Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 27 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 0 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 16 sockpuppet investigations
- 40 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 18 Fully protected edit requests
- 4 Candidates for history merging
- 31 requests for RD1 redaction
- 27 elapsed requested moves
- 3 Pages at move review
- 10 requested closures
- 98 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 27 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
admin action review
I've opened a review on an action I took at Wikipedia:Administrative_action_review#review_of_pblock. Valereee (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's too bad.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Feedback's a gift. :) Valereee (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Personally I prefer pastries.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Tryna lose weight. Valereee (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Then you should really be looking for nonfeedback. BTW, losing weight is much more pleasant if you cheat.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wait...feedback has CALORIES? Yegods. That explains a lot. Valereee (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly, that's why I never listen to anything anyone says about anything I do, here or IRL. If I'm gonna have calories, it's going to be REAL NUTRITIOUS food, you know like charlotte russe or something.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wait...feedback has CALORIES? Yegods. That explains a lot. Valereee (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Then you should really be looking for nonfeedback. BTW, losing weight is much more pleasant if you cheat.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Tryna lose weight. Valereee (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Personally I prefer pastries.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Feedback's a gift. :) Valereee (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Notice of relevant GS-related discussion at RfPP
Hey, I've started a discussion regarding what appears to be a discrepancy between ARBCOM recommendations regarding pre-emptive GS page-protection and our general prior policy and practice. The input of those watching this page is requested. signed, Rosguill talk 18:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Difficulties in maintaining the page for Akhil Maheshwari and the Global Newborn Society pages
Hi. I am a resident of Washington DC. There is a large organization, the Global Newborn Society (https:www.globalnewbornsociety.org/), which is a recognized 501c3 organization active in 122 countries. It is completely pro bono, has several million visits on google/other search engines, has an independent journal, has been reconized by the US government with ISSN numbers and other documents, has trademarks, has a forthcoming meeting in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It has relationships with child health organizations from all over the world. However, there have been difficulties with a few editors about making its wikipedia page. Therefore, the society made a page for its Founding Chairman, Dr. Akhil Maheshwari. Now these editors are repeatedly cutting down the wikipedia page and are now targeting Dr. Maheshwari's page with negative input and repeated accusations of financial improprieties! It is very difficult for us to continue our participation. We need help and guidance.Clinton1000 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- You removed the COI tags on the article. Now you state "the society made a page for its Founding Chairman", " difficult for us to continue our participation. We need help and guidance.". Can we take it that you now admit the conflict of interest? Cabayi (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi When trying to add connected users Clinton1000, Iimlu9030 and Seabiscuit341 to Talk:Akhil Maheshwari the users are automatically tagged as banned users can you advise why this might be? Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Theroadislong, I just tried and it previewed without any problem. Cabayi (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is Clinton1000. I honestly do not know the other two. Clinton1000 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- In some meetings, when we are talking about various methods of communication with the society, the login is sometimes open. That's why the confusion might have occurred. Clinton1000 (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- No - we (the Global Newborn Society and DC Rotary) wanted to reach out to the society. This is a total non-for-profit effort. Newborn infants have the same mortality rate as 60-year-olds. But they have not seen anything in this world. Babies do not vote, and so everyone praises them for innocence, but when it comes to the time to vote, the 60-year-olds win. As a society, we need to do something. Otherwise, nothing will change. Clinton1000 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe, it could be a technical "conflict", but honestly, we could have also chosen to do nothing. This has happened for generations. One baby dies, she/he can be replaced. Our conflict is to find a way to reach the society. Clinton1000 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Cabayi When trying to add connected users Clinton1000, Iimlu9030 and Seabiscuit341 to Talk:Akhil Maheshwari the users are automatically tagged as banned users can you advise why this might be? Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not what Wikipedia is for: see WP:SOAPBOX. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe we don't need any page then. Clinton1000 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not what Wikipedia is for: see WP:SOAPBOX. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
OP indeffed. Multiple issues here. WP:COI -NOPROMO -RGW -IDHT. See also their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Disruptive edits by User:WikiCleanerMan
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WikiCleanerMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made it his mission to do cleanup on articles here on Wikipedia. This results in many, many cosmetic edits that do not change anything about the display or function of a page and even many edits that explicitly contradict the MoS for his personal preference. E.g. on Panama–Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic relations, he insists on adding blank spaces and using an en dash for a sortkey in spite of WP:SORTKEY. Multiple users have told him to stop and he keeps on doing it, so I'm escalating here to see if any admins think this is the kind of behavior that warrants intervention. He also contravened WP:3RR against two users on that page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- No MOS has been violated. Cosmetic can be said of your edits. No multiple users have told me to stop. What blank spaces have I added? How about you address that you insist on adding ref name to the current 13th and 14th references when they are being used only once in one part of the article? And defaultsort key for bilateral relations articles match the name of the article which for these articles which use the em dashes for the title. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop writing that there are em dashes when they are en dashes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I apolgize for the confusion for the dash name. But you haven't provided any edits that show my edits were disruptive. You say blank spaces were added by me. When you reverted me, you added back the blank space under the history section for example that were removed by me. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- This page is for admins to investigate, not for the two of us to litigate. They can take a look at the edit history of the mentioned page and your other edits and use their judgement about how constructive your edits are. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I guess providing evidence is too hard. Here is the edit where over a tiny detail you had to revert my removal of blank spaces. You could have done it manually. But you didn't, thus ignoring and adding blank spaces and unnecessary ref names for a single use for two references and false cosmic edit accusation per your edit summary. So if you're claiming I'm disruptive, the onus is on you to prove it just like how I'm doing with this false accusation of disruption. And you should consider my experience editing bilateral relations articles before making such claims. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- This page is for admins to investigate, not for the two of us to litigate. They can take a look at the edit history of the mentioned page and your other edits and use their judgement about how constructive your edits are. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I guess providing evidence is too hard. Here is the edit where over a tiny detail you had to revert my removal of blank spaces. You could have done it manually. But you didn't, thus ignoring and adding blank spaces and unnecessary ref names for a single use for two references and false cosmic edit accusation per your edit summary. So if you're claiming I'm disruptive, the onus is on you to prove it just like how I'm doing with this false accusation of disruption. And you should consider my experience editing bilateral relations articles before making such claims. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- This page is for admins to investigate, not for the two of us to litigate. They can take a look at the edit history of the mentioned page and your other edits and use their judgement about how constructive your edits are. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I apolgize for the confusion for the dash name. But you haven't provided any edits that show my edits were disruptive. You say blank spaces were added by me. When you reverted me, you added back the blank space under the history section for example that were removed by me. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop writing that there are em dashes when they are en dashes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Ancillary issue; should have taken place on editor's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
I've looked at the edit history on Panama–Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic relations:
Diff history with comments
|
|---|
|
My first observation is that there is a beautiful, empty talk page at Talk:Panama–Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic relations where this could have been hashed out. No evidence has been presented of the sort of systemic issue that would justify a report here. Wikipedia:Citing sources doesn't say anything about removing single-used named references. I think this probably falls under WP:CITEVAR. Not a change I would have made. I'll defer to categorization experts on this one, but WP:SORTKEY does say this Hyphens, apostrophes and periods/full stops are the only punctuation marks that should be kept in sort values. The only exception is the apostrophe in names beginning with O', which should be removed.
That seems unequivocal. I spot-checked two peer articles, Mexico–Panama relations and Panama–Russia relations, and they use hyphens in their sort key. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Guidelines on ChatGPT generated content
Would it be possible for an admin to consider doing something with Wikipedia:Large language models, Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Large language models and copyright and (possibly) Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence and m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT.
These essays/guidelines are somewhat duplicates, and there's not much clarity regarding rules about ChatGPT, especially for new editors.
This is addition to numerous userspace AI demonstrations such as User:JPxG/LLM demonstration, User:Fuzheado/ChatGPT and User:DraconicDark/ChatGPT.
We already have Template:AI-generated as well as Template:Uw-ai1, so I think some sort of clear guideline about the issue would make sense, but that doesn't yet exist. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- My sense is that there's a collaborative effort to address this that is largely taking place at WP:Large language models, with the idea that it will eventually be a guideline once it's been workshopped.
- In the meantime, the main advice that new editors need regarding LLMs is: don't use them. There's edge cases where they may be acceptable, but by and large the territory is open to major pitfalls regarding licensing and citogenesis such that the amount of proofreading and oversight that responsible LLM usage requires negates any speed advantage that they may have over conventional writing. signed, Rosguill talk 18:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Rosguill Would it be appropriate to merge Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia into WP:Large language models? The former seems to only be only made of up a few sections which would nicely fit into WP:LLM. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- In principle yes, although given the amount of active editing and discussion that appears to be going on at WP:Large language models it would probably be best to start a discussion rather than attempting to boldly merge. signed, Rosguill talk 18:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Rosguill Okay, I've proposed merging at Wikipedia talk:Large language models#Proposed merge. Thanks for your advice! – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- In principle yes, although given the amount of active editing and discussion that appears to be going on at WP:Large language models it would probably be best to start a discussion rather than attempting to boldly merge. signed, Rosguill talk 18:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Rosguill Would it be appropriate to merge Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia into WP:Large language models? The former seems to only be only made of up a few sections which would nicely fit into WP:LLM. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Replacement_of_the_entire_lead_of_eight_biographies_by_IPv6 for a recent discussion touching this Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Administrators don't write or decide policy (at least, no more than any other user), so there's nothing for an administrator specifically to do there unless there's been some sort of conduct issue (eg. someone misrepresenting the support something has, or spamming it everywhere, or revert-wars on policy pages or the like.) The decision of what to do about ChatGPT and related generative networks is going to have to be made by the community as a whole and is likely to take some time. --Aquillion (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Repeated hostility by User:Beyond My Ken
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This has come up before, including on this very page today, but Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes deliberately provocative posts with no constructive value and also hounds certain users (including myself and including this edit.) As you can see from his talk page and also from previous AN reports, this is repeat behavior and he seems to have no interest in stopping. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- See above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni, Dennis Brown, Bishonen, NinjaRobotPirate, and MSGJ: as recent admins who have had administrative interactions with this user, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#Persistent_edit_warring_by_Beyond_My_Ken and user's block log. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- So, you're just doing general opposition research, huh, throwing in anything negative, regardless of its relevance to your complaint? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Koavf, this is a bad look. You've provided one diff which, while I would not say it was 'friendly,' seems miles away from anything I would see as sanctionable. Maybe there's some substance here, but with all due respect, you have not shown it. I would suggest that you either come back with more specifics, or withdraw this complaint. While I understand how frustrating this place can be, in my opinion this is one you should probably let go. As ever though, I am just one old guy with thoughts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- He has many complaints on his talk page about being hostile to other users and the above is far from helpful. If administrators think this is the kind of behavior that should be encouraged, that's up to them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- No. My complaint is that you are a hostile, uncivil person who does not assume good faith and makes conversations needlessly contentious, cf. above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- I will admit that I react strongly to people whose actions do not improve Wikipedia, or who actively hurt it, or who refuse to take the effort to try to understand when their damaging behavior is pointed out to them, or who are incapable of doing so. I have little patience with such people, who frequently end up being blocked from editing, or otherwise sanctioned - such as some of those who you refer to on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Koavf. Here is some frank advice to you: knock it off. I am not saying that Beyond My Ken is perfect but we are all flawed humans, aren't we? But that editor has been a far more productive and insightful contributor to this and related noticeboards than you have ever been. When Beyond My Ken analyzes an issue, there is almost always something of great value there. So, drop your unproductive hostility, please. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Plus, it is quite rich for you to point out their block log, given that you have one of the longest block logs of any active editor. Didn't you promise to stay out of trouble when you came off your most recent almost two year long block? Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with Cullen328. Also, Koavf, re your grounds for this complaint: you have been here 18 years and made 2,124,416 edits, so please don't inflict on us the typical newbie pseudoargument that 'My opponent must be a bad person because he has many complaints on his talk page'. Bishonen | tålk 08:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC).
- I have the same question that I had of you above: what is the utility of whataboutism and tu quoque fallacies? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Plus, it is quite rich for you to point out their block log, given that you have one of the longest block logs of any active editor. Didn't you promise to stay out of trouble when you came off your most recent almost two year long block? Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Koavf. Here is some frank advice to you: knock it off. I am not saying that Beyond My Ken is perfect but we are all flawed humans, aren't we? But that editor has been a far more productive and insightful contributor to this and related noticeboards than you have ever been. When Beyond My Ken analyzes an issue, there is almost always something of great value there. So, drop your unproductive hostility, please. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- I will admit that I react strongly to people whose actions do not improve Wikipedia, or who actively hurt it, or who refuse to take the effort to try to understand when their damaging behavior is pointed out to them, or who are incapable of doing so. I have little patience with such people, who frequently end up being blocked from editing, or otherwise sanctioned - such as some of those who you refer to on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Koavf, this is a bad look. You've provided one diff which, while I would not say it was 'friendly,' seems miles away from anything I would see as sanctionable. Maybe there's some substance here, but with all due respect, you have not shown it. I would suggest that you either come back with more specifics, or withdraw this complaint. While I understand how frustrating this place can be, in my opinion this is one you should probably let go. As ever though, I am just one old guy with thoughts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- So, you're just doing general opposition research, huh, throwing in anything negative, regardless of its relevance to your complaint? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni, Dennis Brown, Bishonen, NinjaRobotPirate, and MSGJ: as recent admins who have had administrative interactions with this user, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#Persistent_edit_warring_by_Beyond_My_Ken and user's block log. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Koavf, no sanction against BMK is going to happen here. You very obviously posted this thread in the heat of the moment because he disagreed with you in a thread above. That's not what AN is for. Therefore, this thread is simply a bad-faith attempt at retaliation, and all it will accomplish, if anything, is a WP:BOOMERANG on you, possibly in the form of reinstating a block on you. Therefore, I recommend withdrawing this complaint before someone proposes that. Softlavender (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- And why would I be blocked? What rule would I have broken here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Koavf, BMK can sometimes use a sledgehammer where a feather is needed, and in the example you've provided, he is casting aspersions, but I'm guessing he could provide examples to back up his claims there, as he has done in previous situations. Same for the previous ANI where the article was full protected (to the wrong version, according to BMK), which was already handled by that admin. The examples you give aren't sufficient to sanction. A degree of heat is expected when debating and discussing. It can be frustration, I understand, but that is how collaborative projects are sometimes. That isn't a free license to BMK to do as he pleases (and he knows this), and I would suggest he be a bit less harsh, but I can't justify sanctioning him at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- I tend to think that the diff that was presented is a rather mild one, particularly in comparison to a lot of the incivility that was being thrown around back in the late 2000s/early 2010s on Wikipedia. However, I had a very visceral reaction to Koavf posting above:
you are a hostile, uncivil person who does not assume good faith and makes conversations needlessly contentious
. This is clearly a personal attack against another editor and ought not be permitted to stand. For Koavf's sake, it would be much to their advantage to withdraw the complaint before Softlavender's words come to pass. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC) - @Koavf:, just reiterating some of the above: allegations need evidence, and your single diff and a reference to a (mostly) elderly block log isn't enough. If you have more diffs to post please do so, otherwise this thread isn't leading anywhere. Also agree with Waltcip that your post above is unnecessarily hostile. There's some licence for the "heat of the moment" but please now consider if this is what you really meant to say. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have further diffs. Thanks for everyone's feedback. From my perspective, I think this is closed and fruitless, per a clear consensus that this was poorly conceived. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Call for new ElectCom members
A new call for ElectCom members has just been made.
They handle the Board of Trustees elections, amongst other things. Please poke anyone you think would be well suited, or apply yourself - the committee would definitely benefit from some new members. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Inability to create a Wikipedia page called Vladimir Vladimirov
Hello,
I'm unable to create a page about a Bulgarian business man called Vladimir Vladimirov. It says my access is resricted and that I should contact an administrator. It's important for this article to be uploaded especially for the bulgarian society.
What should I do?
Mihail Dminformation (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- We already have an article, Vladimir Vladimirov. That's why you can't create it. Additionally, see WP:COI. --Yamla (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Dminformation (ec) New accounts cannot directly create articles, and must use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by other editors. Be advised that creating a new article is very difficult, and instead of diving right in you might wish to learn more about Wikipedia first, by reading Help:Introduction and using the new user tutorial. Editing some existing articles to learn how Wikipedia operates is also helpful.
- Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID if you have an association with this businessman. If he is a different person than the football player, that will be sorted out if your draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Ibratwiki, massive stub creation
OK--I ran into User talk:Umarxon III, who was submitting drafts for Uzbek towns (mostly for other users), a couple of em--all consisting of a sentence and a half, and a link to a document that listed Uzbek towns. I found out quickly that there were other accounts doing the same thing, more accounts than I can list here, hundreds of em. Many of those accounts are submitting the same kind of stuff, same syntax, same verbiage: compare Draft:Xotinariq to Draft:Qoʻrgʻontepa (Fergana District). There are hundreds more, and I'm not the only one, I discovered, who's been declining these; User:Onel5969 has seen them too, for instance. To cut a long story short, after I saw some overlap I figured that CU was valid given the socking concerns, and found the hundreds of accounts over a few IPs. None of them did the usual things that editors do, which is talk, write up user pages, improve articles--it's all just this churning out of stubs. Now, some of them have a thingy on their user page that points to this, the IbratWiki camp, and I just saw a list of participants here--I wish more of the participants had made more things more clear on their user and talk pages. Umarxon, for instance, hasn't responded to notes.
I'm happy to accept the good faith of the organizers, but these poor submissions (and again, they're almost all the same) which are all going to get turned down, the lack of clarity, what good does that do? Yeah, Uzbekistan (and especially Karakalpakstan) need to be put on the map, but this isn't the way to do it. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also see the previous discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Uzbekistan_articles. One of the organizers responded here. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Another point, is the sole source even valid? I can't seem to open it. Onel5969 TT me 19:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- If we're talking about the linked RTF on Draft:Xotinariq (for example) I was able to download and open it, although I had to proceed past a warning because it was offered over HTTP and not HTTPS. Mackensen (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Nataev--I see you're aware of this. How are you doing, old friend? Drmies (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi there, Drmies! Indeed, I'm painfully aware of this. The WikiStipendiya edit-a-thon has been a great project overall, but the IbratWiki subproject turned out to be a bit of a disaster. From what I understand, the camp was primarily organized by the Ibrat Language Team, who are a bunch of language enthusiasts without much knowledge of wiki projects. The camp participants were not properly trained and the organizers prioritized quantity over quality. That said, do let me know if I can be of any help when you review those cookie-cutter submissions. Maybe some can be salvaged.
- The Youth Affairs Agency of Uzbekistan, which has been funding the WikiStipendiya edit-a-thon, is planning yet another weeklong WikiOromgoh camp as we speak. Luckily, they won't be editing enwiki but will focus on uzwiki as in the previous two rounds (1 and 2).
- By the way, I remember discussing Women in Red with you. Inspired by this initiative, we organizing the WikiAyollar (WikiWomen) subproject to try to close the gender gap on uzwiki. Results so far haven't been outstanding, but I think many users have learned about the project and will continue writing about women. Nataev talk 22:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Excellent--good. I would love to see improved coverage of Uzbek topics. There are things we can do on en-wiki to help; you know I'm always happy to help out; it's a matter of coordination, and knowledge beforehand. I looked at the two SPIs that were filed (and now merged), and all that could have been prevented. It's like with the education projects: if editors put something on their user page, with a few useful links (to a page on the wiki they're working on), and if they all have, in their history, a diff where they're signing up on some project page, then those SPIs would have never happened, I think. It's still a bit puzzling how they got hundreds of editors to submit the exact same material, but that's another thing I guess. And I think User:Umarxon III is playing a role there, but nothing in their edits or on their user page makes that clear. We see that with educational projects too, BTW, if they're run by professors who don't coordinate with the Education branch.Anyway, thanks for the note: good to see you still here. Let me know if I can help, and what we can do here to help them. Take care, Drmies (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! I might travel to Tashkent in the summer. If I do and if they decided to contribute to enwiki again, I'll make sure it's done differently. Cheers. Nataev talk 13:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Excellent--good. I would love to see improved coverage of Uzbek topics. There are things we can do on en-wiki to help; you know I'm always happy to help out; it's a matter of coordination, and knowledge beforehand. I looked at the two SPIs that were filed (and now merged), and all that could have been prevented. It's like with the education projects: if editors put something on their user page, with a few useful links (to a page on the wiki they're working on), and if they all have, in their history, a diff where they're signing up on some project page, then those SPIs would have never happened, I think. It's still a bit puzzling how they got hundreds of editors to submit the exact same material, but that's another thing I guess. And I think User:Umarxon III is playing a role there, but nothing in their edits or on their user page makes that clear. We see that with educational projects too, BTW, if they're run by professors who don't coordinate with the Education branch.Anyway, thanks for the note: good to see you still here. Let me know if I can help, and what we can do here to help them. Take care, Drmies (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Block appeal of Speedcuber1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following is the appeal of Speedcuber1 for their block to be removed. I am doing this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am hoping to be unblocked, I know that when you’re blocked you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia on other accounts, and I haven’t edited Wikipedia since I was blocked, I haven’t been on Wikipedia since last year but it came to mind today so I am going to attempt to be unblocked, if this request is unsuccessful, then I will have to try again another time in the future and I am ok with it. I’m not going to beg to be unblocked, I will just have to wait and see if I am unblocked or not in the future and accept it.
- I was blocked some time last year or the year before and I think it was because I made to many edits on the administrators noticeboard, I can’t remember the edits that got me blocked or how many edits it was but I think that some of them were disruptive and that this is why I was blocked. If I am unblocked in the future, I will make sure that I don’t post a lot on the administrators noticeboard and I will also make sure that none of my edits are disruptive. I have had some experience in the past with the Wikipedia user gadget twinkle, and have reverted vandalism in the past.
- The kind of edits that I might make if or when I am unblocked might include things like adding sources to articles, adding wikilinks to articles if they need them, and going to random articles that have messages at the top of them saying what needs to be done on the article, and doing that, for example if the message says that the article needs additional sources or that the article relies too much on primary or secondary sources, I will probably fix them if I have time.
- I also want to change my username and also change some userboxes if possible.
- I didn’t think that Wikipedia would have come to mind again but it did so I thought I would post an unblock request. Thank you for reading.
Speedcuber (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)- If I was requesting unblock, and couldn't remember the circumstances surrounding my block (or even exactly when it happened), I would take time to read through the block notice, and to look through my contributions in the period leading up to the block, to remind myself. I would then address all that directly in my unblock request. This request fails to address (or even demonstrate an understanding of) the reason for the block, and so I have no way of judging whether the block can safely be lifted without risk of disruption continuing. Girth Summit (blether) 09:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. Utterly unconvincing appeal, "I can’t remember the edits that got me blocked" is the complete opposite of what we want to see. I tried (unsucsessfullly) to guide them last time they were unblocked, but they didn't listen and they were reblocked due to their continuing disruption. In ~700 edits this account accumulated a 13 item block log, which is frankly ridiculous. They were blocked twice for disruption, then had their talk page access revoked. This was upgraded to a checkuser block when they started socking, and they were WP:3X banned. They were granted talk page access for an appeal, then instantly lost it for abuse. They were granted a second chance unblock by the community, but were blocked again within three months, and lost their talk page privileges again.The edits they did make here were entireley unproductive and mostly consisted of them trying to get involved with stuff they didn't understand, messing about and creating drama. Here's a typical example: Floquenbeam accidentally uses rollback on their usepage [2] [3] and explains on their talk page it was a mistake [4]. Speedcuber1 proceeds to go to the teahouse and start a ridiculous thread where they claim they are being harassed [5] [6] [7] I respond pointing out exactly why their claims of harassment are meritless [8] to which they respond claiming that they didn't actually accuse Floquenbeam of harrassment and they were actually thankful for their help and guidance [9]. I point out the ridiculousness of this comment [10]. Another editor then pings El_C to the discussion (who was trying to help this editor at the time) [11] which causes speedcuber1 to run off to the administrative noticeboards to claim they were being harassed by the other editor and needed them to be blocked [12]. This is typical of their contributions here - messing around in administrative areas, overreacting to everything, trying to get other people blocked, ridiculous administrative reports and complaints, refusing to learn from their mistakes, wild mood swings and gaslighting "I didn't do that!" behaviour etc etc etc. It was exhausting. The whole discussion at the teahouse is worth reading to give you an idea of how this editor operates [13]. The fact that their proposed edits include another rename and a desire to mess around with userboxes does not inspire confidence that much has improved. This is now a third chance appeal, and the goodwill "give them another chance and see" WP:ROPE type options have been thoroughly exhausted. To accept an unblock I would expect a) some evidence that speedcuber1 understands what they have done wrong b) some appropriate topic bans/restrictions to prevent more disruption c) some semi-detailed plans for what constructive edits they plan to make when unblocked. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose The first thing in an unblock request I look for is if the person understands what the reason for the block was. There is none of that here at all. "I would take time to read through the block notice, and to look through my contributions in the period leading up to the block, to remind myself." This needed to be done BEFORE requesting an unblock. I would not feel comfortable in lifting the block, as we will be right back here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose there's no indication they will be any less of a time sink than before. Mostly per IP 192, but also because they want to change their username and userboxes? No. Star Mississippi 12:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Someone blocked once a decade ago may have the "I don't even remember what I did but I have grown up a lot and would like to edit Wikipedia" may have some sympathy and some WP:SO/WP:ROPE argument for being unblocked. This is not that. They've been unblocked and reblocked before; and have made several unblock requests also that have been unsuccessful, from my reading, largely because they have never really explained that they understand what the problems they created were. Given all of that, this is nothing new. If they genuinely don't understand, they should remain blocked per WP:CIR. If they are not accepting responsibility, that's also a good enough reason to keep blocked. Either way, no... --Jayron32 12:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose In addition to what's said above, in the previous unblock appeal discussion in May-June 2022, a couple of people requested a substantial period of constructive and problem-free editing on a different Wikimedia project before a new unblock request here. Speedcuber1 has made no edits to other projects since then. In addition, the unblock request doesn't show much actual interest in editing the encyclopedia — wikignoming is fine, but
I will probably fix them if I have time
isn't particularly convincing, and (again) is well below the requirements for an unblock reauest. It tells us nothing of what they would actually be doing. --bonadea contributions talk 12:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please unlock this article. I am a Sysop of Wikipedia in Vietnamese. I can rewrite it and prove its notability. TuanUt (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- That title doesn't appear to be protected - what is the problem you're having creating it? Girth Summit (blether) 10:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- "[Create=Require administrator access] (indefinite) " TuanUt (talk) 10:09, 12 April 20Freshworks23 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's Freshworks @User:Girth Summit TuanUt (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, that makes more sense. Why not create a draft at Draft:Freshworks and put it through WP:AfC? When the draft is ready to publish the protection of the title can be lifted. Girth Summit (blether) 10:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. Thank You TuanUt (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, that makes more sense. Why not create a draft at Draft:Freshworks and put it through WP:AfC? When the draft is ready to publish the protection of the title can be lifted. Girth Summit (blether) 10:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
WMF Product & Technology OKRs
WMF Product & Technology group recently posted a draft of their OKRs. I'm noting it here because they include ... improve the experience of editors with extended rights (admins, patrollers, functionaries, and moderators of all kinds
. If there's improvements you'd like to see which would make your admin-ish work easier, this would be a good time to leave comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Those abovementioned OKRs being at meta:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2023-2024/Draft/Product & Technology/OKRs. I do wish organisations would use normal words for these things — "goals" for example 😌 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- RoySmith's personal OKR for Q2-2023: "When referencing a document you intend your audience to read, effectualize their ability to locate said document by including a wikilink". -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @TheresNoTime I think Objective and Goal are synonymous, but given that OKR is corporate ritual...I understand why they use the archaic terms. Key/Results have very precise meanings though and I'll defend that usage ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- RoySmith's personal OKR for Q2-2023: "When referencing a document you intend your audience to read, effectualize their ability to locate said document by including a wikilink". -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Niš
Good evening. A month ago, there was a discussion about adding the terms "Nish" and "Nissa" to the article Niš, where only one editor (admin) spoke out and was even against it. The names were added despite this. I think they should be removed urgently. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am curious about what is "urgent" about this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: The fact that something like this slipped through a month ago without anyone reacting. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ruach Chayim: this is a routine content-dispute that can be resolved through resuming the discussion on the article talk-page. No admin intervention is needed at this point. Abecedare (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Abecedare: The intervention of the admin is required because the text must be removed considering that its addition was not reached by consensus, but by self-initiative. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ruach Chayim: this is a routine content-dispute that can be resolved through resuming the discussion on the article talk-page. No admin intervention is needed at this point. Abecedare (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: The fact that something like this slipped through a month ago without anyone reacting. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with AlexBachmann's edit. On the talk page they asked whether those names should be added, and another editor stated that a source would be needed. AlexBachmann provided a source, and the other editor did not provide any further objections despite being given days to respond and being pinged to the discussion.
- If anyone is behaving poorly here it is Ruach Chayim, who seems to be on a mission to remove as many mentions of Kosovo as possible from the project or present it entirely in one light. A selection of examples: They have made large and inflammatory edits to articles with misleading edit summaries like "fix" [14] [15], Falsely accused other editors of "vandalism" [16] Deleted Albanian related content from articles for nonsensical reasons [17], accused other editors of speading "pro-Albaninan propaganda" without evidence [18], edit warred to reinsert changes against consensus [19] [20] [21] and have now filed this ridiculous AN thread to try to get someone they disagree with blocked. They seem to be another disruptive POV pusher in the EE topic area. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)