Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Combefere (talk | contribs) at 06:49, 17 July 2023 (→Challenge close Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#RFC on current consensus #14: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
    CfD 0 0 0 35 35
    TfD 0 0 0 3 3
    MfD 0 0 0 5 5
    FfD 0 0 0 2 2
    RfD 0 0 5 60 65
    AfD 0 0 0 1 1


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (21 out of 8844 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Mariam Barghouti 2024-11-19 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA ToBeFree
    17 November 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine 2024-11-19 00:51 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree
    User talk:138.64.112.72 2024-11-18 13:20 2025-02-18 13:20 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector
    Thori Si Wafa 2024-11-18 05:28 indefinite create Pppery
    Betar 2024-11-18 01:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Fathoms Below
    2024 in the State of Palestine 2024-11-18 00:29 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Battle of Bamut 2024-11-17 18:21 2024-11-21 18:21 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Rihanna Death 2024-11-16 20:26 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Justin bieber dead 2024-11-16 20:25 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case
    Template:Infobox airline/styles.css 2024-11-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4651 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    User talk:220.81.134.147 2024-11-16 12:13 2025-02-16 12:13 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector
    Amazfit 2024-11-16 11:37 2025-11-16 11:37 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: persistent WP:COI Yamla
    User talk:118.237.51.201 2024-11-16 09:42 2024-12-16 09:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
    Sidhant Mohapatra 2024-11-16 05:45 2025-08-23 01:14 edit,move Persistent block evasion Geniac
    Solomon Etefa 2024-11-16 02:11 2025-11-16 02:11 create enforcing outcome (draftify) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Etefa Asilvering
    Pannu 2024-11-15 21:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark
    Lamba (surname) 2024-11-15 21:53 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark
    Mirdha 2024-11-15 21:52 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark
    Karel Komárek 2024-11-15 17:43 2025-05-15 17:43 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy HJ Mitchell
    Millennium Dome 2024-11-15 13:54 2025-05-15 13:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry Goodnightmush
    User talk:61.80.147.98 2024-11-15 09:01 2024-12-15 09:01 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot

    Another Appeal: Topic ban from closing AfDs

    I made an appeal last week. I didn't expect the discussion to go beyond the topic and it eventually was closed a couple of days later. I'll try again and answer the allegations on my previous appeal.

    I already removed this reminder a couple of years ago after I was told that it and I realized I was too harsh with that. I have moved on from that long time ago. When some editors convinced me to participate in the ANI, it took me some time to think of what to say there. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to do so by the time a consensus was made.

    I really have moved on from my past troubles and learned from them. Believe me or not, I'm very honest with what I said, especially in my previous appeal.

    I'm appealing (again) for my topic ban from closing AfDs to be lifted. From hereon, I'll be careful in closing deletion discussions. Whenever anyone challenges any of my closures, I'll revert it immediately and leave it for other editors to relist or close it. I really promise to be careful in closing them. That way, I won't get myself into trouble like before.

    Proposal: Lifting Superastig's topic-ban from closing AfDs

    ASTIG😎🙃 14:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SNOW consensus against lifting. (non-admin closure) starship.paint (exalt) 08:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • A new appeal only a week after the last one was declined (unanimously) shows a complete lack of clue. So that's an obvious Oppose from me. I'll make a proposal of my own below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose And this is getting dangerously into WP:IDHT territory. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - The last appeal closed unanimously against this just a week ago. How could you think this appeal was a good idea today? Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - This is really starting to sound like you want this a little "too" much. Which is making me uncomfortable with wondering "why". - jc37 15:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Besides this appeal being too early and indicative of WP:IDHT, it is also inadequate and unclear. Inadequate because it gives no indication, besides mere assertion that the editor has "moved on", for the topic-ban not being needed any more; at a minimum, I would have expected to see substantial and substantive participation at AFDs as an discussant (I see the editor !voting at only 4 AFDs in the 5 months after the ban was enacted). And unclear because I for one cannot decipher whether Superastig is pointing at this response as something they should have posted earlier at the topic-ban discussion or something they regret posting at all; and why is this being called a reminder?! All this suggests that Superastig should not be closing AFDs anytime soon. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose All I see here is pure WP:IDHT and nothing else. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 18:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There is no evidence that Superastig understands what led to the original topic ban. And as Abecedare notes, participating in all of four AfDs since the topic ban was imposed does not indicate an attempt to get more experience in AfD or learn the process better. Plus, a second appeal one week after the first was unanimously opposed is seriously concerning. WJ94 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose tone deaf. Wikipedia is not a game. There are plenty of areas in which you can help, but if your disruption just moves there - further sanctions will follow. Star Mississippi 01:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose lot of snow falling here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, per WJ94. This inability to get it shows how necessary the tban is, frankly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you (Superastig) want to close AfDs so much anyway? It's not as if they won't get closed by someone else, and if they are closed with the wrong result you can always go to deletion review. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's been six months since they were banned and times have changed. I see Astig's sincerity that they have moved on from his past mistakes, especially in their previous appeal. Along with the proof in their previous appeal that they're eligible enough to close AfDs, I believe their topic ban from closing AfDs should be lifted. SBKSPP (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The tone deafness is enough on its own, but coupled with the blatant tag-team/canvassing with SBKSPP and the bizarre IDHT tantrum he threw at being called out on it, it's obvious Superastig should not go anywhere near closing discussions in the foreseeable future. JoelleJay (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal: User:Superastig topic banned from appealing their topic ban on closing AFDs for six months

    • Due to the cluelessness shown above, support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As I said above, this is getting close to WP:IDHT. To be blunt, find other areas to work on Wikipedia for now. Come back next year to see if the community would be more open. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 6 months may be too short a wait given the substantial conduct and communication issues but better than nothing. Abecedare (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, here's an interesting thing. As I read our rules and the precedents behind them, I don't think there's anything to stop Superastig from appealing this ban on appealing the first ban. We could get very deep in a recursive loop of banning appealing the previous ban banning appealing the ban before that. Nevertheless, I support this appealing ban. — Trey Maturin™ 18:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      At that point, we would be far into WP:IDHT territory. ~UN6892 tc 18:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't give 'em ideas, Trey! :) Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, yes, I missed off "recursively construed" ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If he appeals the appeal ban then I for one will certainly be re-cursing. Many of you are familiar with my special talents along those lines. EEng 00:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, with enforcement mechanism. Appealing a second time within a week is disruptive, but Trey Maturin has a point that these restrictions have in recent times become meaningless. As such, I support with the addition of an enforcement mechanism: Should Superastig appeal early then said appeal is to be immediately closed and Superastig blocked for at least one week, with the block length to escalate should additional early appeals be made. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - this should be self-evident even without a formal ban. Any discussion result should never be appealed in a shorter amount of time unless it can be shown either that the discussion was extremely unfair or closed improperly; or that some new fact, which either occured or was discovered after the discussion was essentially over, is provably relevant to the point that several users likely would have voted differently as a result. Animal lover |666| 08:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and lets make it a year. The users comments above dont appear to have any of the required maturity to seek a removal of the ban, but doing it anyhow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support while I still think further sanctions are needed, commenting here to endorse some action. This user is more interested in wasting our time then changing their behavior. Since it appears a broader AfD ban won't pass, this will give the user sufficient time to show productive editing that could merit lifting of ban. Star Mississippi 13:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain Girth Summit told Astig in their talk page that "The restriction is indefinite, but may be appealed at AN no sooner than six months from today." I guess Astig was given the time frame of six months from the day they were Tbanned. Since their deadline is sometime within this month, I don't think they will be able to appeal anymore (not even after another six months) after this one. Correct me if I'm wrong. SBKSPP (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @SBKSPP: I think you're misreading "no sooner" as "no later". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a ban of no longer than six months with whatever enforcement tools are available. Superastig’s continued poor conduct shows no signs of changing so no point in continued appeals of his original ban at this time. Frank Anchor 17:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I don't see their behavior changing in any meaningful way, given their immediate leap to appealing again. I can't legitimately see anyone being too eager to accept an appeal for at least a few months, and certainly not before Superastig can demonstrate that they understand WP:NAC. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: User:Superastig topic banned from AfD in general

    • I brought this up at the previous failed appeal and it got some traction, but the thread was closed before I could make a formal proposal. Superastig's history with AfD convinces me that they are not a net positive in this area and should be fully topic banned from deletion discussions. I'll repost my comments from the previous thread:

    Another discussion involving Superastig showed up on my watchlist a few weeks ago. In this conversation (which occurred after they had been topic banned from closing AfDs) another editor said to Superastig: There are a few stations and TV channels that are up for deletion here. [...] I hope you could spare some time to save any of them from deletion. Superastig proceeded to vote keep on several of these articles. After being informed that this was canvassing, Superastig replied as follows:

    In other words, you're telling me that it's a mortal sin for me to participate in deletion discussions after getting pulled out from my "break". I've stayed away from deletion discussions for a few months and never cared about a single article listed for deletion until @SBKSPP pinged me. I only picked a handful that I believe are worth being kept. It shouldn't be a big deal at all. It is never a mortal sin to be concerned about the articles listed for deletion, for God's sake.
    You can hate, whine, cry, complain, throw hissy fits, say this, say that. But, my votes in the recent deletion discussions have (will have and still have) merit no matter what.
    This behaviour speaks for itself IMO. Later, Girth Summit explained to them at length that this is in fact canvassing, and they still refused to get the message, stating Therefore, I believe what they did is not canvassing. I'll still stand by my views no matter what. Between the canvassing issues, the PA mentioned above, their past conduct at AfD and this unconvincing request, I believe that this editor is unable or unwilling to conduct themselves appropriately in this area and should be topic banned from AfD as a whole.

    Further battleground problems

    I just noticed something disturbing at User talk:Superastig#Edit warring on Ang Syota Kong Balikbayan. In response to a content-related disagreement (and I've no idea who's right over the content as I haven't looked), Superastig ended with "Even if we argue about this 'til the day we die, my edit in the article stands. So, it's either you leave my edits as is or this issue you started will get worse. The choice is yours." That's the exact same Don't you dare challenge me attitude that earned them the ban from closing AFDs. And it happened when their behaviour is under close scrutiny here at AN. Their user page says "I have really moved on from my past troubles and learned from them." That would not appear to be true. So, do we need some sort of final warning about dropping that aggressive and threatening attitude? It can't be allowed to go on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I also read that as a threat. I'm seriously thinking a preventative WP:BLOCK is likely in order here. I'm open to other interpretations though. - jc37 12:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, this was more or less my point in the roving disruption, although it was before this discussion. They are a problem, nut just a problem in AfDs. last time it was canvassing, now it's edit warring. I have no idea why they haven't been more broadly blocked in their career. Star Mississippi 12:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is not great [1]. Whether or not the actress playing the girlfriend in a film called "My Girlfriend, The Returnee" can be named as being in "the title role" (who cares?), this bit of the edit war is over a completely unsourced cast list that Superastig insists is correct because it's in IMDB (whether it's "verified" is irrelevant - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#IMDb). Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am really surprised that their conduct hasn't received more scrutiny before since this is really obvious violation of both content and conduct policies. And their AFD stats show that Superastig !voted in 28 AFDs (with a result match stat of <75%) and apparently closed almost 1900 AFDs. With the poor understanding of wikipedia policies they have displayed here, I cringe to think of the potential damage. Abecedare (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now THATS a reason to ban them from closing! The 75% isn't that troubling in itself. But there's a clear lack of understanding here - and that's a huge number of closes. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abecedare: - they voted in 28 AFDs out of the last 200 AFD pages they edited, not out of 1891. Simply explotating that figure would lead to an estimate of 265 total votes. Anyway, here is another link showing more votes from the older AFD pages they edited, showing 66 votes out of 200 AFDs. starship.paint (exalt) 14:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: Thank you for the correction in my methodology! Scrolling through all the pages of their AFD stats, I now see that they !voted in roughly 1350 AFDs (with a result match stat of about 88%) and so apparently closed about 550 AFDs. Nothing "wrong" with any of those stats per se and so that shouldn't IMO play a role in any further sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:lowercase sigmabot III is marking a lot of discussions as spams when archiving

    See this diff, the bot has marked 27 discussions as “[t]his appears to be spam” while none appears to be spam. Since the bot makes a lot of edits, I can’t check if this happened to other archive pages as well. NM 23:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Northern Moonlight, the bot doesn't mark discussions as spam. Instead, this appears to be an improperly used {{hat}} template that was used in a discussion the bot archived, as seen here.
    {{hat}} should be placed below the section heading. In this case, it was placed above it, so the bot considered it to be a part of the previous discussion thread. As such, when the previous discussion was archived, the bot copied the {{hat}} to the archive page, but not the {{hab}} which closed it. The hatted discussion wasn't signed and did not have a timestamp, so the bot did not archive it.
    The end result is that an unclosed {{hat}} was copied over to the archive page, and thus collapsed every discussion beneath it.
    In the future, this should be reported to User talk:Lowercase sigmabot III, not here. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, the owner of the bot has no activity for well over a year, which is why I went straight here. What’s the right course of action here? Post on their talk page and wait? NM 00:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 328 page watchers on that talk page; I'm sure it'll be noticed. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I’ll do that next time. NM 00:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People can be both inactive and reachable at the same time :) Legoktm (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed at SPI

    WP:SPI is chronically backlogged, and historically this is the time of the year when things are worst. This year is no exception; we've got some cases that were filed 3 months ago. So, if you're an admin looking for things to do, please consider coming over to WP:SPI and helping us work through the backlog as a patrolling admin. RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Summer vacations are hereby prohibited (Yamla, that includes you!). Lazing around in parks, either alone or with your family, will be reported to the authorities (Drmies, what were you thinking?). All holidays (in the American sense) are cancelled forthwith! Any admin who does not respond immediately to Roy's call, shall be included in the ArbCom case calling for removal of their permissions. This list of prohibitions, etc., is subject to expansion without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Watching the Tour, Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a stab at a few over the weekend. Hopefully others heed the call, too! --Yamla (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In case anyone else besides me was wondering how they could help: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions - jc37 13:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I remember doing some things to help out there in the past, but this is seeming more complicated than I remember. And reading that page, and a few sub-pages, I'm still not entirely comfortable that I understand what is wanted lol. Does someone have a "Simple Wikipedia" short version of how an admin can jump in the shallow end of the pool to get their feet wet first? : ) - jc37 13:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Cases and look at the caes marked in green (CU completed). Those are typically cases where a checkuser did a technical investigation but couldn't make a determination on the technical data alone so they need somebody to dive into the behavioral side.
    A relatively simple one might be AHTaxCrediter. Mz7 ran a check, found that the technical data doesn't indicate they're socks, but left the case open, presumably for somebody to take another look at the behavior. So I'd start by diving into the edit histories of the three accounts and see what you can see. Avatar317 left their own analysis, which you may or may not agree with. RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first two sentences in particular helped a lot to help concretely focus things. Thank you. I'll go look again in a little bit. - jc37 14:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith and Jc37: Sorry for stealing your thunder—I've gone ahead and closed out the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AHTaxCrediter case. I suppose I read RoySmith's comment a little too quickly, and for some reason I didn't glean that this was intended to be a sort of exercise for jc37. I personally enjoy doing the technical and behavioral evaluation at the same time, so I'm surprised that I decided to use the green "CU completed" category in this case—I must've been feeling a little indecisive at the time. In this particular case, I wouldn't have complained loudly if we applied blocks, but we are now in the middle of July, and the last edit from those accounts was June 1. Because we may unfortunately be past the point of WP:PREVENTATIVE, I closed the case without blocking the accounts.
    If I were to offer a suggestion, in my experience the "easiest" cases are the most recently filed ones in the beige-colored "Open" category (the table is sorted in chronological order by category, with the most recently filed cases appearing towards the bottom of the table). Before I became I checkuser, I remember that was where I was most likely to find straightforward cases. The green "CU completed" cases tend to be a bit more challenging, but that is definitely the category we need the most help with. Mz7 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries and thank you for the suggestions : ) - jc37 19:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the bottom line is to just jump in and ask questions when something doesn't make sense. If you're on IRC, #wikipedia-en-spi-clerks is a great resource. RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried to join just now. That IRC channel is invite only. It is not bundled into the default admin channels. Perhaps it should be if you intend it to be a help channel for new patrolling SPI admins. Up to y'all. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I plead complete ignorance of the inner working of IRC, but I'll see if I can get you an invite to the channel. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looked at a couple, although not sure how helpful the closes were as they seemed more stale than needing action. Happy to learn in this area. Star Mississippi 00:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bbb23, I tackled a few cases. I'm not sure I understand why "closed" cases are still on that list, though--will they disappear after someone presses a button? Drmies (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    After a clerk or CU archives them. People like me aren't allowed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to expand on that, there's a final review during the archiving process as a quality control process. RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and added {{Administrative backlog}} just now, which will add that page to Category:Administrative backlog, which will hopefully get the attention of admins that patrol that category looking for backlogs to crush :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, so I did one, and looked at quite a few others. To say this can be a fair amount of work, depending on the situation, is an understatement. Everyone who helps out there, clearly deserves a kudos. - jc37 21:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed none of the requests are awaiting checkuser. 16 are in "CU requested" state and I offered a weak opinion on whether I think CU is justified. If people think I should just act on that, let me know. I strongly expect clerks to rule differently than me in some cases so I'd rather hear from them. 5 are "Awaiting clerk". 50 are "CU completed" and 31 are "Open". I may be mistaken but I don't think that backlog is waiting on checkusers. Please let me know if you think I'm missing categories where a CU could specifically help out, don't want to overstep. Barring that, I'll start digging in to the "Open" cases (as a regular admin) this week and try to make a dent in them. It is indeed a big list. --Yamla (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Deepfriedfeta (talk · contribs)

    Hello! This account is confirmed sockpuppet of NikolaosFanaris (talk · contribs). AlPaD (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @AlPaD, locally I can confirm as well User:Tech maniac92. Blocked locally. Courcelles (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    Is the paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org email still being watched? I submitted two cases a while ago (May 10 and June 9) but haven't gotten any response from either. Perhaps its another chronically backlogged queue? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If I recall, that email address is basically just an alias for GeneralNotability's email. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

    The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:

    • For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

    For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

    Backlog

    Has anyone seen WP:RFPP ? - FlightTime (open channel) 18:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It needs archiving, but the bot appears to not be working. The archive page is a bit too large for my computer to handle, though. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, sorry, missed that :P - FlightTime (open channel) 21:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the malfunctioning bot makes it harder to easily see what still needs examining. Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Any backlog should be cleared now. From the older requests, I haven't acted on the article XHDTV-TDT. I'd appreciate if someone with a good computer could archive all the resolved requests. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 22:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Challenge close Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14

    This post challenges RFC close relating to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14. History:

    • 1. I ran RFC Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14 in which the RFC contained a specific proposal. A number of votes in the proposal ignored the specific proposal or complained about the procedure of running and RFC to unwind an earlier consensus that was formed through RFC. Essentially these votes either ignored the RFC specific proposal (arguing other procedural claims) or didnt agree that an RFC be used to change the consensus, making these votes largely off topic or nonsensical. Of course an RFC is used to unwind an earlier RFC. These votes should have been ignored as off topic. After those votes are ignored, then the clear consensus is obviously to remove the defacto ban that currently exists on the article. We dont use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to determine that an RFC is not the appropriate venue to remove the consensus of an earlier RFC. "There were substantial procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion" in that the closer admitted down-weighting a majority of votes and went with the editor's own interpretation.
    • 2. Nemov (talk · contribs) requested an experienced editor to close the RFC at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#rfc_F7270BA
    • 3. Combefere (talk · contribs) closed the RFC noting himself his vote counts (himself stating the votes were 11 vs 9. The user found so-called consensus by admitting he down-weighted the WP:NOTCENSORED votes. Therefore I "believe the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;"
    • 4. Two editors (the editor who requested the close Nemov) and myself both voiced our displeasure with the close at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#rfc_F7270BA with Nemov declining to seek review.

    Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment for point #3 — I did not "count myself" in any way. I assume this is a misunderstanding. Jtbobwaysf had at one point stated that there were eight editors in opposition, and may have incorrectly assumed that my count of nine included myself; it did not. Editors I noted in opposition included: mfb, Ozzie10aaaa, Shobbolethink, XOR'easter, The void century, Paleo Neonate, AndrewRG10, Bon courage, and Mx. Granger. I am guessing that Jtbobwaysf failed to note Mx. Granger's opposition; this is ultimately moot because I discarded arguments made by Mx. Granger (and Paleo Neonate) when determining consensus. Combefere ★ Talk 22:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was based off your statement in which you said: "By my math it was 11 supporting and 9 against, but it's also not a vote." at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#rfc_F7270BA. I didnt mean you counted yourself, but I do assert that by discarding the censorship votes you have allowed your view to be the most important. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You struck your comments leaving "count myself" in quotes. Are you quoting me? I think it would be more useful if you could explain how you went from a majority in favor to a majority against? It was simply through down-weighting votes that mentioned censorship? Is there a policy that supports this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I originally interpreted your quote "noting himself his vote counts" as a claim that I had "counted myself" or "counted my own vote" in the closing. Since you have confirmed that this was not your meaning, I struck the rest of the comment. I now understand your meaning of "his vote counts" as 'his accounting of the vote totals' and not 'he counted himself as a voter.'
    I didn't intend to relitigate here, just to clarify that quote above. I believe my comments in the closing summary and at closure requests [a] sufficiently explain my finding of no consensus. Uninvolved editors will have enough information in those links to review the close. See also WP:NHC and WP:NOTVOTE for a better understanding of how closing editors determine consensus.
    1. ^ side note: the four links above to the discussion at WP:CR have become broken due to archiving
    Combefere ★ Talk 06:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Downweighting NOTCENSORED arguments seems reasonable, as NOTCENSORED is a policy about why we don't remove content merely for being objectionable, not about why any particular content should be included. People make this argument all the time when something is excluded from an article, and it is always given little weight. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not censored says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so." and this RFC was to remove the mechanism that was employed to restrict objectionable content (in this case a theory on the origin of the virus). The primary scope of the RFC was not to propose new content, although some editors sought clarification of an example on what the new content might be. The idea that respondents pointing to a wikipedia policy on censorship, when the very RFC is about a specific de-facto policy supporting censorship, should be considered banal and not at all a reason to down-weight votes. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion concluded that COVID-19 pandemic should not mention the COVID-19 lab leak theory, and this WP:AN report concerns an RfC that proposed overturning that result. The RfC close was "no consensus" and correctly pointed out that those using WP:NOTCENSORED as a reason to include the lab leak theory misunderstand NOTCENSORED. Consider any disagreement about whether something should be mentioned in an article—NOTCENSORED cannot allow those wanting inclusion to always win. NOTCENSORED is saying that penis will include a picture of a penis regardless of whether some readers find the images objectionable or offensive as that would not be a reason to remove them. Arguments over whether content should be included have to be based on the merits of the content in question. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:basedpalestine

    Request admin action against basedpalestine (talk · contribs) for WP:DISRUPTONLY and WP:WHYBLOCK. For example, see this edit. Longhornsg (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked Basedpalestine for overt threats of violence. Cullen328 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1165758022"