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	5	25	0	30
TfD	0	1	11	0	12
MfD	0	1	7	0	8
FfD	0	1	0	0	1
RfD	0	0	90	0	90
AfD	0	0	2	0	2

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 8488 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Fatah Sharif 2024-10-01 15:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian 2024 invasion of Lebanon 2024-10-01 03:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Aspire (Energy) 2024-09-30 23:32 2024-10-08 04:47 move Persistent vandalism Dennis Brown Eduard Dorneanu 2024-09-30 21:08 2024-10-07 21:08 move Liz Template:Use shortened footnotes 2024-09-30 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2504 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Israel–Gaza war 2024-09-30 17:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement PIA Pickersgill-Cunliffe Wanted (2008 film) 2024-09-30 17:28 2024-12-30 17:28 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects 2024-09-30 17:25 indefinite move Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) 2024-09-30 17:21 indefinite edit Move warring: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Gaza List 2024-09-30 16:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea 2024-09-30 13:53 indefinite create Firefangledfeathers Wikipedia:Why the sandbox is shutting down 2024-09-30 01:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Ad Orientem Siti Zainab 2024-09-29 23:51 indefinite create Target of sockpuppets, been through 3 AFDs Liz Nabil Qaouk 2024-09-29 13:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Dahieh 2024-09-29 01:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Abbas Nilforoushan 2024-09-29 01:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Rafa Salama 2024-09-29 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Ukrainians 2024-09-29 00:24 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq Costa Rica–Libya relations 2024-09-28 21:32 2024-10-28 21:32 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Faiq Al-Mabhouh 2024-09-28 20:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike 2024-09-28 20:30 indefinite edit Highly visible page currently on the main page and if this gets moved, it should be done by an admin who can also attend to the resulting main page redirect as per WP:MAINPAGENOREDIRECT Schwede66 Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/diffusingchildren 2024-09-28 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4745 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Karl-Anthony Towns 2024-09-28 17:56 2024-10-01 17:56 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba FIFA Club World Cup 2024-09-28 14:22 2025-03-28 14:22 edit Disruption by autoconfirmed users Black Kite 2025 FIFA Club World Cup 2024-09-28 14:21 2025-03-28 14:21 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Black Kite FIFA Club World Championship 2024-09-28 14:19 2024-10-05 05:13 edit At least one of the disruptive accounts was autoconfirmed Black Kite Thirumagal (TV series) 2024-09-28 12:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Ali Karaki 2024-09-28 11:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Samthar State 2024-09-28 09:40 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement Johnuniq 27 September 2024 Beirut strikes 2024-09-28 02:34 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Gangwar (surname) 2024-09-28 02:15 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Template:R from book 2024-09-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2509 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II

Eyes needed at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.

This page has become of what is being considered in RSes as Gamergate 2.0, though thankfully right now, attacks on BLP or other factors are minor, and from a quick history, very little revdel has been needed. However, a large number of fresh IP accounts have joined the discussion arguing against the approach taken in the current article (which is beholden to RS coverage and thus meet NPOV issues), being magnified in social media sources claiming the page is full of bias. (The article itself is locked down, that's not an issue)
Page has been tagged already with WP:DS/GG on gender-related discussions (which extended off the Gamergate arbcom case, and clearly applies here) But the number of IPs joining, knowing they are throwaway accounts, is getting louder. We probably just need some more admin eyes to make sure that we have 24/7 watch on any nonsense. — Masem (t) 00:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely needs additional eyes there. The talk page was already beginning to erupt a bit before the article page was protected, and the controversy doesn't show signs of cooling down any time soon. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If it gets so bad is semi worth considering? I know we don't usually on talk pages but still that is getting a little hard to manage it looks like. Valeince (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe temp ECP would be more useful, but I wouldn't be against starting at semi. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 01:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A request for temporary semi-protection has been at RfPP for a couple of hours now. That said, in the immediate circumstances I think temp ECP would be useful, as there is evidence of off-wiki canvassing attempts on social media to the article and its talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The page has extended confirmed protection now, not be me, but by ToBeFree. Masem, do you think that the page will still need some extra eyes or if that should deal with the worst of it? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Showed up just a bit late, but I'll say it anyway: my experience with the first 'Gamergate' leads me to believe that such a move will only magnify the already-occurring Streisand effect; that said, I completely understand it at the same time. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a Streisand effect here in the traditional sense of the term. I would characterise this as more of a tangential pile-on, because the sources that we consider reliable (for good reason) are publishing content that runs counter to the narrative that the groups who wish to use this backlash to kickstart GamerGate 2 wish to establish. It's akin to how the original GamerGaters kept pushing the "ethics in journalism" mantra, despite almost all reliable sources on the movement describing it as primarily a vehicle for harassment. The large follower accounts on social media that have been directing people to the article and talk page have done so primarily because of the content of the article, and not because it is currently protected. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There are, however, new comments coming very close to the line of personal attacks against editors. ECP should limit that, but as when GG happened, extended confirmed accounts came out of the woodwork there. We'll see, but also just as a general alert that we have this vector of complaints happening. — Masem (t) 02:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is veering into personal attacks. Right now, I think the remedy is blocks. If there is socking or brigading, protection may be warranted on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is true. I know one user has been warned for making personal attacks against me, and I've read the other comments you're describing and agree with your appraisal. I'm also worried about the exhaustion factor, since midnight UTC there have been roughly 60 comments added to the talk page, and 112 over all of yesterday. How much more will we see over the next day? I can see the wisdom in temporarily ECPing the talk page, I can also see the wisdom in blocking SPAs, and I've proposed adding another option to the admin toolkit for this content area at ARCA. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a contentious topic. It's been duly labeled as such on the talk page, reminders have been issued to practically every editor on the talk page, in-line reminder sections about behavior have been made; at this point liberal application of blocking is the appropriate strategy, IMO.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I will add that there ARE admins currently watching the page, I'm just worried about "mods are asleep, attack the page" mentality at least for now. Masem (t) 03:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: there was exactly one (1) message that was considered a personal attack towards you, while it wasn't an intention, I can see how one can interpret it this way. Cheers. Moon darker (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And now a certain billionaire with a love for the 24th letter has weighed in on his website, so I expect this to get much worse before this gets better, especially going by this thread here. Nate • (chatter) 20:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a particularly concerning tweet suggesting, if true, that an admin is participating in off-site coordination of disruption of the article and talk page. That's rather concerning, and if true, should probably merit emergency desysopping. Though, as best as I can tell from the edit log, and the user's subsequent tweets demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of how adminship works, I suspect it's not actually true.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I saw that tweet about twenty minutes ago, and after doing some checking of the article and talk page history, I don't think this is an admin. There's another tweet they made about an hour later where they said that It's primarily admins on this forum for SBI since they removed edit privileges for regular editors. I suspect this is a rather clueless auto-confirmed or extended-confirmed editor, and I have suspicions about who it is based on one other tweet they made but I'll not post them here cause WP:OUTING. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I just came across another followup from them from early March in which they mentioned their editing permissions had been removed; so I suspect you're right. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, just found that tweet, and neither of the two editors I thought this is were blocked at that time. Could be sock puppetry maybe, or could just be someone trying to sound important. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, seems they only added "Wikipedia Admin" to their Twitter desc. sometime after 12 Mar 2024 05:47:57 GMT (Google Cache: [1] *edit: cache updated). – 2804:F1...E9:12A8 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC) *edited 10:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Archived cache entry --Moon darker (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that ECP has been implemented at the SBI talkpage.The "unblock request" at User talk:2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 is worth a look. Clearly if I deal with it, I must be part of a conspiracy, having declined their request at RFPP and blocked a different IP for harassment. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This is 100% repeats of the patterns from the Gamergate situation, with new users lacking good understanding of both our content and administrative policies, as well as the attitude that the apparent bias in the article is an afront to them they must correct. We've got many protections triggered but this type of activity is trying to route around that, which is again, a repeat from GG. Hence why I just urge continued monitoring of the situation. Masem (t) 03:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The behavior is almost word for word identical to GG. This time we have better mechanisms for dealing with editors that believe content is a direct personal affront. I hate to compare it to real life horrors like Ukraine or Gaza, but the level of personalized dudgeon is higher than those, with far less justification. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There had been a case pending at DRN, which I have closed because it is also pending in a conduct forum (this conduct forum, WP:AN). If the WP:AN thread there is closed after the off-wiki canvassing is sized up, and a content dispute remains, a new case can be opened at DRN. For now, I will not try to conduct mediation while there is another aspect of the dispute in process. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

ECP has settled things down a little bit. Robert, it's not said enough: thank you for your calm and patient work at DRN. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Bakkafrost informative brand page

Bakkafrost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkafrost made it's yearly update on its official Wikipedia page by User110022. Mean as custard who did not prove any industrial knowledge classified the page as "promotional" as keeps reverting to the old version, which is now factually outdated and incorrect, hence needs updating. Please review the version which was recorrected on 09:19, 13 March 2024 by User110022 and settle the argument if it classifies as promotional or not. User110022 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@User110022, it looks like you're edit-warring to insert a large amount of unsourced, promotional content. Also, your wording implies that you are editing on behalf of the company; please read WP:COI, particularly the parts that explain how to properly declare your conflict-of-interest and how to request edits to articles. Schazjmd (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I am a company employee, so I am editing on the behalf of the company. I'm happy to verify this if you could let me know the steps for that. User110022 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@User110022, verification isn't needed but a declaration by you is needed. Also, you should use the {{Edit COI}} template on Talk:Bakkafrost to request changes to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive user

hello,

I would like to report user Paper9oll. I have been trying to correct information on the Wikipedia page of deceased artist Moonbin surrounding rumours of his death. I am providing sources from his management's official platform FanCafe in which they posted a letter from his mother correcting rumours of his death. The user in question is continuously removing my edit with my valid source included, accusing me of defaming this artist, which is simply not true. I am simply trying to correct false information listed on his Wikipedia. JKJeonEuphoria (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Your source is not reliable, JKJeonEuphoria, and this is not the right forum: you need to discuss this matter, with the editor and perhaps on the article talk page, before you post in a forum like this. Your behavior on User talk:Paper9oll is not acceptable, by the way, and I will drop a note on your talk page. I think you should try harder and read all the relevant information--there is a big fat note in this very page which says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page", another big fat note which says "his noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally", and you probably should have followed the links provided to you by Paper9oll. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Help! need someone to close a RM in a contentious area. Reward: Girl Scout Cookies.

(...if still available at time of closing) OK, please help out, admins: Talk:Bojana (river) has an interesting move request, one that may be longer than the actual river. I know which way I'm leaning, but I'm not comfortable enough in my knowledge of naming conventions. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Emrahthehistorist17 mass edits to infoboxes

Emrahthehistorist17 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in mass edits to infoboxes which are inconsistent with many different guidelines on Wikipedia, including MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, {{Infobox military conflict}} |result= guidance, and unsourced additions to those infoboxes. When reverted, the user responds brusquely (eg Do not delete my additions) and instantly uses undo.

This behaviour has been consistent, with a long series of warnings from January 2024 to that effect on the user's talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I see no indication that the Emrahthehistorist17 has learnt anything from these discussions when replies therefrom can be generously characterised as emerging from a prosecutorial complex: As long as you delete my edits like this, your website will never improve. It's done., I don't even have an idea about what are you talking about. But you seem like someone with authority on Wikipedia, and restricting me just because of your authority is a sign of injustice. Edits of this character include the following articles:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_Constantinople&diff=prev&oldid=1210776403 r
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Persian_Wars&diff=1211069421&oldid=1210732707 r
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&diff=1211101487&oldid=1193607582 r
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains&diff=prev&oldid=1210545883 r
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Gravia_Inn&diff=prev&oldid=1211181760 r
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_the_Ottoman_flagship_off_Chios&diff=prev&oldid=1209533110 r
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Constantinople&diff=prev&oldid=1209585624 r
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Rome_(1527)&diff=prev&oldid=1211053965 r
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Rome_(1084)&diff=prev&oldid=1211054955 r
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mithridatic_Wars&diff=1213687999&oldid=1195385904 r
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_War&diff=1213687451&oldid=1209447021 c
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Lycus&diff=1213505424&oldid=1136474359 c
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Syracuse_%28213%E2%80%93212_BC%29&diff=1213348990&oldid=1212984291 c
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Amorium&diff=1213347461&oldid=1212450445 c
15. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Heraclea&diff=1213346517&oldid=1212907329 c
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=1213302248&oldid=1210923833 c
17. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Persian_Gate&diff=prev&oldid=1213177830 c
18. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_War_(535%E2%80%93554)&action=history (1, 2) r
19. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caucasus_campaign&diff=prev&oldid=1213129109 r
20. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Turkish_War_%281735%E2%80%931739%29&diff=1213127193&oldid=1209365034 c
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Crusade&diff=1213037088&oldid=1211314336 r

These edits systematically disrupt the quality of these articles. I ask for a topic block – probably history of antiquity, the Ottoman Empire, and Turkey – with mass rollback. Pings follow for persons previously involved: @AirshipJungleman29, Kansas Bear, Padgriffin, and NebY. Ifly6 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see much alternative to a topic block absent a change in behavior. Talk:Mithridatic Wars#Revert, March 2024 is not encouraging. Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Are they still going? AIV should suffice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

My reading of WP:AIV was that it was unsuitable: The edits of the user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam. Re whether there's some kind of progressive activity, the reverts relating to Mithridatic Wars occurred today; I doubt, from timing, the believability of claims of discontinuation. Ifly6 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we consider banning them from edits to infoboxes, in an attempt to let them edit in other areas and prove they are here to build an encyclopedia? Or should we figure they're not here? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If people believe Emrah's claim's viz I am a researcher and I really want to contribute to wikipedia and improve it, the former would be more productive. Whether that claim is believable given an apparent inability to understand simple requests (Read what?) is not up for me to decide. Ifly6 (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Would you say their inability to understand what you posted for them to read indicates lack of competence in the English language? AirshipJungleman29, did Emrahthehistorist17's inability to understand what Ifly6 wrote seem like a competency issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps ping? Ifly6 (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:

After reading through everything, Emrahthehistorist17 should be banned from editing infoboxes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I think they are able to understand, they just don't want to follow WP:CONSENSUS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Slowking4

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Slowking4 who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2). Thank you. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ambiguity about fair use

Now there are several times that images I have uploaded from the Farsi wiki are first removed by a robot and then I am told by another robot that I can re-insert them. I did as I was told but the photo is removed by another robot. One can look at the history of, for example, Pervez Amini Afshar or Rahman Hatfi to understand what I mean. Am I misunderstanding something here? Arbabi second (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• The images you uploaded did not contain a non-free use rationale (see WP:FUR) and were therefore removed. Also, we tend not to use mugshots, for obvious reasons. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Constant reverting of changes by single editor despite Talk page agreements and general consensus reached

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

---

Hi,

My apologies if this isn't the right place or done correctly.

I, among other editors / users, have been attempting to add information to a page, namely the "Shooting of Chris Kaba" page. ( Shooting of Chris Kaba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ).

Multiple different editors have added information recently released in the news and by the courts, specifically, the police officers name. This, time and time again, has been undone by a specific user, "Defacto" @DeFacto / DeFacto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This information has been added multiple times by multiple different editors, and each time reverted by this specific user. His argument is that there is no sound policy based reasons for adding it and apparently a consensus hasn't been reached. However, 4 people including myself agreed via the talk page it should be added, it is relevant (and a pretty major part of this case, as it's one of the first times a police officer has been named in a case like this), policies support it and there is precedent. It's publically available information with plenty of sources. We all had a good discussion on the talk page and it's only "DeFacto" that doesn't seem to agree with it being added. And while others including myself have reverted his changes and / or added the information back, he removes it again citing policies relating to biographies of living people.

I'm unsure how we can come to any further of an agreement / consensus to this editors satisfaction, but in my opinion, enough interest / agreement has been shown to add the name. Maybe i'm missing something and i'm wrong here, and that's okay, but i believe the situation needs to be resolved. T9537 (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Please also see that per this users talk page, it actually seems like "DeFacto" has a history of edit-warring & refusal to accept consensus, resulting in bans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#DeFacto_ban_discussion T9537 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Some examples:

[2] [3] [4] [5] - 4 examples of changes being reverted.

Talk:Shooting of Chris Kaba (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (Naming of police officer) Discussion around this issue. T9537 (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

T9537 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaving this here for now, because it's already popped up on two messsageboards and doesn't need to move again right now. You've been reverted on BLP grounds -- the name of the officer involved is emphatically covered by BLP, and you're been edit-warring while asserting it isn't. I've declined your complaint at AN3 - you appear to be the prime edit-warrior, and I am unimpressed by your casting shade on DeFacto, who has clearly told you why you've been reverted. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Also you neglected to notify DeFacto of this post, which is required. I've done it for you. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

At risk of yet another noticeboard, this belongs at BLPN, and if it can't be resolved there through wider discussion, then DRN. This is a content dispute that doesn't belong at either AN or ANI, so I'm closing it. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Douglas Murray (author)#Request for Comment

This discussion has gotten pretty twisted. Fred Zepelin opened the RfC and one person responded before Springee changed one of the options (leaving a note about the change). It ran for a few days and garnered 17 or so !votes before FZ noticed the change and closed the discussion. Those of us who are involved are now quite torn on what to do next. We could leave it closed, and hope the edit war that preceded the RfC stays cold. We could re-open it and continue until consensus is clear. Maybe consensus is already clear, and an uninvolved editor could assess and summarize it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If the Fred Zepelin doesn't want to re-open the RfC, and there's still an open question about the consensus for the wording of the first sentence, would the simple solution not be to just launch another RfC with the same options as amended? That said, from a quick read of the survey and the change made by Springee doesn't appear to be that substantive other than explicitly stating the pre-RfC state of the lead, there's a pretty clear consensus so yeah an uninvolved editor could theoretically just assess and summarise it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion, Its very clear that from the votes in the RfC that there is no consensus in favour of the change to describe Murray as "far right", and whether or not the RfC is invalid doesn't matter, because the consensus in the discussion is clear. There is no need to run the RfC again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there anyone other than Fred Zepelin who shares their concerns that the change in wording has made it biased enough that it was likely to lead to certain outcome? Because if not, then it seems perfectly fine to respect the outcome of the RfC. Personally, I don't feel the wording change has biased the RfC and it obviously didn't change what the outcome means. The other respondent can be notified of the wording change and reassess their !votes if needed. RfCs belong to the community not to any particular editor so ultimately if the community is fine with the wording of an RfC, one editor's disagreement with it is irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Also will editors please, please, please sort out wording disputes before opening RfCs? I'm not suggesting an RfC on an RfC, but at least some brief mention of 'I'm planning to start an RfC with this wording, anyone have any problems with it' should be considered if it's something which is highly contentious or where the wording might be a problem. I'll be blunt that this is even more important if you're very particular that someone should not tamper with your words, indeed it might be better to let someone else open it in that event of don't bother to include your name. Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I see the other respondent has already been notified so there's no issue with that. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

One final comment, if editors feel the RfC should be reopened because it hasn't run long enough, I'm perfectly fine putting my name to it if people feel it needs a name, and no one else wants to. Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled RFP page backlog on March 2024

I am observing for few days on this RFP page that no admin has observing this page for a long time, creating a backlog of some 10 or more requests pending. Kindly see that this backlog issue is solved as early as possible. Thanking you, ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 03:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The last admin intervention was made by Femke on March 10, 19:49 UTC. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the rush? It's not as if you're fighting vandalism without rollback here. Hat collecting? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope. I don't have any interest in "Hat collecting", nor I had referred about gaining my rights immediately here. I can wait for that. Most of the requests are pending for likely more than 14 days. So I thought an admin would intervene at it's convenient time by notifying here and reduce the backlog and not clear it in one day. Assessing and reviewing takes time, you know it well. Just be chill and kudos! ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

PCR 4 March, Rollback 5 March, AfC 7 March and requesting autopatrolled 16 March exactly after 25 articles? Are you sure you are not hat collecting? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If you see that whatever I'm doing just to be getting those rights to make my status increase, then I don't need it. I didn't know that Hat colleting is wrong, when I'm trying to inform backlog that others have requested long time ago. This conversation has run it's course. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Idiot Savants (game show):

Could someone please move Idiot Savants (game show) back to just Idiot Savants? I don't see why it was moved as there's nothing else by that name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Idiot savant (singular) points to Savant syndrome and the plural should probably be pointed to that as well, rather than the game show. I would imagine more people would be using that term (singular or plural) as a search term when looking for Savant syndrome than looking for the game show. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)