) was King of Scotland from 1649 until 1651, and King of England, Scotland and Ireland from the 1660 Restoration of the monarchy until his death in 1685.

with the beginning of the article on his brother, James II of England:

James II and VII (14 October 1633 O.S. – 16 September 1701) was King of England and Ireland as James II, and King of Scotland as James VII

So with James there is a difference between England and Scotland, but with Charles there isn't any. Animal lover |666| 10:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

MassMessage

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

---

Usually MassMessage requests at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders is responded within hours of posting, but it seems that my request has sat for over a week without a response. Have I done something wrong in my request? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea about the merits or otherwise of the specific request, but it looks like a low-traffic page and there are no obvious instructions there as to how someone with the technical permission to handle the request, which I believe I as an administrator have, could handle it. And the number of admins continues to drop.

If there were a step by step guide to processing requests available, I'd have a go at it. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems like we need to go to Special:MassMessage and fill in each box with the information under the "here are the details" header of the request. I've sent it, we'll see if it arrives as requested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Stifle The instructions for sending a message are at mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage#Sending a message 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems like it worked, thanks for your help Jo-Jo Eumerus. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Funk

I am having a problem with this article involving a certain user. Isebito is inserting his personal view into the article involving the stylistic origins section. He is using one source to support his claim jazz fusion and "black rock" (a racist, derogatory term used to undermine black music) is part of the stylistic origins of funk even though it clearly isn't. I have used multiple sources to dispute his claim yet he continues to insult me telling me that I am inserting my personal view into the article and I need to prove that his source is incorrect. He's not using the information correctly to justify his reasoning. I have more to explain here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Funk - under disputing new edits

I need someone to help me out with this situation. I'm sick and tired of arguing with this boy. StephenCezar15 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

"Boy"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing on that user's pages to indicate their age or their gender -- the gender template returns "they". Since they've been editing for 15 years, if they started editing at the ridiculously early age of 5 y.o. they would be 20 by now, so "boy" hardly seems appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• On the substance of the message, this seems like a content dispute and StephenCezar15 and Isebito should consider the options at WP:Dispute resolution, including taking the issue to the talk page of a relevant WikiProject or obtaining a third opinion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'll try over there. StephenCezar15 (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Staxringold

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Staxringold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: L235, Barkeep49, CaptainEek

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Level 1 desysop of Staxringold

Georgia (country)

Hello.Some editors delete texts and refrences at this article and make a lot of pointless edits. پخش مطلب (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)