Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	24	20	44
TfD	0	1	1	0	2
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	50	10	60
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 9 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 124 sockpuppet investigations
• 12 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 12 Fully protected edit requests
• 14 Candidates for history merging
• 68 requests for RD1 redaction
• 45 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 44 requested closures
• 101 requests for unblock
• 2 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 14 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (38 out of 8362 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hamish Ross 2024-09-08 18:46 indefinite edit,move LTA Elli Template:Sandbox heading/Navigation 2024-09-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4943 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II User talk:Oscarwads 2024-09-08 17:36 2024-09-10 17:36 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot Rape in Pakistan 2024-09-08 17:16 2024-12-08 17:16 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case 2024 Allenby Bridge shooting 2024-09-08 17:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi 2024-09-08 05:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Killing of Aysenur Eygi 2024-09-08 05:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Vrishni 2024-09-08 04:57 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Abhira people 2024-09-08 04:55 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Talk:DJ Kelblizz 2024-09-07 22:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Hind Khoudary 2024-09-07 22:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Casliber Ben Grimm 2024-09-07 20:34 indefinite move reviewed. ec rights is sufficient for purpose Robertsky Thing (comics) 2024-09-07 20:32 indefinite move upon review of logs, the page move vandalism was done by newish socks back in 2009. dropping to ec move protection so that pagemovers can move the page as well if needed (pagemovers group was established in 2016) Robertsky Template:MLB standings/styles.css 2024-09-07 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3813 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II DJ Kelblizz (Nigerian Disc Jockey) 2024-09-07 06:14 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz DJ Kelblizz (DJ) 2024-09-07 06:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz DJ Kelblizz (Disc jockey) 2024-09-07 05:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Rakesh Varre 2024-09-07 01:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid 2024-09-06 20:34 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Prithu 2024-09-06 18:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan All India Sevens Football 2024-09-06 18:17 2024-10-06 18:17 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan 3D Organon 2024-09-06 18:14 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Railway stations in countryname opened in YYYY category header 2024-09-06 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2515 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Punjabi language 2024-09-06 17:07 2026-09-06 17:07 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Eric Dick (lawyer) 2024-09-06 05:13 2025-09-06 05:13 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Real Life (webcomic) 2024-09-06 02:16 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Raven Saunders 2024-09-05 17:59 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per request Daniel Case List of Terminator (franchise) characters 2024-09-05 13:53 2024-12-05 13:53 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Unbelievable Gwenpool 2024-09-05 13:32 2024-12-05 13:32 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Tulkarm Brigade 2024-09-05 02:43 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (1 April – 26 July 2024) 2024-09-05 02:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2 January – 31 March 2024) 2024-09-05 02:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (24 November 2023 – 1 January 2024) 2024-09-05 02:11 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (8 October – 23 November 2023) 2024-09-05 02:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (27 July 2024 – present) 2024-09-05 01:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Partition of India 2024-09-04 21:00 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: this discussion Academic Challenger Darryl Cooper 2024-09-04 19:56 2025-09-04 19:56 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Tiwana 2024-09-04 19:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD

Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request (reopened)

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

---

• Special:permalink/1097008915#Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request reopened from archive per email request

---

Whatsupkarren is requesting unblock/unban, and is sock of Tariq afflaq . Roy Smith noted in the prior unban request that user no longer has the original account password, and that he recommended requesting unban with this account. User is WP:3X banned as Tariq afflaq. This is, of course, a checkuser block.

• Whatsupkarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tariq afflaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Prior unban request
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq/Archive

Request to be unbanned

It’s been more than a year, I haven’t made any edit on English Wikipedia, used sockpuppets or anything like that since I was banned a year ago, I fully understand why I was blocked, and then banned, I admit my mistakes, I own up to my irresponsible reckless activities years ago, I apologize to all of Wikipedia community, and promise that will never ever engage in such activities again. the ban gave me a chance to acquaint myself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I think the ban is no longer necessary because I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions. 2. Edit warring and vandalism, my approach to dealing with fellow users was rather barbaric, I now know that disagreements should be resolved through discussing the issue on the associated talk page or seeking help at appropriate venues. 3.I also know that I should remain civil and should not use improper language and should avoid responding in a contentious and antagonistic manner. I also want to add that I've created more than 50 articles on Arabic and French Wikipedias in the past year. I hope this appeal addresses all of your concerns, if not, please point them out. thanks for your time.

Carried over from user talk by --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Checkuser needed for starters, as this is a CU block and can only be considered after a CU has looked at it. No comment on the merits at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

   Unlikely but it's a noisy range. @Mz7: had the most luck last time and I believe it's worth a second set of eyes here in case I missed something. To be clear, barring new evidence, my findings clear the checkuser part of the block and mean this unblock request may now be considered on the merits. --Yamla (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into this appeal too deeply yet, but it looks like at the previous unban request, I provided a decent summary of the background here and why I was opposed at the time: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Whatsupkarren / Tariq afflaq unban request. I think at least this part of what I said back then probably still applies: If the community does want to extend leniency to this user, I would strongly suggest also attaching some unblock conditions, e.g. a topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Looking at the editting on other wikis, it appears to all be around Syria and people of Syrian decent, which appears to be part of the reason they were originally blocked. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'm always up for a second chance. I do think that a TBan from Syria-related topics, to be appealed after a minimum of six months, would be necessary - on the understanding that they would need to demonstrate a capacity to edit constructively in that time, not merely wait for it to time out then appeal. There would also need to be an agreement to stick to one account. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock per WP:LASTCHANCE, with a six month Syria related topic ban and a one account restriction. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Accept under the conditions of a indef topic ban for Syria, and an indef one account restriction, with either restriction being appealable after 6 months of actual editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Decline until they show any interest in editing any other topic. When was the last time that Whatsupkarren/Tariq afflaq made any edit to a non-English Wikipedia that wouldn't have been a direct violation of their topic ban here? I mean, their most recent Wikipedia mainspace edits were a month ago on ptwiki, to pt:Moise Safra—where they were re-adding claims asserting Syrian nationality to a biography, as part of a slow-motion edit war on that article. For reference, he was trying to make essentially the same edit (since reverted) to enwiki's Moise Safra in December 2020, just hours before his original indefinite enwiki block. (And again as an IP evading his block less than a month later. And then as a sock two weeks after that. And then as another sock three months later.)
  This editor has not shown that they are capable of editing anywhere outside of their topic ban. Instead, they've spent their time outside of enwiki exporting the same 'Syrian-tagging' disputes to multiple other Wikipedia projects. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Non-plussed by user's feeing that edit warring is not edit warring if they have a good reason for edit warring. An opinion shared by many of the edit warriors I have encountered. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  edit for the bot to not archive before close --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Answered adequately. Comment struck Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

---

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Unblock per Girth Summit, Cullen328, and Dennis Brown above. Appealable-in-six-months TBan from Syria-related topics, agreement to stick to one account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Lift ban, unblock with Syria topic ban and one account restriction as suggested by others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (I actually started closing, thinking it was clearcut, before realising that it's only actually slightly in favour of an unblock at the moment). @Whatsupkarren: - can you point to recent activity on another project on a topic other than Syria? What would you do here if you were unblocked but TBANNED on Syria? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Whatsupkarren emailing a response isn't the best thing to do - answering on your talk page with a ping is fine. Am I fine to post the content of your email response? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Drat, just when it was getting good --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Lift ban, unblock with a TBAN on Syria stuff. WP:STANDARDOFFER. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• I don't exactly endorse unblocking, but I am not opposed either as long as the Syria topic ban is placed as a condition for unblocking. Am interested in reading the response to Nosebagbear's question above. Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 18 admitted sockpuppets used to deceive, threatening off-wiki hacking, impersonating an editor, and a nationalistic POV pusher to boot. They had almost a week to answer Nosebagbear's question & failed to do so. Timesink 101, can only harm WP. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Struck because they weak opposed/supported indef topic ban below. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Reply to @Bison X: carried over by me.

  I didn't fail to answer, I emailed the admin on July 18th. Thanks for your time Whatsupkarren (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  As was noted by admin 1 week ago Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, thank you for that. I couldn't find it on-wiki so I didn't have much to go on. I don't see how a few dime-a-dozen vandal reverts (as noted on their talk page) counters the deception, the intimidation and the masquerading. Net negative. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Whatsupkarren: Re: your response (copied from your user talk):

  They’re not really a few dime a dozens,

  per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rollback "While there is no fixed requirement, a request is unlikely to be successful without a contribution history that demonstrates an ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism. Rollback is not for very new users: it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted.”

  i did more than 600 space edits, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Whatsupkarren&offset=20210222045519&limit=500&target=Whatsupkarren Whatsupkarren (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  That really doesn't clarify anything, other than turning "a few" into "600" and a quote from the rollback page. While looking into this, there are several pages of of tangled webs that were woven, what with the SPI page, the several sock contribution pages & talk pages, the last ANI, this ANI and your current talk page. Forgive me if I have overlooked anything, but I do not see where you directly addressed some concerns that were brought up by User:Mz7, specifically:

  You were accused of pretended to be Chris O'Hare, who had just been blocked, in order to try and trick administrators into thinking Chris O'Hare was evading their block. I could not find where you were doing this, but is this true? What is your response to this?

  You also also threatened to "hack" someone else's Facebook account. in this edit. What is your response to this?

  You continually say you didn't know the rules on Wikipedia, so you didn't know socking was prohibited. But, with the Sidoc account alone, you were trying to impose a chilling effect on another user so you could win a dispute. How can you believe that would be an acceptable action to take against another volunteer editor even if it wasn't against the rules?

  Again, since there are so many different discussions, and this was never directly addressed at the last ANI, it seems reasonable (even if you addressed these elsewhere) to address these here in this discussion. Please respond to the 3 questions. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• User answered Nosebagbear's question on their talk. I asked them to chunk it down, and in a nutshell, "reverting vandalism."Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Reply to BisonX carried over by DFO

1) Yes, it’s true that I impersonated a user and I admitted that in my appeal.

“ I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions.”

2) Yes, I admitted that I threatened a user to hack their account, it was all talk i don’t even use Facebook, but now I know that threatening is completely forbidden on Wikipedia per WP:HAR

3) I wanted to say that at first, when i was using Tariq Afflaq, I didn’t know that using another account after being blocked is prohibited, I did know later, and continued socking using sidoc, oxforder, whatsupkarren, OhioanRCS and the other later accounts until the ban was palced on me, and I completely own up to it,

for example:

When my main account Tariq Afflaq was blocked for 48 hours, I immediately created a sock ( George51725w5218 ), and returned to the same talk page that I was arguing in using Tariq Afflaq, this is some of that I said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/992247224

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/992248330

If I had known that was wrong, I wouldn’t have come to the same TP and continued the discussion as if nothing happened, my point is, AT THE VERY BEGINNING, what I did was out of ignorance and not out of intended abusiveness, but I'm not arguing that I'm not guilty at all, it was my fault not informing myself with the policies.

Regards Whatsupkarren (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem sincere and open about your appeal, but to me the deception you used shouldn't have been excused by ignorance; rather it shouldn't have been done out of respect to the encyclopedia and, oh yeah, the other people editing in that area. I don't know, to me it seems like a deal breaker, but several admins above are open to a T-BAN and a one-account limitation — they are the ones who would have to deal with any further disruptions. My gut says no, but I don't have to deal with it. I guess the reviewing admin can consider me a weak oppose on an unblock, but if unblocked, support an indefinite ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed, and a one account limitation. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• With some dismay that this has been open for so long, I support a last-chance unban, conditional on an indefinite Syria topic ban. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 17:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• The purpose of this comment is to prevent the bot from sending this to the archive without resolution yet again. Can an admin please close this? --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 16:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  or even a non admin? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: Since this involves blocking, how can a non admin close this? I mean how will the closer enforce their closing? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, snap. That's a good question. Curses. Foiled again. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

There is an overzealous editor who wont communicate.

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

---

I made changes to the DeathDrome page at DeathDrome

I was following rules and guidelines. I made changes and references and basically replaced old bad info with new good info. Then while I was editing some guy came along and messed it all up. He sent me a message saying i could talk to him if i thought he made a mistake. So i tried to talk to him. He only said two things that have nothing to do with what we were talking about. I tried to ask him to explain and he just vacated the scene. At which point i communicated that i was ashamed of his actions. I am now here to communicate this issue with you guys.

The editors name is Mr.weedle. He is refusing to communicate. His changes to DeathDrome wiki need to be undone, as there was no reason to make them.

No one cares about that page, except for me: the creator of the latest DeathDrome Installer, hosted on proboards, our small community at proboards, and the devs of the original game who i am in talks with on facebook. those are literally the only people in the world who care about the content of that page.

so please. look at the edits i made to the page, and how they follow the guidelines and rules and how it does contain a reference.

i tried to ask this guy what he was talking about and he basically ignored me for an hour. and now im writing this to you. he said here ill just paste it here so you can read it.

Hello, I'm Mr.weedle. I noticed that you made a change to an article, DeathDrome, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  Mr.weedle (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

yes i think you are making a mistake 1. no one cares about this page except me and the people who are reviving this game 2. im still working on it and you just messed everything up. 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

also i should say im trying my best to follow the wiki templates and stuff. maybe instead of deleting it you could fix it? also, i dont really think there was anything wrong with the way it was, why did you change it? and what is it you want me to do exactly? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

the changes i made did have a source. you removed the source from the references....... 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

hello? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

hello are you there? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC) I am here - as you create content you are expected to ensure you are correctly citing the content. Many of us patrol the wiki and when there is un-cited information, it can be removed any time. There's a few great articles here on how to do so. Wikipedia:Citing sources Help:Referencing for beginners". You can use the version history on the page in question to get you content back at any time, but please make sure you add citations. Simply saying that no one cares about this page" is not a reason to provide uncited content. Remember, it's an encyclopedia for everyone. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC) im not simply saying no one cares. im just making a point that you can let me do it and you dont have to mess with it. because worse case scenario, literally no one cares 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

i cannot get the content back as i do not have and will not have an account with wikipdeia, and it is my understanding that you have to have an account to do that 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

also the content was cited as i pointed out. i dont understand why you are saying it wasnt? would you please clarify. and also i just sat down at the computer again and have not had a chance to see if you reverted what you have done, so if you have not done that, please change it back to the way it was before you messed with it. 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

and hypothetically even if it wasnt cited, i was still editing the page. do you see the timestamps? do you expect literally every edit to be perfect? if so then nothing would ever get done. you have to be a little lenient. look at the time stamps dude. youre changing it in the middle of being edited.... 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

i referenced deathdrome.proboards.com which had all the info that was being discussed. 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

and i was editing the reviews that were listed because those are shitty reviews. i picked some better ones and was editing them into the page, adding references and citation when you came along 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeathDrome&oldid=1103304300 will take you back there if you want to pick up your old content. Remember that your own synthesis of content is not appropriate here. Have a quick read over Wikipedia:Manual of Style too for some good guidelines. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC) "your own synthesis of content is not appropriate here" what are you saying? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

what are you trying to say? i dont understand 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

youre not allowed to do what now? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

ok i browsed manual of style. pretty basic. dont see why youre suggesting it. 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

and what are you trying to say with this "your own synthesis of content is not appropriate here"? what are you saying? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

i didnt write anything that wasnt objective information available via the links i provided. i even quoted them word for word..... and the info on the revival was just basic objective information..... did you read it? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

youre basically just impeding my hard work, which correctly followed the rules, if you have noticed, for no good reason... do you see that? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

and youre not really being responsible cause youre not talking to me in a timely manner. this is pretty b.s. and im ashamed of your actions 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

so i mean if youre not going to explain why you are saying i didnt cite when i did, what else can be done, but to update the wiki at another time, and hope you can find some other thing to do with your time. right? i mean im following the rules and guidelines arent i? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

been sitting here for half an hour trying to talk to you. you are playing hall monitor and you need to undo what you did if you want to do the right thing. youre not helping anyone by removing my quality work. and if you think it wasnt then just explain like ive asked what does "your own synthesis of content is not appropriate here" are you trying to say i cant post references to a website i own? or what are you saying are you saying i made stuff up? everything i said is objective easily observable information 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

just remember when you go to bed tonight that you are a freaking nuisance and you irresponsibly avoid conversation so in all likelihood youre tainted with evil. and you made those decisions. no one else 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

ill just fix it later. ridiculous. moderator mentality. you are a hall monitor, but you are not responsible enough to do it. you failed to see i was currently editing it. and when i came to talk to you about it, you vacated the scene. shameful 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

and i did cite. and there was no synthesis. when there are literally synthesis left on the page now, after you changed it back to the way it was before i edited it today. the way you have just made it now again has synthesis as i understand you to mean it. (remember you never responded when i asked what you meant) 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

im just fkkn ashamed of you dude. im sorry but what in the hell. lol. 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

how is it possible you have not responded yet? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

bro i dont have time for this crap im sorry. i tried. and you were totally wrong. i followed the rules. youre just not ready to do this yet. cant even back up the things you do in conversation. you literally said 2 things that had nothing to do with anything, and that was it. shameful. shame on you for doing such a poor job. 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

im opening an administrator notice on you since you are refusing to communicate or undo what you did. i will send you an official link on your page when its done 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

hold on what? 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

that is it. i hope you guys fix this situation!!! god bless you 2601:601:8500:2430:194E:4E39:C612:4CA (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:TLDR & poorly done up. GoodDay (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Woah... for the record, and only the record. I provided this user with links on how to correctly cite content, the how-to step by step guide, a link to the historical edit (so they could easily get their content back, and a link to the manual of style. Mr.weedle (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

For starters, don't reference deathdrome.proboards.com. I don't even have to look at the site to be certain the chance it is a reliable source is close to zero. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

And to continue, don't change an actual review by Gamestop to a forum user review (and leave it on the template as a GameStop review). Clear no-no. Also the quote from NexGen was cut in a bit of a manipulative way. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

OP's /64 blocked for 48 hours by PhilKnight for WP:NPA issues. I don't think there's anything else to discuss here. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

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

User rights and renamed user

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

---

I have re-named myself from "NotReallyMoniak" to "NotReallySoroka". I would like to ask an administrator to update the AWB WP:CHECKPAGE and WP:RAL. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Strange non existant speedy deletion nomination of User_talk:EnergyAnalyst1

Hi all

I'm doing some work with the International Energy Agency as part of my job at Wikimedia Sverige. Recently the person at IEAs user page got a message that it was nominated for speedy deletion, despite being one line of text describing themselves. It seems to have been done by a new account but I can't see their user contributions for some reason. I'm assuming this is some kind of troll account or sockpuppet account. I just want to check what is happening and if it has been nominated and I need to help, or if its just someone messing around.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@John Cummings The page was nominated and deleted April, the current page was created a few days later and is not nominated for deletion. The reason the user who left the message back in April appears the way they do now is because they've been vanished. PhantomTech[talk] 09:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much PhantomTech, very helpful. John Cummings (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ezra Bayda § ezra bayda

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ezra Bayda § ezra bayda. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could take a look at this. I tried to give a general response, but I might've have missed something or given some wrong info. It seems that this could be something covered under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The article was nominated for deletion more than a week before the post was made, and it could be that the person claiming to be Ezra Bayda saw that but didn't know how to participate in the AfD. Pinging Missvain as a courtesy since Missvain is the one who started the AfD and is also an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:Marchjuly. I will allow other admins to review this since I'm involved, in a way. Just a head's up to everyone: the user claiming to be the subject blanked most of the page, removing the crime-related content. It's since been returned. I have protected the page for a week to allow for safe examination of the article while it undergoes AfD. Missvain (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Please create a page for 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘂𝘀𝘇 𝗠𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗮

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

---

After Mateusz Malina just successfully dove a world record in free immersion freediving, I wanted to find out more about him and unfortunately found out that there is no wikipedia article about him. He has held records in Dynamic Apnea for quite sometime now and there is a broken link to his name on the freediving article. There are plenty of news articles discussing his accomplishments that could be sourced in the article. I would be willing to make a first draft, but I'm told that an administrator must create the page, because the name is for some reason blacklisted. Luke (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sinama-Webmaster Hi, you should be able to make the page at Mateusz Malina or make a draft by following the Article Wizard. It's possible you ran into issues if you copy and pasted the name from somewhere. If you decide to use the Article Wizard try copying and pasting the name from here: Mateusz Malina PhantomTech[talk] 04:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been able to edit the page now. Thank you. Luke (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

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

User 103.161.57.249 is making disruptive edits, making personal attacks on me.

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

---

User 103.161.57.249 is making disruptive edits and using personal attacks on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big 14 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Admin, user Big 14 is adding unreliable sources in ideology and political position. I asked him to read properly about WP:RS and WP:V. Already a discussion took place in WT:POI#Reliability of www.elections.in. We have to be very carefull about adding sources unreliable sources for ideology and political position. It seems he's a sock puppet of ZYXTL. Please check admin. Both the users edits are quite similar.--103.161.57.249 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I've indeffed Big 14 (independent of this report) for blatant vandalism, BLP violations, and personal attacks. No opinion at this time on the underlying content dispute nor whether they're a sock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Great Job Admin!--103.161.57.249 (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Lost my user rights.

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

---

Hi, yesterday I lost my user rights because they claimed that I "played the system" but I did not play the system and I can assure you. I edited economic values ​​in which it was difficult for me to insert suitable links for April 2022, so it turned out that many times I had to edit several times. I have been on Wikipedia for almost six months and there is not a single edit I have made that is incorrect/lacks sources/violates Wikipedia's writing rules. I edited close to 100 countries whose values ​​were not updated for years. I ask that you please consider to give me my user rights again .07:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fun71528 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should. You haven't explained why you were making lots of inconsequential edits of no value whatever or why you need the extended confirmed user right. DrKay (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fun71528 On your talk page you were asked multiple times to explain why you made multiple edits (1, 2, 3) doing things like adding or removing a space where no change to displayed content would have been made. I don't see anywhere that you've explained why you made these edits, could you explain your reason for those edits here? PhantomTech[talk] 08:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I edited hundreds of country entries that were wrong or out of date for many years. In the country values ​​that I edited and updated for 2022, I also had to insert a source suitable for 2022. I inserted the source of the International Monetary Fund - April 2022 but I had to adjust it to the country code for example: (Slovakia) "IMFWOSO" It took me a while to understand how to do it and I did a lot Incorrect edits. In addition, I also edited from the mobile phone, so many times it was edited by mistake, even though I tried to delete it, it was saved. Like this time you mentioned. But as I said, there is not a single edit out of the hundreds that I have done that is against Wikipedia's tools or is not accompanied by reliable sources of information. I think I have contributed a lot in editing to Wikipedia and it is very ridiculous when I don't have one edit that is incorrect, you block me. Please give me another chance, after all, I've been on Wikipedia for almost six months, if I wanted to "game the system" I would have done it a long time ago... Fun71528 (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fun71528 It's possible there may be a misunderstanding about what was done to your account, you are not blocked. Accounts can be given more permissions and sometimes that is done automatically after your account is a certain age and has a certain number of edits. Extended confirmed is one of those, and it is the one that was removed from your account. It was removed a few hours after being given to your account because it looked like you may have just been making edits to get that permission, but that doesn't mean that is what you were doing.

Your can still do everything your account was able to do a few days ago and it's possible that if you hadn't been told that this right was removed you would have never noticed because you only had the specific right that was removed for a few hours. Again, you are still able to do everything that you were able to do a few days ago, including making edits to articles. PhantomTech[talk] 09:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This is correct. I note that at times you were making two edits a minute. You've got another chance, no one is stopping you from regaining ECP. Just avoid doing it that way. By the way, at the top of this page it says you should notify people you are talking about, and as I'm the Admin who removed your rights, you should have. Still, no problem as I saw this. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I see you didn't notify me as required. You have not been blocked. You've had ECP removed for gaming the system. At times you were making two edits a minute. I don't know why you did it now but not earlier but that's irrelevant. And you have another chance. You can regain ECP, just don't try to do it this way. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I promise I won’t . It’s was my mistake to edit without the required knowledge of how to update source and to edit from the mobile phone from now I will do it from the computer , how can I regain as ECP? Fun71528 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are you interested in ECP? What articles would you like to edit that are currently unavailable? Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I usually update economic data … i want to reign as ECP… where I can do that?Fun71528 (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC) @DougWeller Can you please tell me where can I reign as ECP or send a request to appeal the decision?Fun71528 (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m going to assume you mean “regain” rather than “reign” for the moment. What articles containing economic data do you want to edit are under ECP?Acroterion (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes sorry my mistake … I want to update Turkey (the ranking are not so accurate )and a few more countries that need to be update to 2022.Fun71528 (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

And why can't you just ask someone to do it on the article talkpage? Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

First you can see that a lot of times I did asked and opened discussion and didn’t get answer . Second There are many, many pages that are not updated and are not correct. Almost all of the entries out of the hundreds that I edited were not correct. Fun71528 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There's just one article that you need to edit? A better approach is to ask that ECP be removed from the article, and then reinstated, if necessary. You do not need ECP, and your actual consequential edit count is far short of the ECP threshold. You can ask for ECP to be reinstated once you've proven that your experience gained through substantive edits gives you a mastery of Wikipedia policy that makes you able to edit in difficult topic areas. That's the point of ECP, which you have not attained. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t say I have just one article I want to update… I just gave an example…Fun71528 (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC) But it's not fair, I'm not "gaming the system". All in all, I want to request an appeal. I deserve to be ECP because I've made hundreds of edits and in general I've never even made any edits in a way that violates Wikipedia's rules... Can't I talk to someone and explain to them?Fun71528 (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

No. You won't have the ECP privilege returned in the near future because you clearly lack the experience and understanding of Wikipedia policy that is the point of gaining the ECP privilege. Please stop wasting our time and yours, and take the time to properly understand how to productively edit Wikipedia. As for appeals, this is the place, and you're doing a poor job of convincing us. Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have over 500 edits, all of which are correct, it's just that there were some edits that were meaningless, that's my fault and I explained it. So you're saying that you actually removed the option for me and you're not even ready to discuss it?.... you say I don’t have an experience but I’m almost half year on wiki…Fun71528 (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You lost a user right that you had for 5 hours and used to make 5 edits. You're portraying this like some great injustice was done. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Vincelord. Autopatrolled and new page reviewer rights appeal.

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

---

Three months ago I lost my new page patroller user rights because of articles I created. I was told to wait until now to appeal. Since then I've made over 2,000 edits. I've corrected mistakes. Added categories, DEFAULTSORT. links to other articles and added edit summaries to my edits. I feel I should now be able to review new articles once more. Vincelord (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Links to previous discussions: (1) User talk:Vincelord#Autopatrolled and new page patroller userrights revoked, (2) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive343#Vincelord. appeal to get back new page patroller rights. DanCherek (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• here is a link to the previous discussion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I still see no improvement, despite the claim of 2000 additional edits - which without context, are meaningless. They could be 2000 edits anywhere, to anything, good or bad. There is no substantial work that shows an improvement in the areas that resulted in the loss of said perms. And from a brief glance, it's almost entirely automated/semi-automated edits like adding categories, defaultsort or wikilinks. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  So, I went back to June 1st for all of your edits - none are over about 40 bytes, which in itself wouldn't matter except that it doesn't demonstrate you've learned everything. Every edit is adding a category, wikilink or default sort. The only "significant" edit you have is this one which isn't exactly useful in this context, so I'd oppose restoration of perms and request a ban on appealing for at least 6 months. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think that a formal ban is excessive here, particularly given the contrition expressed by Vincelord in a thread lower down the page, but a 6 month moratorium is nevertheless a good suggestion for them to follow. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Waiting exactly three months and appealing again isn't a great look. What do you need the autopatrolled right for? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I enjoy doing it. I've reviewed over 3,500 articles and believe that I'm good at it. And I have learned not to create unsourced articles myself. I've haven't created any new articles because I have nothing to create. Vincelord (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Then you have zero justification for getting the autopatrolled bit. It is only for article creators with more than two dozen previous, high quality articles created. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You believe you are good at it, but the community does not, as evidenced by the removal and deletion of your own creations. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

If you have nothing to create why do you need autopatrolled? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Where are you getting this number for 3500 reviews from? You have not used the NPP right afaict to review more than maybe 5 articles and that was years ago. Please link to where you are seeing this. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I will be honest, looking through your deleted contribs [1] (admin only), I see 18 articles that probably should have been CSD'ed (and were) instead of you adding categories for. Just in the last month. Some were for reasons you wouldn't catch at NPP, but some were. By adding cats and such, you would be marking them as patrolled, and you would be basically saying "they are ok" when in fact, they are not. This seems to mean if you created an article, you would use this same criteria, which is too low a bar. NPP and Auto are two very different bits. There is zero chance of you getting autopatrolled unless you can show at LEAST 25 good articles you have created without having more than one or two that got bumped. That is the basic criteria for anyone. As for NPP, again, your deleted contribs show that you don't understand what should be patrolled and what should be tagged or sent to CSD or prodded. I would strongly oppose you getting either bit at this time. You might have 2000 edits, but you don't "get it" when it comes to what those bits are for, and the thresholds for inclusion of an article. Some people should never get them, which is ok, but be aware of this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have to agree with you. Thank you for your time. I'll stick to simply making small edits to articles and forget about about reviewing them. Vincelord (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  No shame in that, every positive edit helps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Anne Heche

Some additional admin eyes on Anne Heche would be appreciated. She is reported "dead" by many outlets. Technically she is brain dead ("dead" per California law) and her body's tissues are being oxygenated pending organ donation. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The LA Times appears to have declared her dead after she was removed from life support, quoting her son Homer.[2] -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

...and "legally dead" by the BBC.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

She has now been removed from life support after donation recipients have been found. Nate • (chatter) 03:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Need help from an interface admin

It looks like MediaWiki:Blockedtext is borked. Could an interface admin please take a look at T314747? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to be an interface admin to edit in the MediaWiki: namespace, just css/js/json. Even if you did, MediaWiki:Blockedtext is entirely a transclusion of Template:Blocked text, which has bog-standard normal admin protection.

That said, I don't immediately see anything wrong with MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Maybe the user in your bug report's seeing one of the other interface messages that transclude {{Blocked text}}? —Cryptic 01:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, but this still needs somebody who knows about this stuff to look at it. My knowledge of templates is limited, and I know nothing about how interface messages work. Clearly there's a mis-match between the arguments being passed by the MediaWiki code and the arguments the template is expecting, but that's outside of my area of expertise. In the meantime, every user who gets a message telling them they're blocked is getting gibberish. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Pinging in User:Awesome_Aasim (will talk page them) who worked on a revamp of much of this earlier in the year. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's clearly the case that a string that ends in a line break is passed to the seventh parameter – try previewing:

  {{Blocked text|$1|$2|$3|$4|$5|$6|$7
  |$8
  |usefullink1=Wikipedia:Blocking policy{{!}}Blocking policy
  |usefullink2=Help:I have been blocked
  }}
  

  which reproduces the screenshot. Wrapping {{{7|}}} in {{trim}} should fix it for now, but Template:Blocked text itself doesn't appear to be the culprit. Nardog (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I think this may fix the issue. On another note I'd also replace each of the $1, $2 in the system message with 1=$1, 2=$2, etc. This will avoid breaking the message in case the blocked user or reason contains an = sign, which separates the name of a template parameter. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Interesting. The block in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=134015081, where there is indeed a "=" in the log comment. I've only started doing that fairly recently, which might explain why nobody's noticed this before. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, that explains it. The = in the comment must have bumped the parameters by one, making $8 and the following line break the seventh argument. So Aasim's solution must fix it, not {{trim}}. Nardog (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• 1= etc fixes (at least most of) it. Before I propagate this to the other messages using {{blocked text}}, can I have an example to exercise what {{trim}} fixes, if that's still necessary? —Cryptic 23:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not that I'm aware of. I hadn't grasped what "bits of the log message inserted in the wrong places" meant, which is hard to tell in the blacked-out screenshot. Nardog (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  As I mentioned before, I don't know the MediaWiki codebase at all, but this all sounds very fragile to me, in the Little Bobby Tables sort of way. What's going to happen when I put "|3=foo|4=bar" in a block comment? Isn't the right fix to escape every string at the MediaWiki/template call boundary, just like you would when calling something like a Jinja template from a Python program? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, test it and find out. I'm not the only admin who deserves a block log this long. This block put just "testing" in the box. —Cryptic 00:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  I tested this on testwiki: and yes, template code injection works on enwiki with how the messages are currently setup. Pipes need to be escaped but only if they're outside of a template to allow using templates with parameters in block reasons. Fortunately the injection only causes a display issue and can only be caused based on input from a blocking administrator. PhantomTech[talk] 04:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, it would be an interesting exploit if a rogue admin could block everyone except himself. And even better, everyone including himself.No such user (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Somewhat surprisingly, a blocked admin can unblock themselves! I believe this is an intentional feature to prevent just exactly the scenario you describe. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not anymore. But yes, that was the intent. —Cryptic 00:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  Heh. I guess it's a good thing I didn't experimentally confirm it :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds like something that a module can do. Do we have a module that can escape pipe characters? i.e. you put in {{#invoke:somemodule|main|This is the | character}} and out comes "This is the | character"? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Template usage

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

---

@Truthanado: appears to be on a roll, with dates in content & infoboxes of many articles, by adding the 'birth date & age' mechanism. Not certain, but I think such changes across several pages, should be discussed first & a consensus achieved. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Putting aside the absence of diffs, I don't understand why this was brought here. What administrative action do you seek?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know where else to go. Mass changes across several pages was occurring & no consensus was achieved for those changes. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

As for diffs? Truthanado's contribs (with matching edit summaries) will show what I'm concerned about. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the actual concern? That they're taking the date already in an infobox and making it into a template? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

That they're adding it to them, without seeking a consensus to do so. If this was the wrong place to bring my concerns. Then I won't object to this being transferred over to WP:SPORTS. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The Template:start date and age's Usage in Articles section states:

"This template is most often used in infoboxes in articles about buildings or organizations, identifying when they were started/founded/opened or dissolved/ended/closed."

Based on the template's statement, it is my understanding that consensus on its use has already been done, and edits that utilize it are in compliance with the template and Wikipedia guidelines. It is appreciated by our Wikipedia readers ... it's useful to know how long a building or organization has been in existence. Isn't that why the template was created 14 years ago in 2008? Truthanado (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sports organisations. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Are those not organizations? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't use it on sports organisations. I don't know what the views are of the other sports WikiProjects. But, I'll contact WP:HOCKEY & see what their views are. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you point out the discussion(s) where that consensus was determined? I've searched the WP:SPORTS archive and couldn't find anything immediately obvious that says there is consensus not to do this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't find a consensus for inclusion. I think likely be best to open up such a discussion at WP:SPORTS. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems like an unnecessary escalation of a minor disagreement. Though even calling it a disagreement is a stretch as there was really no time to even build up to that. You gave the user a grand total of 12 minutes between your initial post to their talk page and the note of coming here to WP:AN. I find it kinda useful to have in the infobox, really. Zaathras (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

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

RFC about ANI

My RfC at the admin noticeboard talkpage may be of interest to, well, admins, so I posted a link to it here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Should've been left open for 'at least' 24-hrs. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The thread is still open, it's just been moved. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn’t have been started. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Honestly, this RFC seems like a waste of time, although I'm sure it was done in good faith, I don't think there's anything that needs to be changed about ANI. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Other than the toxicity? the fact that some threads are ignored while others produce incomprehensible walls of text? that threads are archived without closure? that friends/fiends of parties pile onto one side or the other to support/attack as needed? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  • All of those issues are simply because of the nature of ANI. The RFC is a waste of time. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 15:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

    This is a fatalism mindset. There is nothing inherent about ANI that makes it toxic. Why do other noticeboards manage toxicity well? Why couldn't ANI do the same? And better yet, why don't we try out solutions and experiment to reduce the drama? After all, you aren't gonna blow up Wikipedia if the ANI solution went wrong. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Fatalism is probably the best mindset to have at and about ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

User Anonymous1451612 vandalizing article

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

---

This single-issue user has repeatedly vandalized the Spoegwolf article. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This should not have been reported here, but, in any event, the user has not edited the article since their final warning a little over two hours ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, the place to report simple vandalism is WP:AIV, which insures a faster response time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Alexa M. Curtis

Hello, I have been hired to make a page for Alexa M. Curtis (already disclosed in my userpage). However, it seems that they had some spam issues in the past with persistent trying after decline and hence the name appears to be blocked. I think their last attempt was over 2 years ago and now she has hired me to try it again. She has a lot more news since then and as an editor with some past experience, I have done my best to write it as best I can to comply with the guidelines and would like a chance to submit to AFC. I have posted the page in my sandbox here for now User:Freezejunk/sandbox. Could you please unblock the name so I can submit it or if you see any issues, you can let me know to fix. Freezejunk (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The WP:SALTer seems to have been @JzG [3], but they aren't very active atm. You should check WP:BAREURLS and WP:NYPOST and WP:FORBESCON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Bare URLs I was going to use the reFill Tool but I found that it is not working on userpage, so this will be completed after page is in drafts or approved. Regardless, the rules allow bare URLs to be used and that should not be a reason for decline.

Regarding NYPost, it seems only the political content are not considered reliable, but this is not a political content. "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics." Regarding Forbes, I went ahead and removed that citation. Freezejunk (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Refill does improve things. Better than refill usually does it is better, but not mandatory. I think you missed the "generally unreliable for factual reporting" part of your quote. That + WP:BLP = better excluded, is my opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed NY Post citation. Freezejunk (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Freezejunk, it is not reasonable to ask other editors to wade through 37 bare URLs. Properly formatted references showing all of the bibliographic content are vastly easier to evaluate. I suggest that you identify your three very best independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage of this person in note at the top of the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't care if you are paid or not, but don't ask us to the work for you. Learn how to properly format citations like the rest of us. You would think that is a requirement to be paid to create Wikipedia articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown Please read what I said above. I was not able to use reFill tool , because I am guessing the page is in the user space. Once page moved to draft or main space, I will convert the bare URL citations. I know how to do it and not expecting an admin to do that. Provided that Bare URL's should not be a reason for decline (as there are no guidelines that state you can do that), do you see any other issues as to why you would oppose to unblock the page name? Freezejunk (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  I did read it. Then use a different tool. Personally, I fill out cites by hand, never have used any of the tools, and I have several articles with over 100 references and a dozen or two in the bibliography section. No admin is forced to act, btw. I did flesh out your first source (which isn't being called in the article, oddly enough), and you are using a very different citation method than the few that I use, but you can see the fields. You can see until you edit since it isn't being called, but it's there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Article about the writer and journalist Jonathan Power

Yesterday I wrote an article on Swedish W about the writer and journalist Jonathan Power, the references and links I used were relevant, so the article remains - https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Power

Today I tried to post an English version, but it got blocked, and a discussion about deletion followed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Power

I think the list on WorldCat alone is enough of relevance for an article on English W, but apparently not - https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n50-021831/

I wonder then, what exactly is needed in terms of relevance to meet the requirements you have. - Jonnmann (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Jonnmann This is best asked at the Help desk as any editor may assist you. Please see the definition of a notable creative professional; you must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that this person meets that definition. See Your First Article. Note that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I am the admin who salted this article in 2015, seven years ago, after repeated recreations and deletions. But I have no idea what the subject might have done in the intervening seven years to make him notable. The creation block may be obsolete now, so I am going to unblock it. That doesn't mean that I now approve of an article for him; I am merely allowing another look at him.

Jonnmann, I advise you to create a WP:DRAFT article, get it referenced and in good shape, and submit it for review. I am advising a draft, rather than simply an article, because in a quick WP:BEFORE search just now I didn't find any independent sourcing about him. And without independent sourcing there can be no article. You asked "what exactly is needed in terms of relevance to meet the requirements you have." The basic requirement for an article about a person is WP:NOTABILITY. The specific requirements for a writer are at WP:AUTHOR. Basically, there have to be multiple reliable sources that are INDEPENDENT of him, writing ABOUT him, in order for him to have an article. As 331dot pointed out, that may be more restrictive than the requirements at the Swedish encyclopedia; every language encyclopedia has its own rules. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• ^^^What she said. Start a draft, then go to WP:DRV since it was deleted via an AFD. If they think there is a snowball's chance it would be kept at AFD, they will allow it. AFC isn't really for these cases, where it has been to AFD, it needs to go to DRV after you are done and you think it can withstand scrutiny. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello MelanieN!

Well, I'll try again then, but unfortunately I can't find more references and links, there is very little text, the rest is on links and references, he's gone under I-net's radar it seems, and if it's not ok, then so be it.. Regards - Jonnmann (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

In a nutshell, if you don't have "multiple articles, significant coverage, from reliable sources independent of the subject" then you don't have an article. That is the most bare bones requirement for inclusion here, and you can't fudge on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, Dennis, I'll keep that in mind, but I'll be back, with something that's accepted, in the meantime I'll write a Swedish version of The Ministry of Silly Walks ;-) Regards - Jonnmann (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

TTP1233 Unblock Request

The following is an unblock request placed on behalf of - @TTP1233:. It is an unblock request that has now been open for a considerable length of time and warranted additional community consideration. The user was blocked for socking in November 2021. When the most recent appeal in May was made, they were given a clear checkuser so that (technical) aspect is already concluded. I would also advise participants to take a look at their user talk page for a broader context. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Appeal Text

Greetings Sir/Madam, I do like to re-apply for unblock in Wikipedia. It is to inform you that after reading blocking policies and conditions of Standard Offer, I have, Not did any sock puppetry on my any blocked accounts mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NS_Dibyojyoti for 6 months since my last edit of TTP1233 on 11:01 hrs.; 25 November 2021 (UTC). Neither created accounts for further sock puppetry nor for illegal use. Also, I made productive edits on Simple English Wikipedia. I have created around 30 articles (3 deleted due to my interest) and over 1000 edits before and during block on this account, since created. Explanation how I was blocked:- A year ago I opened an account named TTP1233 in simple.m.wikipedia.org but I never edited in risk until I confirm that admin Ninjarobotpirate blocked that as well. But after some months past, I started editing Wikipedia and after months I got encouraged to edit here. Moreover no one suspected me. But creating Sujit Bose (politician) and Indranil Sen was the biggest blunder I made. Though they are notable but since I made it, I feared if anyone knows. Second thing I made identified is shortening my original name, Dibyojyoti Roy Chowdhury to Jyoti Roy. And I live in same place (As mentioned in my bio in both the accounts). This is the truth I can say. And I have realized that sockpuppetry is unlawful and useless also I'm not willing to create anymore account. So I had decided that until six months has over, I refrain from editing Wikipedia. To continue, I think I have aware myself of my misbehavior to the community and I will not continue to do so, henceforth. I also want to assure you that if I be unblock, then I will be working on the basics, means what a normal editor usually do. I will fully focus on creating, editing and updating articles that are completely based on India-related topics. When I will gain experience on the user rights, I will apply but after few years, as my unblocking immediately will not grant me that right. To conclude, I want to contribute many things and not to spoil the community. I will try my best to get back trust everyone. I hope you will not abandon me. I would request you to please consider my review and then unblock me. If any conclusion comes regarding my un-block, please inform me. I look forward to your response regarding the request. Thanking You, Yours sincerely, --Jyoti Roy (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)}}

• Just because May was a while ago, I did run a new check and do not see any new activity. So checkuser remains all clear. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive user

The user Viewmont Viking keeps reverting alot of peoples edits for no reason, if you have a look at his talk page you will see all the sections, he even reverted my edit for no reason. His talk page is here User talk:Viewmont Viking Excluslvez (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

OP blocked indefinitely as a WP:SPAM only account. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate non-admin close at RSN

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

---

In the Fox News RFC, a discussion started about both Atsme's conduct towards other editors and her ability to adhere to NPOV. She was extensively involved in the discussion, and then closed it due to being off-topic. I agree that the discussion was off-topic, and in the interest of transparency I'll disclose that I participated in the discussion as well, but the close was still inappropriate because she had a conflict of interest. I request admin review of this closure. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 16:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You could've opened it yourself and I would not have cared. It's just that the discussion there is so long, it's easier for cell phone users to scroll with it hatted. Just unhat it, matters not to me. Atsme 💬 📧 17:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bowler the Carmine. It’s not a 'closure', it’s hatting an off-topic discussion. As far as I can see, the hatting was appropriate. You can take this as an endorsement if you wish. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I see. I'm still kind of new to Wikipedia, so I apologize for this report and I apologize to Atsme. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 17:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

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

user harassing me with continuously calling me a sock

Hi I recently joint Wikipedia, user @volunteer marek despite of my warnings continuously called me a sock and SPA. here in this talk section. Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine My edits were well sourced with credible organizations instead of this, user continuously harassed me on false accusations. this kind of behavior of existing editors towards new ones not only discourages new editors, but also violates wikipedia Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy, that requires existing editors to assume good faith of new ones. Please take appropriate action. Thank you. Mrboondocks (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Why did you immediately jump into the Eastern Europe topic area? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there any wikipedia policy that forbids a new editor to jump immediately to a Eastern Europe topic ?, I was reading war crimes in Russian Invasion of Ukraine, and dint found Amnesty report about Ukraine placement of military objectives near civilian objects so I added there. Mrboondocks (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)