Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Technophant (talk | contribs) at 11:31, 29 July 2023 (→‎Alt-medicine 2011 topic unban request Technophant: new section). 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 Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
    CfD 0 0 25 0 25
    TfD 0 1 13 0 14
    MfD 0 0 5 0 5
    FfD 0 0 2 0 2
    RfD 0 0 79 0 79
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (42 out of 8363 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    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
    User talk:Omensanne 2024-09-06 11:08 2024-09-08 11:08 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot
    User talk:Uzbekxmas 2024-09-06 11:03 2024-09-08 11:03 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot
    User talk:Gnashchamp 2024-09-06 11:00 2024-09-08 11:00 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot
    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
    Karabakh movement 2024-09-04 19:06 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree
    White genocide (Armenians) 2024-09-04 19:05 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree
    Western Azerbaijan (irredentist concept) 2024-09-04 19:03 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree
    Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan 2024-09-04 19:02 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA ToBeFree
    Rana Sanga 2024-09-04 15:57 2026-09-04 15:57 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生
    AH Milad 2024-09-04 14:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jauerback

    Another Appeal: Topic ban from closing AfDs

    Superastig topic banned from appealing their topic ban on closing AFDs for six months due to consensus in this discussion found by Nosebagbear. Superastig indefinitely blocked by Daniel. Other proposals failed. (non-admin closure) starship.paint (exalt) 13:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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

    TBAN implemented - there was unanimous consensus that @Superastig: is not hearing the community's issues. As such, a 6 month moratorium is imposed on the user being able to appeal their AfD-closing TBAN. For the sake of clarity, that's 6 months from the most recent appeal, which is the 15th January 2024. While there was no singular enforcement mechanism on either breaking that appeal or appealing this meta-restriction (etc etc), there was clear consensus that the standard enforcement methods should be firmly applied. In practical terms, appeals of the underlying TBAN should be immediately closed, and escalating blocks highly considered. Likewise, any appeal of this restriction that is not clearly made on reasonable terms should be treated similarly. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • 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]
    • Support 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]
      Oh shoot. I thought they're the same. Meaning "at least six months"? Then that means Astig is wrong here since they appealed sometime after five months. Changing my vote. SBKSPP (talk) 03:06, 18 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]
    • Support After several WP:BADNAC. I don't have faith that he can do it properly. scope_creepTalk 16:30, 19 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 AfD in general

    Closed as consensus against implementing a general AfD TBAN, primarily on the basis that no/insufficient evidence that such a TBAN would be truly preventative due to the editor's issues being limited to AfD closes (and the associated appeals). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • 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.
    Just noting, my oppose redundant having now read the subsequent discussion below. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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]
    No need to give them a final warning about that IMV. Their attitude varies, differ when it comes to participating in AfDs, closing them or contribution. It can be better discussed in a separate thread and not here.
    Based on their contribution, they barely go berserk and the recent one is an instance. So, it's pointless to give them a final warning. SBKSPP (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, SBKSPP, do you think their comment that I showed above is in any way acceptable? Don't you think we need some assurance that they will change their aggressive attitude towards other editors? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boing! said Zebedee: TBH it's unacceptable. But it can be toned down and said in a more civil way.
    Just warn and note them about WP:OWN and I'm sure they'll change. SBKSPP (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do hope they can change. But they haven't been taking the feedback they've had so far, and have just doubled down on the ownership - in this very discussion, below. Superastig does finally seem to be listening, but it took a block to do it, so let's hope for a good unblock request - I've left some advice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Nice bit of advice you left there yourself, SBKSPP - that should help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm disappointed that Superastig has not responded, either here or at their talk page where I told them their comment was unacceptable (and they have edited since). If we don't see some kind of acceptable response, showing understanding of how their aggressive ownership approach must stop, I would urge some admin action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have misunderstood the phrase this issue you started will get worse. If that happens, then they persisted. It's out of my control. So, I don't see it as a threat. It's not like saying they're gonna get haunted, which is considered a threat. I can't haunt them 'cause I don't know where they live. This is why I'd rather stay away from anything that would cause me to lose my cool. ASTIG😎🙃 10:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Superastig, I don't see any way to misunderstand "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...". It looks like blatant battleground ownership to me (and you had the nerve to accuse the other editor of ownership). *You* do not get to dictate that your edit stands, and it is absolutely unacceptable for you to try to control content that way. Do you really not understand that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    you had the nerve to accuse the other editor of ownership: It's based on the article's history, where that incident happened a few times before. I wouldn't have had accused them if it wasn't for them persisting. My edits in that certain article aren't disruptive at all since I leave a clear explanation in each of my edit. If they make some minor changes to my edits, then fine with me. It's no big deal. But if they completely revert my edits, then I don't think that's tolerable. ASTIG😎🙃 15:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a dictionary definition of WP:OWN and you're providing no evidence to indicate you shouldn't be blocked more broadly. Star Mississippi 15:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's terrible.—Alalch E. 15:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that response leaves me kind of speechless... admins? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm likely too involved to act, but I'd wholly support a broader block Star Mississippi 20:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, gotta say thanks for making this whole thing real easy to understand.. Lulfas (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely. Obviously open to review and any admins feel free to change (including modifying to a pblock) if so desired. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Daniel, it's unfortunate but I think it's necessary - at least until we get some proper understanding of why their approach to disagreement is so utterly wrong. And, I'm not an expert on them, but I can't see a pblock that would work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my thoughts - I considered a pblock from article-space but ownership issues would probably migrate to other namespaces, so in terms of being prevenative, I went the full block. Daniel (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An indefinite block is too much IMV. Blocking them for 2 days to a week would suffice. But Blocking them indefinitely is outright ridiculous. Judging from their contributions, they're not like that everyday. I can say less than sometimes, they go berserk. Warn and note them about WP:OWN, and put them under surveillance by stalking their contribution page time by time. That'd do the trick. SBKSPP (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, in my long experience, short timed blocks rarely work with chronic poor behaviour (even, perhaps especially, if that behaviour is intermittent), and editors often just sit them out and then carry on as before. What I think we needed is "You can't edit until you can convince us that your behaviour will change". And that's all an indefinite block is - it can easily be for less than 2 days. (I often think "indefinite" is a bad name - it's more of an open-ended block, just needing a bit of discussion to resolve.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hounding and personal attacks by a new user

    Both parties turned out to be socks and CU-blocked. Nothing more to do. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Following a dispute over content at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film), a new ussr - User:Saikyoryu began hounding me to other, completely unrelated pages , e.g within an hour of me first editing A Letter to Liberals, they were there to partially undo my edit (my first edit: 01:09, 19 July 2023 , their first: 02:19, 19 July 2023). They then had the gall to go to the talk page of another editor and complain that I was following them around, The other editor told them they were in the wrong, and advised them to leave me alone, and I also warned them about it ([2]) and today the were back at it, at and just now at [Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. When I warned them again on the talk page, their response was to come to my talk page and call me a "misogynistic racist".[3] The user's editing history suggests to me they are not really a new user (I can provide detailed evidence) but whether or not they are a genuinely new user- an administrator needs to put a stop to this hounding and personal attacks. Red Slapper (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I see Saikyoryu accusing User:Isaidnoway of Sealioning multiple times at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) (once saying "Holy fucking fuck I am AUTISTIC and even I'm not as fucking dense as you are pretending to be with your fucking sealioning." and of "falsehoods", accusing User:FMSky of the same thing once. Also at that page accusing you of dishonesty and "lying bullshit".
    The editor asked for help at User talk:ToBeFree and when that didn't work replied "I tried that form and it failed and lost my typing twice. Thanks for being just and dishonest and giving me the same run around the "help" people did. BARF." To be fair to them I see that they later apologised.
    But before the apology they posted at User talk:MJL#Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) "ToBeFree won't do a thing to help anyone. The page I was sent to at the Help Desk won't WORK to ask for an edit to the talk page. You look like you're a person who might actually give a damn". Red Slapper responded there and there was back and forth between the two. Too long to go into detail here, people can read the discussion.
    I see further attacks on User:Wolfquack and User:Skarmory on their talk pages.
    I do think Saikyoryu could be a constructive editor if they could avoid this type of behaviour but I am not at all convinced they can do that. I'd like to hear from the editors they have attacked. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was never attacked; all the conflict on my talk page was between them and Wolfquack. Still, what I see here is someone who needs to calm down and remember this is a collaborative project. Hostility is unnecessary and disruptive. They're constructive in terms of the work they do, at least from what I've seen, but more collegiality is needed. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skarmory Sorry, misread that. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller Sorry that I was late to this conservation (I was taking a break from wikipedia). Since that the user has been blocked all I will say regarding them is that they seemed to expect an “apology” when someone “wronged” them. And even when I did apologize to this user on my own talk page, they considered it “not apologizing”.
    What’s ironic about this is that this user called me a dick, and didn’t even apologize for that (and they apparently considered saying “I was taking you seriously until” the same level as saying “dick”). After I realized who this user was I decided to not respond to them. It doesn’t surprise me at all that this user got blocked. Wolfquack (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the summary. I'm now here from WP:RFPP/E because an unnecessary request was made and I had a look at the contribution list again to see if the user is partially blocked. I guess an interaction ban is the minimum that should result from this discussion here. Whether it needs to be one- or two-way, I don't know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Saikyoryu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a pattern of continually commenting on the contributor and being uncivil towards editors on Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) — here, here, here, here, here, and falsely accusing editors of trolling or harassment — here, here, here, here, here and personal attacks as seen here and here. They were cautioned about remaining civil, shown here in this level 2 notice, and then in their revert of the notice, made an unfounded allegation about my motive for the notice here. Since the personal attack on me, I have disengaged with interacting with Saikyoryu. In relation to Red Slapper, this personal attack is way over the line and is worthy of a block. In my view, editors who make an attack like that should be shown the door.— Isaidnoway (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I now see this is more widespread and user-unspecific than I thought. I've just removed a few personal attacks from comments that have not been replied to yet ([4]). I'd be blocking if there hadn't been the unpleasant non-administrative interaction between them and myself before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That guy is a sock anyway. Their first couple of edits consisted of tagging pages for notability (1), lecturing IPs (2), adding "citation needed" tags (3), and explaining users the concept of WP:COI (4) ----FMSky (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ^Seconded. Those early edits to the help desk are a dead giveaway. SN54129 12:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef blocked. @Red Slapper, sorry that it took this long. Sandstein 12:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Red Slapper (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Red Slapper is also a sock of NoCal100, so this is probably two POV socks beefing with each other and wasting our time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and wasting our time
    That’s one way of saying it… Wolfquack (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @FMSky that doesn’t really surprise me. When the editor first visited my talk page I thought it was strange that an editor so “young” had a lot of experience. Anyway regarding both Red Slapper and Saikoryou, their user pages were both “red” which should have been a dead giveaway that they were socks. Wolfquack (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. A lot of legit editors have red user pages, and a lot of sockpuppeteers are smart enough to make their user pages blue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Create new page about a business

    For what it's worth I've created the page since it is on the title blacklist. If nothing happens with it then G13 will take over. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    OFF-TOPIC
    This board is for administrative notices. Requests for articles go to Wikipedia:Requested articles.

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Car_Loans_UK

    Creating this page about a business - can someone create this so info can be added to the page.

    Thanks Cars and finance (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you wanting to promote a business? Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not promote, just create the page about Car Loans UK as a business. Cars and finance (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What's so special about that company and how are you related to it? M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out this page and see if you can create a draft there for someone to review. Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The chances of it being eligible for a Wikipedia page seem really small. Secretlondon (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Everyone seems to have missed the issue here - Cars and finance can't follow @Dusti:'s advice and create a draft page because it hits an entry on the titleblacklist. That said this company probably isn't notable - their name does make it really difficult to search for sources though. 192.76.8.89 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasonable. Done. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Massive wide-ranging IP block on Airtel India users

    This section was originally posted by a fairly new editor at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but that is clearly not the best place for it, so I am copying it here.


    Hello, I'm not sure whether this is the right place to ask. According to the block log, the IP range 2401:4900::/32 appears to have been blocked from Wikipedia, with account creation also blocked. According to the WHOIS info and APNIC info, this range is allocated to Airtel India, which is India's 2nd largest mobile ISP with more than 300 million subscribers.

    A huge /32 range has been blocked in this case. According to IPv6_address#General_allocation,

    Each RIR can divide each of its multiple /23 blocks into 512 /32 blocks, typically one for each ISP [...]

    This source [5] also seems to show that the 2401:4900::/32 range is essentially the entirety of Airtel's IPv6 range. I was also able to anecdotally confirm this as I had addresses in this range (and was blocked from IP editing) in two cities separated by over 1,600 km in the last week.

    Is this massive block really what was intended?

    Thanks. NS-Merni (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, NS-Merni, I would have thought that the administrators' noticeboard would be a more appropriate venue for this, as what you are questioning is an administrative action, not a technical issue. Secondly, if you think an administrative action is questionable, almost always the best first step is to consult the administrator in question. Very often the issue can be resolved very easily that way. Thirdly, if, whether for good reasons or not, you do decide to question an administrative action on a noticeboard without consulting the administrator in question then you must at least inform that administrator, which you didn't do. Certes informed me of you post here (for which I am grateful) no doubt because my name appears on the block log as the last administrator to make a change to the block. However, my contribution was just to remove talk page access; apart from that, the present block was imposed by Ad Orientem, and later extended in scope by Drmies, and they need to know about this post. Also, previous blocks on the same IP range had been imposed by the following administrators, who may wish to express opinions: NinjaRobotPirate, Favonian, Daniel Case, Malcolmxl5, and Materialscientist.
    As I said, my own contribution was just removal of talk page access, which was because of persistent misuse of talk page editing. A few examples are [6], [7], and [8]]. I think it quite likely that leaving the talk page block in place for a little while and then removing it may well be enough, in the hope that it will be enough to get the disruptive editor in question to stop, and I had that in mind when I removed talk page access.
    It is not for me to defend, justify, or explain any other aspect of the block, for which I am not responsible, but I will make a few observations. The scope of this block is certainly unusually large, and I would be very hesitant to impose one like this. However, there certainly has been a considerable amount of unconstructive editing, even via anonymous editing, and from what has been said in the block log it looks as though there has been more via accounts, which is visible only to CheckUsers. The fact that so many different administrators have all thought so wide a block reasonable does suggest that this may be one of the rare occasions when such a large block is justified.
    On the general question of anon-only IP range blocks causing collateral damage, as opposed to this particular case, I sincerely have 100% sympathy with innocent editors affected in this way, because way back in the early days of my time as as a Wikipedia editor it happened to me. It was frustrating; it prevented me from doing any editing for a while, until I had got an account. However, I accepted that it was unfortunately made necessary to prevent damage caused by other people, and that sometimes, unfortunately, causing that kind of inconvenience for some legitimate editors is the lesser of two evils. JBW (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello JBW,
    As you might see, I have a total of around 30 edits. I have absolutely no idea as to where the proper location for this kind of discussion might be. I was initially planning to post it at Wikipedia:Helpdesk, but decided on posting here as it seemed to be related to "technical" issues. I hope the community will not judge my concern on my procedural mistakes.
    I don't know what information administrators or check-users might have with them. But isn't it the case that an IP range of a whole ISP, used by 300 million+ people (even if some of those are companies or duplicate subscribers, say 100 million) would be likely to have hundreds of disruptive editors in any case? If blocking a whole ISP is the only way to resolve this, then why allow IP editing at all?
    Please advise me on how to move this discussion to a proper location -- whether that might be one of several admins' talk-pages, or the Administrators Noticeboard.
    Thanks. NS-Merni (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @NS-Merni: I see now that you started your post by saying "I'm not sure whether this is the right place to ask". I must have seen that before, but it didn't register on me. Yes of course when we start editing none of us really know our way round Wikipedia, and no new editor can reasonably be blamed for not knowing the best way to do things. Rereading my comments above, I see that the way I expressed myself may have come across as critical, which wasn't what I intended, so I apologise for that. JBW (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad that you raised this. My state has 10 crore (100 million) residents as of 2011 census, and my home & college are almost at the two extremes of the state. No matter what network I use (Airtel, Jio, or local broadband service (except BSNL)), and no matter what device I use (mobile, tablet, laptop; mine or family members'), I always end up in a range that is blocked, sometimes even from account creation. Probabilty says that the vast majority cannot edit Wikipedia from at least my state, unless they had an account before the blocks. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of what I did was 1) a hard partial block to stop one sock puppet from editing a specific series of pages, or 2) trying to limit collateral damage caused by other admins. I eventually gave up on both. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any registered account caught behind that range is free to go to WP:IPECPROXY and follow those directions to request IPBE by email, as I have advised hundreds of people over the last year or so requesting unblock for exactly this reason.
    We do not do a great job communicating this, however. It boggles me why we don't put this in the message those users see when they try to edit ... it would save a lot of needless work explaining this to everyone who uses the on-wiki unblock process. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not always possible. On 6 July, I was in the range Special:Contribs/2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32, which blocked me from even requesting a password reset (VPT discussion). Since account creation is blocked, it is difficult to create an account. Although, my current range is different (on same ISP, same device), it doesn't have account creation restrictions, but is blocked from several namespaces anyway. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can request IPBE by email through the instructions at the link. You can also request an account be created for you. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be missing something, but I don't see how IPBE would be of any use here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For registered users, it would be. We get many unblock requests of this type. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1500 entries in the CU log since February 2021--I don't think I've ever seen a range that has caused us so much work. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll say this: I didn't need to look anything up before posting this, I recognise that range strait off the bat because it so frequently crops up in cases of abuse. I'm not saying that I endorse the block, exactly - I haven't looked into the specifics - but it might well deserve the award for the most often-abused range in the world. Girth Summit (blether) 20:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If NS-merni is correct that it represents the entire Airtel IP range, then huge abuse is expectable, because Airtel is the 2nd largest internet provider in India, which is now the most populous country of the world. Not that I blame admins for this, I myself have led to the block of some Indian ranges due to persistent abuse. Just that better technical solutions will be appreciable. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From your lips to God's ears. The Admin corp and CU team would love something other than blunt and broken cudgels to curb abuse.-- Ponyobons mots 22:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If only Airtel would split that range up into chunks. It's not completely unique, but you don't see very many ranges as wide as that one that just bounce users around randomly across the entire range. Girth Summit (blether) 10:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What all data is collected from users besides IP? Any sort of device data? So, blocks can be applied on a per device basis rather than on an entire range with several users. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not have the ability to narrow down blocks based on device data.-- Ponyobons mots 17:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I can see why it would not be a good idea. It would mean either having to have all admins sign an NDA (which means identifying themselves to the Foundation) in which they agree to keep confidential all those fields (and whether that work is uncertain; a few dozen or so Checkusers can keep that secret but can a few hundred admins?) or resigning ourselves to letting it become public knowledge and making it at least a little easier for determined sockmasters to evade (granted, in that case they get so confident that the behavioral evidence usually makes up for their technical prowess). I could *see* perhaps limiting this ability to Checkusers, but we'd probably have to take on more.
    There has been some discussion of allowing the same sort of screening adjustments in blocking IPs/ranges that we currently allow in protection, i.e., hardblocks that would allow autoconfirmed, or extended confirmed, accounts through if desired. Something to take up at the next Community Wishlist Survey on Meta. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If device data were/is collected, there could be some automated process that filters a blocked IP range's edit by devices, visible to CUs, but not admins or others. If most disruptive edits emanate from one or two devices, they could apply a device-block on them leaving the rest of range open to editing. To the public, the device can be identified by a set of random letters, which is something, I believe, the WMF is working on. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That information is confidential for what should be obvious reasons. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not unsympathetic to the inconvenience being caused by such a wide-ranging block. However, I am at loss as to how else to curb what appears to be a shocking level of disruption all emanating from the range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be very helpful if the ISP were to suballocate into smaller ranges, but we can't exactly control that decision, and it's actually probably not a bad design decisions as far as user privacy is concerned. That being said, while we're not blocking the ISP in its entirety with the block mentioned above, and while the ISP also owns other large ranges, it doesn't look like many of those ranges are actually used for IPv6 traffic. For example, Special:Contribs/2404:A800:0000:0:0:0:0:0/32 appears to have made all of two edits to Wikipedia ever, while the other /32s of that /30 have not made any contributions that I can see.
      This sort of hard blocking is (if I recall correctly) also how we deal with T-mobile ranges in the East of the United States. The devices within T-Mobile's ranges are extremely dynamic (and WP:T-MOBILE indicates that they can be gamed), because T-mobile is more or less providing all of its users with a proxy service. We're not dealing with a proxy provider here, but if the IPs are dynamic enough, I don't exactly see anything different in terms of how that would hamper our ability to identify individuals who are conducting abuse.
      We've had issues where we've had entire countries coming through very narrow ranges (or even single IPs, such as Qatar). We generally handled Qatar with short-duration (1 day or so) blocks whenever vandalism was getting really bad, but that had much less traffic than does this /32. Given some LTA(s) within the /32's propensity for spam and mass account creation, I don't think we can treat this range like we did the entire country of Qatar; we'd be opening up windows for account creation shortly after each block expires, and we'd need to block the range much more frequently.
      Obviously, we're going to have to accept a large amount of abuse if we're dealing with a range that has 300 million+ people randomly bouncing around it (the range would likely have nearly the same spam/LTA/vandalism output as the entire United States due to sheer size). The whole range having been checked 1500 times in the past 2.5 years means that it was checked (on average) about 1.7 times per day. And if/when IP masking happens, this is going to be infinitely harder and more time-consuming to deal with should the range be unblocked.
      Has anybody considered asking the WMF to try to get into contact with Airtel India about this issue of ongoing abuse? This seems like a problem that Mediawiki doesn't give us a good solution for, but I imagine the ISP could identify and nip the spammers/LTAs in the bud if they wanted to. It might be worth looking into if our only other feasible option is to resort to blocking the range from making accounts and/or editing anonymously.
      — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2023 Canadian wildfires

    Can someone please merge the articles that were proposed? It’s been a while since closed and none actioned so far.108.58.27.76 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone can merge the articles, ideally some of the people who took part in the discussion. It's not something that requires an administrator. There is quite a backlog of articles to be merged, so it may be a while before someone else can take care of it. Joyous! Noise! 20:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Post-block conduct at User talk:Jack4576

    No need to second-guess the 1 week block. No need to complain about someone who cannot participate in this discussion. No need for Jack to ping people repeatedly. Closing as:
    • Jack4576 is warned that any more pinging anyone, or mentioning anyone specific, on his talk page during the block will result in removal of talk page access, and
    • Jack4576 is warned that an uninvolved reading of this thread and the previous ANI thread makes it clear that the community's patience is exhausted, and any disruption after the block expires will result in an indef block, without another AN/ANI thread, and that this is not open to discussion or negotiation, it is simply what is going to happen.
    • There's no real benefit to complaining about generalized non-specific complaints about WP culture on a blocked user's talk page. We run the risk of policing thought, when what we need to police is disruptive actions. And it's unfair to have this kind of discussion while expecting the target not to reply.
    --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I blocked Jack4576 for violating his community-imposed TBAN from AfD, in the form of polemical comments on his userpage about AfDs that resulted in the deletion of his articles, and users who !voted to delete (whom he suggested all should be sanctioned). In response, he posted an all-caps boldfaced statement to his usertalk continuing his polemic against said editors, attempting to game his way around the TBAN by referring to "ANY EDITOR (GENERALLY SPEAKING) THAT MISUNDERSTANDS WP:AUD (GENERALLY, IN ANY AND ALL FORUMS ON THIS SITE)", but still clearly referring to the same editors in the same context (WP:AUD being, after all, a policy that only really comes up at AfD). I removed the statement as a further TBAN violation and instructed him to not post it again. He then reposted a similar statement. Could another admin please assess whether a revocation of talkpage access—or at least a talking-to from someone other than myself—is warranted? Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been a lengthy pattern of boundary-testing with this editor on several fronts, and I doubt they'll stop, but I'll give it a try. Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not encouraging. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's not all. –dlthewave ☎ 04:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the 1-week block was inappropriate - it should've been indefinite. Their talk page history shows a months-long pattern of being warned and blocked, arguing extensively with admins in pseudo-legalese, refusing to acknowledge their poor behavior and going straight back to it as soon as the block is up. Enough is enough. –dlthewave ☎ 04:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    They're asking for it so badly now. I think we should give it to them. I would block indef and remove tpa but I did interact with this user over it's inappropriate Hunter Biden related BLPs and so I'm WP:INVOLVED. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Muboshgu, I do not think that we should refer to fellow human beings as "it". Am I missing something here? Cullen328 (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how you're reading it that way and not as asking for an indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, you've misread it: They're asking for [an indefinite block]... starship.paint (exalt) 13:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Cullen328 referred to I did interact with this user over it's inappropriate (emph. added)? Ljleppan (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have said "their inappropriate", I regret the error. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually see it as maybe a positive development that he's shifting toward a generalized rant rather than one related to AfD. Of course the ideal would be no rant, but getting blocked isn't a pleasant thing, and, having been in that situation once, I try to remember what that felt like. Maybe I'm just being naïve here, but I would say as long as he can avoid further TBAN violations while blocked, I would rather we let the tempblock play out. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is, and has been for some time, that Jack4576 is heading towards an indefinite block, and that it's a question of when. In so many different respects their behaviour follows patterns which have been grounds for blocks for many editors, but in each case they manage to stay short of the level where it would lead to an indefinite block. However, all put together the numerous incidents add up to far more than has led to indefinite blocks for many other editors. The central problem is total belief that their own view is the absolute truth, and contempt for anyone who disagrees. That problem manifests itself in many ways, including persistent battleground approach to other editors, and refusal to accept consensus and policies. Sooner or later it is going to be decided that the sum of all Jack4576's kinds of disruptive and uncooperative behaviour more than outweighs any benefit their editing may confer, and the indefinite block is going to come. Jack has been given plenty of rope, and each time has decided to stretch the rope as far as they think they can before it breaks. Personally, I see no benefit in further postponing the inevitable. JBW (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am (Now regretfully) the user who can be credited with turning the tide at the previous ANI against an indef block. I withdraw my support for Jack being granted any further chances. He has no capacity for working cooperatively or listening to others. I see no reason to continue allowing his need to treat every interaction as opportunity to pen a Tolstoy novel length response and argue as though we are at The Hague. I’m beyond disappointed that he proved the naysayers right. Indef block and we can all move on. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After being blocked today and warned about calling other editors for sanction because he believes they don't follow consensus, he asks again for editors to be sanctioned who disagree with him. I call again for the sanction of editors that persistently refuse to follow consensus, and are disrupting article creators generally across this website. I have seen Jack4576 consistently argue at length with anyone that disagrees with him or his interpretation of WP "policy" especially when it relates to AfDs. I have seen many indefinitely blocked for far less in my 16 years in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LibStar yep, and (after scrubbing his TP), he restores one of my comments and responds to it by calling me uncivil and essentially pointing out that he’s a great listener and takes advice. Whatever. I am beyond wasting another second now. If I’d known how things would play out, I’d not have persuaded others to give him another go. My naivety on display. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh the irony of taking advice. He was politely warned several times before his topic ban about his conduct. He responded to one editor who mentioned going to ANI by saying he chose to ignore the warning and just continued his behaviour. Several weeks down the track we are at this point. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaxnaCarta: I too have noted the irony of an editor who demands sanctions against editors for ignoring consensus while they're ignoring consensus at every possible moment. However, your assumption of good faith does you credit, don't let it bother you. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the last sentence! MaxnaCarta, you're a fine editor and this doesn't detract from it. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand how his generalized comments - not mentioning specific editors - about what he thinks is wrong with WP on his talk page really hurt anything. (I mean, "too many women in red" is pretty stupid, but stupid has not usually been a blocking criterion.) Just ignore him, unwatchlist his talk page, and if disruption occurs after the block expires, then indef block. But I'd suggest giving him some breathing room right now, unless I'm missing something glaring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Floquenbeam I think you may well be missing something glaring. Jack has endlessly debated dozens of editors and worn them to the absolute bone for several months now. Despite multiple blocks, lengthy ANI proceedings, and innumerable attempts by good faith editors including myself at counselling him to just edit rather than fight everyone, he refuses and just causes exhaustive conflict. They say no diff, or it didn’t happen. In this case his entire editing history for the last 8-12 weeks is the diff. There are too many to mention. He was close to being indef blocked until I volunteered to mentor him and advised him to beaver away editing on his own for a few months but instead he has just continued to passive aggressively engage in ad nauseous debate about EVERYTHING under the sun. It’s so disappointing and exhausting. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      BTW all, I’m editing off mobile and just realised this is AN and not ANI. I shouldn’t really be here as I’m not an administrator. Thanks for letting me chip in and respecting my view, but I’ll leave it to the admins to sort out. Cheers all and please ping me if you need me. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not an admin too. I'll leave it to others to decide an outcome. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not how it works; anyone is welcome at both pages. You can, of course, bow out, but you don't have to. Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not saying he wasn't disrupting anything pre-block, or that the 1 week block was too harsh or too kind. I have no idea about that. I'm just saying that, if the only thing he's done after the 1 week block, is a generalized rant that isn't calling out anyone in particular, then I don't think we should do anything more, and we should probably back off and not scrutinize his every comment on his own talk page. That's all. Floquenbeam (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair call. It’s only a matter of time before another person has enough and brings this back to ANI. I’m just so annoyed because we all spent such a long time sorting out the last dispute and he pretty much agreed to beaver away at content and avoid interacting with anyone. Yet he just cannot help but to argue. Even now he is engaging in a conversation with himself, tagging me and other editors trying to restart debate. It’s so tiring. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's like he enjoys creating a battlefield. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Unless someone disagrees, I am going to:
      1. warn him that any more pinging anyone, or mentioning anyone specific, will result in removal of talk page access, and
      2. warn him that an uninvolved reading of this thread and the previous ANI thread makes it clear that the community's patience is exhausted, and *any* disruption after the block expires will result in an indef block, and that this is not open to discussion or negotiation, it is simply what is going to happen, and
      3. close this thread.
      Any objections? Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No objections. He is continually pinging me which is rather WP:POINT. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd say that the current pinging is already grounds for a loss of TPA, but Floquenbeam's final-final warning proposal is also fine so as not to belabor the point. signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And perhaps he should live out the current 1 week as an enforced wikibreak and make no attempt to communicate with others. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unban/unblock request of Shwcz

    I am bringing the unban request of Shwcz/23prootie here. I make no endorsement in doing so. The request follows. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to have the User:23prootie account to be unbanned and this account to be unblocked. I have learned my lesson and I agree with the sanctions against me. I promise not to use any sockpuppets anymore and I promise to use this account as my primary account. I forgot the password from the User:23prootie account and I do not have access to the email. I would like to start fresh and use this account for useful edits. I promise not to start and edit war or to move pages without consensus, reasons why I was banned in the first place. I have refrained from editing in the last few months and I do not know if enough time have passed for my sanctions to be lifted. I apologize to the community for the disruption I have caused and I promise not to do it again. Shwcz (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Shwcz → 23prootie

    Status:     In progress

    331dot (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on unban/unblock request

    • As a global renamer, I'd certainly decline this multiple account usurption, especially with their existing blocking on tlwiki. No comment on the unblock/unban situation. — xaosflux Talk 21:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This request looks very pro forma to me, and not very convincing, especially with a existing block on another language wiki. Is there any evidence of this editor contributing in a productive manner on other wikis? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • How long ago was the last time this user socked? I see the ban dates back almost 14 years ago.. If the user hasn't been disruptive in the past 5 or so, I'd support an unban, given the extensive period of time that has elapsed. To put into perspective, this ban was from when I was a Sophomore in high school... I'm now almost 30. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How long since last socked? Who knows. But the most recent time they were caught was a few months ago, looking at the astonishing 23 cases documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/23prootie/Archive. Nfitz (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm going to oppose rescinding the ban, at this point. If the editor wants to be taken seriously, they need to prove they can avoid socking for at least a few years, at this point. Doing this for 14 years is a very bad look. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2 procedural things, without expressing any opinion at this time: First, I've temporarily undeleted User:Elockid/Long-term abuse/23prootie, which had been deleted as obsolete. Second, WayKurat, do you have any comments, as the blocking admin on tlwiki in December? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose 23prootie was a persistently disruptive editor and sockmaster, and the brief unblock request barely touches on the issues. It is extremely unlikely that this person would be a productive editor. I'd note that much of their disruptive editing was focused on articles covering the Phillipines which generally have low numbers of active watchers, so any further disruption is likely to cause a fair bit of damage before being detected and stopped. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I also find the proposed topic ban unconvincing, not least as 23prootie has disrupted a wide range of other articles. I'd forgotten that they were also highly disruptive on other Wikipedias. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Multiple socks and blatant vandalism ([9], [10]) at least as recently as December 2022, which is a full 13 years and 2 months after being indef blocked. It's going to take a lot more than a few months of quietness and a boilerplate request to convince me that an unblock would be a good idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The proposed topic ban below doesn't change anything for me - you can't shit on Wikipedia for 14 years with nearly 50 socks and then expect to be welcomed back just like that. This is as close as it comes to "indefinite means forever" to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from Shwcz: Can you add in the UnBan request at the Administrators' noticeboard that a WP:Topic Ban for Philippines-related articles will be instated for me in exchange of an UnBanning/UnBlocking. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested lifting of a partial (single user page) block in order to restore Wikipedia Library Project access

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

    The TWL aspect of this can be addressed by emailing wikipedialibrary@wikimedia.org. As to the rest, @Vlaemink: If you again comment on this particular CLEANSTART anywhere on the English Wikipedia, I am going to siteblock you indefinitely. While that would not be an "appeal only to ArbCom" block, please note that, per policy, if you wished to appeal based on off-wiki information, that would have to be to ArbCom. (The same goes for appeals of your current partial block.) Furthermore, it is my finding that your usage of the RogerDE account served to evade scrutiny and thus violated our sockpuppetry policy. Please disclose the connection between the accounts on its userpage if you wish to use it in the future; if you use it again without doing so, I will treat that as sockpuppetry and block accordingly. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Hello all,

    For over a month now I've been finding myself in an increasingly kafkaesque predicament concerning a single-page block. I've tried to resolve the situation by way of the regular unblock-procedure but it regrettably came to a procedural standstill, which is why I have now turned to the Administrators' noticeboard in the hope that the matter can be solved here instead.

    On the 12th of June, I asked another user (with whom I had already had prior, and rather negative, interactions on Dutch Wikipedia) about whether he or she made use of sock puppets here [11] as well as tampering with sources [12].

    I had suspicions about the existence of alternative accounts for some time, as this involved a rather activist single-issue editor who clearly knew how Wikipedia worked despite being seemingly new to the project. I used the Editor Interaction Analyser tool on the sole article this user edits and it correlated with another account, which I then checked out. It's hard to explain while remaining purposely vague, but the users username (in Dutch) directly referred to a village some of whose inhabitants are known to make a rather fringe claim of being the supposed place of birth of a renowned 15th century painter, which he/she had done on Dutch Wikipedia previously. I discovered that the account that came up in the Editor Interaction Analyser had made similar claims here on the English Wikipedia and used a username which uses a dialectal term for a small forest animal corresponding to the particular dialect spoken in the aforementioned village. I understand if this kind of 'logic' is rather hard to follow for English-speakers, but it's as if two users, one named "New Yorker" and other named "Fuhgeddaboudit", both made the claim that the "New York Yankees won the '55 world series on two different Wikipedia projects.

    I asked the user about this and they confirmed that these accounts were indeed operated by the same person. [13]. He/She claimed that an alternative account had been created to avoid being harassed by a user who, in their words, had since left Wikipedia. I thanked the user for confirming the sock puppet and, after mentioned that there didn't seem to be any harassment of the account and that I found it strange that the old account purportedly abandoned due to harassment by another user was still actively being used, left it at that.

    It is at this point, where things go south, because the user then contacted administrators claiming that he/she had been outed and harassed by me and that this was related to an ArbCom case on Dutch Wikipedia. As a result I got an indefinite partial block, being unable to edit this particular users' talk page.

    Now I want to state very clearly, as I have done before [14], that I do not blame the administrators for their initial reaction. I fully understand that if a user comes to you for help with something as serious as outing, they have to act quickly and rigorously. I also understand, that administrators here do not always have the time and/or means to get to the bottom of the nature of Arbcom cases or other running conflicts on other Wikipedias prior to issuing blocks here.

    I also have to admit that, although I very much disagreed with the rationale given for the block ("Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: related to ArbCom case on nlwiki"), I initially wasn't particularly concerned with it as it only pertained to a single user talk page and thought the matter wasn't worth pursuing further. However, I then found out that this block directly affected my access to the Wikipedia Library Project. I use this open source collection of academic sources on linguistics and history constantly for finding sources and references to accompany my edits, but as long as I am blocked here (even if it only concerns a single page), I am forbidden of accessing and using the Wikipedia Library Project.

    This was the main reason for me to appeal the block on the 16th of June. In my unblock-request I also tried to prove that I had been incorrectly (at least in my opinion) branded as a doxer and harasser. I explained that I did not out this user (that is, I didn't publish a name/address/personal details or anything similar) and that it was in fact me, who requested the Arbcom-case on Dutch Wikipedia against this and another user for seriously disruptive behavior there; and not the other way around. I also attempted to defend myself against the harassment charge. While I was successfully able to argue that no outing had taken place, the topic of harassment proved more difficult. English is not my first language and I think the subsequent misunderstanding concerning my intentions while discussing this point shows this.

    On the request of the two administrators involved, I reworded my initial reaction on the 19th of June. I politely asked them to respond to this newly formulated reply on July 6th but I did not receive a reply and the unblock-request was declined pro forma on the 26th of July for being open longer than two weeks.

    I would therefore kindly like the administrators here to again review this case.

    As stated before, I would very much like to be "rehabilitated" when it comes to the charges of outing and harassment, but my main concern is having access to the Wikipedia Library Project again. If the lifting of this partial block is dependent on me promising to not edit this page again, I will of course agree to this as already mentioned in the original unblock-request on my talk page.

    I have never been blocked before and am a serious editor on multiple Wikipedia projects. I hope you can help me.

    Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vlaemink - it's worth noting that the Wikimedia Library does make case by case exceptions for Library access not being affected by partial blocks/bans. Can't recall the exact procedure but @Samwalton9 (WMF): is the person to ask. Obviously that can stand alone from this thread, but given your phrasing it felt worth pointing out to you as an additional route. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nosebagbear is right! Per the note you should see when attempting to log in to the library, you can drop us an email at wikipedialibrary@wikimedia.org and we'll review this. Partial blocks are quite a common reason for us to give users exemptions to the block criterion. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This. So you can use TWL is not a reason for unblock. — xaosflux Talk 14:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vlaemink - on your talk page, I see a discussion with Seraphimblade and Primefac, where they seem to be very clearly telling you to stop posting about the connection between the two accounts because the new account had been made to escape harassment of the former account. Yet here you are, posting the connection between the accounts (anyone who follows your diffs will see it) at one of the most public noticeboards on the project. I appreciate the predicament you are in, but after so many warnings I'm concerned that the only way to get you to stop doing this is to indefinitely site-block your account (followed by deleting and supressing this thread). Girth Summit (blether) 09:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, what needed to be suppressed has been suppressed (i.e. information that goes above simply linking the two accounts). As you indicate, I find that this continued "but I was right!" cry is missing the entire point that it wasn't the account-matching, but rather the continued regurgitation of that information, that is the problem here. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: I'm very sorry, but I don't know how I can possible address this issue without mentioning the reason for my single-page block. I've tried with this post to make the wording as opaque as possible, as I tried with with my second reply to Seraphimblade and Primefac on my talk page after they told me not to mention the other account.[15] but never got a responds; which is why I came here. I did not come here to spread any information about these two accounts being linked in the most public way possible, I really didn't! I just don't know how to properly explain my situation in a way that doesn't touch on the subject. It's almost impossible to defend myself in any other way.
    I beg you to look simply at the facts, because what's happening here is not right.
    The administrators involved (including you just now) assume that the claim of the user of being harassed in the past is an established fact, but it is not. I understand why they and now you got angry with me for mentioning the alternative account, because you assume that the user was indeed harassed and that my mentioning of the accounts can potentially tip of the harasser to resume their harassment of the user. I understand that this is unwanted behavior and I understand that it then makes me look ignoble to then continue to mention it elsewhere (I only did so on my own talk page and here, by the way) but the premise is a false one: there appears to have been no harassment to begin with.
    It's the user with the alternative account who claimed to have been harassed by a previous user (not me, someone else) and having to make a new account because of this, but while the claim of harassment was made it was never substantiated by the user making the claim in any way. I don't know if there were harassing edits in the past have since been deleted by administrators and is invisible to regular users (I think you can verify this), but based on the visible edit-history of the account it does not show any harassment taking place. Even the person who supposedly harassed him, is unknown. The initial account has very few edits (under 50) so it can easily be verified I'm speaking the truth here. The user also continued to use both accounts, the new one and the one supposedly subjected to harassment to the point of requiring an alternative identity -- which also goes against his claims.
    He made a claim of harassment and the administrators went with it. Again, I do not blame them for this; harassment and doxing is real and destructive and I understand why anyone claiming this would be given the benefit of the doubt, I also understand why the administrators who handled my unblock request got angry with me because I (in my ignorance, not in an attempt to spread the information about the two accounts further) repeated what I had said on his talk page (using diffs, that were/are still available) because they assumed that this was an harassed user who sought safety by creating an alternative account. I understand all of that, but in this case the claim of harassment was merely a ruse.
    I don't care about linking these two user accounts, I care about being able to access the Wikipedia Library Project and having my name cleared. So please, permanently delete every edit on this page, my talk page or his mentioning these two accounts if you still think what I'm doing is completely unacceptable; but please also allow me to protest my innocence. If it preferred that I e-mail the administrators, I will do so and this post can be deleted straight away, but I don't know any other alternative to defend myself in this matter.
    Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: I'm very sorry, but there were/are no edits of mine which went beyond the linking of the accounts. I have never posted personal information of this user (I have none) anywhere. Nothing I have ever posted on this user has gone beyond what I have written here and on my talk page. I've purposely avoided to mention the name of the alternative account here, and while I did mention it on my own talk page I quoted myself from diffs still available.
    If the controversial information got deleted and I'm only repeating the still available diffs, then I don't understand. I don't understand what you mean with "continued regurgitation of that information" when that information has not been deleted/found problematic. Vlaemink (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, yes, you did post personal information about them, which has since been removed and suppressed. Second, the entire reason why they started a new account was to avoid harassment. You have now, in four different locations, made the very connection which they have been trying to avoid. A clean start is not a "get out of jail free" card, and users must still abide by the rules about socking and multiple accounts, but in this case they have done that and all you have done is say "HEY LOOK, THEY HAD AN OLD ACCOUNT WHICH THEY ABANDONED BECAUSE OF HARASSMENT!". Your point was made the first time you commented, and repeatedly bringing it up (and now, as mentioned, in the worst forum possible) is above and beyond what was strictly necessary. You are continually trying to justify your actions by saying "I was right". Sure, you were right, but you have been going about it in entirely the wrong way. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: I'm sorry, but I really did not post any personal information. I don't know anything about this person! The only thing I posted that could be construed as personal information, is that in linking the two accounts I voiced the assumption that (Redacted). If that is what you are referring to by referencing personal details, then yes, I did that; but I vehemently deny have posted any personal details, names, addresses, age, work or whatever else in relation to this user. Like I said, I don't know who this person is, at all.
    Please read what I wrote here. I'm not trying to be right, I'm trying to get access to the Wikipedia Library and clear my name. Please look into the account which was claimed to have been abandoned because of supposed harassment. You'll find that you and the other two administrators' good faith was abused. There was no harassment to begin with. A spiteful user created a fable because someone disagreed with him on an article talk page and found his sock puppet and lied to administrators. Yes I might formulate my posts stupidly from times to times or lack the proficiency to express myself in the best way possible, but that lie us what has ultimately caused all this. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × responding to first para) Yes, I am, and clearly they do not want this information on Wikipedia because that is what kicked off this entire situation. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a procedural note, I have let Seraphimblade and Daniel Case know about this thread. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: I'm sorry, but is that reasonable? Is it reasonable for a user named "New Yorker" to not want people to make the assumption that he or she is from New York? More importantly though, I'd like to stress that I didn't mention the town name in my second reply to you and Seraphimblade or here, and hence only did so once. I did not go around and spread my assumption that this user was from a particular place.
    I also did not go around writing "HEY LOOK, THEY HAD AN OLD ACCOUNT WHICH THEY ABANDONED BECAUSE OF HARASSMENT!" that's a caricature and not even an apt one. I claimed multiple times on two locations, here and my talk page, that I did not intend to harass anyone, that the information I repeated was publicly available (ie. not purged) and that the initial claim of the additional account having been made and the initial one supposedly abandoned because of harassment was a false one. I also never attacked anyone personally, which is also in the block rationale.
    This is what happened:
    1. A user, with whom I had a content-related dispute and pending Arbcom case (on my request) on Dutch Wikipedia, had made a dubious use of a particular reference. I addressed this on their talk page.
    2. Not long afterwards, I added an inquiry about whether (s)he and another account were in fact the same user. I provided a rationale for my suspicions, which included no personal information at all, beyond an assumption about a village linked to the user due to this village being mentioned in their username (i.e. "User: New Yorker")
    3. The user confirmed that the two accounts were indeed theirs, claiming that they had been forced to make a new account due to harassment by another user some time ago.
    4. I replied that this rationale seemed to be dubious given that no evidence of prior harassment could be found in the initial accounts very limited (< 50) contributions and due to the account remaining active alongside the new account; i.e. no "fresh start".
    5. I then did not pursue the matter further.
    6. The user then, by falsely accusing me of outing, personal attacks and harassment, contacted the administrators. In doing so, they falsely claimed that they had been outed, they falsely claimed to have been subject to personal attacks and they slyly and falsely used a fabricated backstory of prior harassment, whereby my discovery of the linked accounts would supposedly put a (non-existing) harasser back on their trail.
    7. I was then immediately blocked from editing this users talk page.
    8. I contacted the administrators via an unblock request when I discovered this one page block made it impossible for me to access the Wikipedia Library Project (WLP).
    9. The administrators who responded to my request, and understandably but mistakenly assumed that the users claim and fears about being revealed to their harasser were genuine, i.e. they assumed that harassment by another user had indeed taken place in the past and that by referencing the discovery of the two accounts being linked, I was (willfully) opening this user to more abuse.
    10. I explained on my talk page that this was not my intention at all and that my only concern was getting access to the WLP again and (later) with clearing my name. I signaled from the very start, that I did not mind not being allowed to edit this users' talk page and would gladly refrain from doing so in the future, should they request or demand this from me.
    11. For over a month I received no reply.
    12. When my unblock request was declined for administrative reasons (i.e. not receiving a reply/no decision being reached) I tried to explain my predicament on the Administrators noticeboard in the hope of receiving help.
    13. The cycle (and I'm sure this is partly due to me not presenting my case perfectly) appears to repeat itself, with an administrator again assuming that the supposed harassment by another user was real and that hence the very attempt to explain is harassment, even though I'm merely desperately trying to explain that I did not disclose personal information (per WP:Outing) to begin with and that no prior harassment of this user by another user took place either -- and hence I couldn't be endangering him by mentioning his double accounts.
    Again, I'm not blaming any of the administrators for this, they were lied to and/or had to act quickly. But please, look at this case now and see it for what it is. This is not about me willfully attempting to stop another user from making a fresh start (there was no fresh start, the accounts were used simultaneously) or outing them (I know nothing about this person save for what is clearly and obviously stated in their username and even that is merely speculation). I just want to be able to edit Wikipedia (not just this one) with the Wikipedia Library and clear my name. Vlaemink (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: I noticed you (I'm assuming Primefac) have redacted part of my post above. I don't think that's very fair, because it now makes it look as if I disclosed something very personal there, which I did not, but I also think it's a prime example of what I meant by the Kafkaesque nature of all of this: I gave the analogy of having assumed town a user was from, the same way one could/would assume a user named "New Yorker" would be from New York. You redacted that, fine ... but "New Yorker" is still his username. Anyone from Belgium will still be able to discern or assume she/he is from "New York". I mean, what are we doing here? This is what I meant when I asked what is reasonable to expect in this matter. Isn't this going beyond that? Is it really reasonable for a user called "New Yorker" to want no reference made anyone to the possibility that he or she is from New York? Is it reasonable to block someone for doing so in order to defend/explain themselves? Vlaemink (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I'm missing something, but I really don't see what Vlaemink did so terribly wrong here in connecting the two accounts? The lead of WP:CLEANSTART states The old account must be clearly discontinued and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior. and the entire section "Returning to previous articles and topics" warns that going back to your favourite articles will result in the accounts being connected. Briegelaer uses a similar username to their abandoned account and went straight back to the same articles they were previously editing, it's hardly surprising that someone noticed they were the same person.
    Vlaemink themselves seems to be misusing multiple accounts, RogerDE (talk · contribs) was created by Vlaemink as a "privacy" account and immediately proceeded to head off to the same article Vlaemink was editing, with Briegelaer noticing that they were the same person and connecting the accounts [16]. Getting involved in the same drama with a new account as your old one is not a valid clean start or privacy alt.
    I think both editors need to read WP:CLEANSTART and WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. If you're being harassed and want to start over you need to put some effort into making it non-obvious that you're the same person - you should use a completely different username avoid immediately editing the same articles you used to frequent. If you get involved in a dispute with someone you cannot create a "clean start account" or a "privacy alt" and re-join the editing as a new person - that is sock puppetry. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a minor note, when I created RogerDE (talk · contribs) (indeed intended to edit an article in peace after previous harassing by Briegelaer) I only did so, as he and another user had been wikihounding my edits. When I did this, I indicated right from the start [17], that this was an alternative account and used it to edit an article I had never edited before. Also, for those interested in cycling, the name wasn't very subtle: Roger de Vlaeminck. I managed to get in two edits before being 'outed' by the two I sought to avoid, and it has been a redirect to my original user page ever since. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The way that I see the situation is that you got involved in a dispute on the Dutch Wikipedia regarding the "Limburgish" article which made it all the way to Dutch Arbcom. You created a "clean start privacy account" and used it to edit the same articles on a different language project, and ended up getting involved in the same disputes with the same users. That does not look like a valid clean start or a valid use of a privacy alt, it looks to me like you avoiding scrutiny. If you wanted a privacy alt account you could use to edit without risk of running into Briegelaer you should have been avoiding topics that you knew they edited in where you previously ran into conflict.
    I recommended that you both read the policies on clean starting and appropriate uses of multiple accounts because in my opinion a lot of the behaviour by you two is getting very close to sock puppetry. Both of you seem to have got involved in drama related to the article on the Limbugish language on various projects, "clean started" then instantly gotten into the same drama again. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) 15.238 makes an interesting note, but I'm also a little confused reviewing. Are we indicating that if Vlaemink had not duplicated pairing the accounts after the first instance, they wouldn't have the PBAN? I get their concern that making an actual appeal (as opposed to an unblock request) without bringing up the basis for it is seriously tricky. They are entitled to pursue such a route - normally on-wiki pairing that someone figured out purely from on-wiki information is not normally restricted. If we don't want them to pursue this route because we'd like the appeal in private, perhaps we should ask arbcom to handle it as a private motion. Their sharing of info which is now surpressed could make it so that even if the other aspects are successfully appealed the sanction should remain. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose the IP is probably right about it not being a particularly smart move to edit that particular article with an alternative account, though I would like to emphasis that I did not do this to avoid scrutiny but rather to edit that particular article without being wikihounded/harassed. I know it's being the scope of this inquiry to include the (still pending) Arbcom case on Dutch Wikipedia (which I requested myself, red.) but a rather big part of it concerns the lack of respect WP:Cite and dubious use of sources. I very much stand on proper source use and using references, which is why the access to the Wikipedia Library Project is so important to me.
    @Nosebagbear: Thank you for tersely summarizing the conundrum I've found myself in, I'm very wordy myself. Vlaemink (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vlaemink, you keep using the analogy of New York. The location you name dropped is in the ballpark of 5-10 thousand times smaller than NY. Citing New York & New Yorker is a grossly disingenuous comparison.
    Access to the Wikipedia Library is only given to users in good standing. Fudging the question of your good behaviour just in order to regain your access to TWL is approaching the question from completely the wrong angle. Cabayi (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    In that case I will contact the Arbcom as soon as I am able to do so. As mentioned on this page, my alternative account already redirects to my main account. I have used it for no more than two edits in the past and I do not intent to use it in the future. I will also contact the Wikipedia Library Project as mentioned earlier, I sorry @Samwalton9 (WMF): I completely missed your comment. Vlaemink (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock request by Lallint

    Since we are now up to a 12-0 agreement in favour of unblocking, I'll go ahead and close as unblocked. There weren't any requests for additional restrictions to be added, and I couldn't spot any pre-existing partial restrictions (though they do still exist if so). Recurring points were an appreciation for the bluntness of the appeal and a corresponding highlight by almost every user that any future indefinite block is likely to be the last one. Please make the most of the opportunity and best of luck editing. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Procedural history: Lallint was blocked indefinitely in March 2022 by Ponyo, after a previous tempblock by ToBeFree. His appeal describes the circumstances fairly well; see his current talkpage and this previous version for further context. I revoked talkpage access in May 2022 for attempting to proxy edits. Last month, Ponyo and I both consented to Deepfriedokra restoring access to allow for a community appeal.

    Appeal: Copied from Lallint's talkpage:

    I have been blocked on Enwiki for a year and a half now. I've taken a step back from Wikipedia in the past few months to re-think my previous edits and behavior. For a while after my block I edited on simplewiki, and created a GA from a stub here, which, if I am unblocked, I will expand to about the size it is on enwiki. I was blocked on Enwiki after a year of disruptive edits hidden between genuine contributions, and the edit that caused my indefinite block was when I welcomed a user with a "cookie" template, who was blocked in 2007 for claiming responsibility for the disappearance of a girl who had gone missing and that they had disposed of the body. After my block for that, I claimed that it was an accident but it really wasn't. I made that edit intentionally because I thought it was funny, completely ignorant to how completely childish and disrespectful it was. I had a history of disruptive behavior, and I was also blocked two months prior for 7 days. After a day I requested an unblock, completely missing the point of the block. Then I requested for a partial unblock to participate in an Afd, and after another editor kindly let me, I took advantage of their good faith and stored my edits in a sandbox page. Then, in the talk page, I went on a completely unrelated tangent about my aspergers and how cool my city is. At the time, I knew the editors were assuming good faith, so I chose to be as immature as possible. I'm sorry to all the editors that I've taken advantage of, and I hope that you guys can rebuild your trust in me. Thank you all and I hope you consider my request.

    Further courtesy pings to Rosguill, Dreamy Jazz, Yamla, and RickinBaltimore for past administrative involvement on-wiki or on UTRS. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've tried to be objective above in summarizing the background. Turning to my own opinion, though, when I saw this appeal it was a big relief to see Lallint acknowledge what I had suspected since pretty soon after he started editing, which is that he was deliberately testing limits, not just showing poor judgment—a particular flavor of trolling that we don't see often, but is always hard to counter when we do, as it's not really contemplated in our doctrine of WP:AGF. On the one hand, that's a significant betrayal of the community's trust. On the other, it's not a trick you can pull off twice. For that reason, and based on my belief that anyone is capable of redemption, coupled with the fact that Lallint's disruption, while serious, was not targeted at any user, I support an unblock, for the simple reason that if Lallint gets into any drama going forward, there is not going to be any AGF; he will be reblocked and that block will be, quite likely, "indefinite as in infinite". Given that this is a user who has been able to do serious content improvement, I am okay with extending a bit of WP:ROPE and giving him one chance to show that he isn't that person anymore—noting that I will be the first in line to reinstate the block if there's anything even slightly disruptive. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock per tamzin's rousing speech.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Taking ownership for what you did, admitting you were wrong, and explaining how you would correct these actions is important. AGF does go a long way, and if any of the behavior that occurred in the past would to occur again, that's it. Don't make us look foolish for supporting this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1.5 years may be sufficient. I don't know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Note that Lallint has lots of warnings over on simple.wiki, see User_talk:Lallint/Archive_1. However, they've also received a barnstar over there. What swayed me here was, as RickinBaltimore points out, taking ownership of prior problems here. Good luck. --Yamla (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock. The unblock request seems like the user does understand what he did wrong, understands that it was childish, and wants to contribute positively. Seems like everything we look for in an appeal. I also checked over those warnings on simple, and they seem to be misunderstandings and growing pains while learning their style. I don't see any obvious behavioral issues there. I'm inclined to extend some good faith, with the understanding that if it is abused there isn't likely to be another chance. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock per Tamzin. While I have my doubts that Lallint has gained enough maturity in the time since their block to stop themselves from the crap that got them indeffed, and would not be at all surprised if they quickly make the WP:ROPE taut, as Tamzin says, we're not giving that much rope here, and when they were begging to be immediately unblocked I said they need to let their block stand for months, which is what they have done. They have not caused any havoc over at Simple, which at least shows they are capable of being consistently constructive when they so choose, and I hope that it is the case here. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock -- satisfies WP:Standard Offer and then some. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. That's a refreshingly open unblock request, which convincingly addresses both the disruption and the reasons for the disruption. Coupled with some good content work, and Tamzin's analysis, I'd be happy to see Lallint unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock per Tamzin's recommendation and Wikipedia:One last chance. I truly hope this editor contributes productively and without major problems in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Wikipedia:One last chance. Tamzin's analysis seems correct, but part of me wonders whether the "refreshingly open" request is just part of one last testing-the-limits hoorah. No matter, One last chance will sort it, as Tamzin highlights. DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ooh, you cynic... ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for a second chance. This is a well written, honest appeal. A year and a half seems like good length of time for this editor to have gained maturity. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User MKL123

    Problematic user? I don't know but this user in his edits tends to add stats on stats and interviews on interviews. This is not a website stats and an interview website either, rather a simple Encyclopedia. Plus, he tends to add <ref> link </ref>. This is not how it should be. Island92 (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Island92: First, please notify MKL of this thread, as is required. Second, a complaint or concern about another editor's conduct should be accompanied with evidence, usually in the form of relevant diffs. Both of these things are noted in the bright orange editnotice when you notice this page.
    Now, as to the merits (based on what I can see in MKL's contribs, since you've not pointed to any particular edits) your concerns seem to be regular content/style concerns. Bare-link references are discouraged but not on their own disruptive. Whether information like this merits inclusion is subjective, and should be discussed on talkpages.
    On the other hand, MKL has made over 3,000 edits and literally never edited their talkpage. In fact, they've only made 63 edits outside of mainspace. So that's not great, and maybe, once you notify MKL as required, they can address that apparent communication issue. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Close requested at WP:ITNC

    Could someone please close the various discussions involving Sinéad O'Connor. The whole thing has turned in a giant cluster bleep. She has been posted to RD, which I probably would not have done, but I'm not going to make a federal case out of it. More seriously, someone has taken it on themselves to break up the discussion and create a separate one for a blurb, after that was correctly taken off the table in the previous undivided discussion. It was quite obvious that there was no chance of any consensus for a blurb forming. The entire discussion is now confused with overlapping votes all over the place, and realistically this is not fixable. The bottom line is that O'Connor has been posted on the main page under RD and there was/is no realistic chance of a consensus forming for a blurb. Dividing the discussion was, to be blunt, disruptive. It's time to lower the curtain on this mess and move on. FTR I am INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This post is very blatant canvassing. Ad O, you oppose the blurb, it's highly inappropriate for you to ask fellow admins to shut down the discussion, especially since votes are still coming in (and especially since recent votes are tending to support a blurb). Even if you were going to request a close here, the close request should be neutrally worded. I'm rather surprised to see this. And fyi, the person who broke up the discussion is the same person who posted the RD. Levivich (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no canvassing. I stated very clearly that I am involved and irrespective of who broke up the discussion, it was disruptive and seriously inappropriate. There are overlapping votes spread all over the place and there would have to be an avalanche of pro blurb votes with few or no opposes to alter the very clear reality that this is a no consensus. The discussion is a confusing train wreck and should be closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note It looks like the separate discussion headers have now been removed. Unfortunately I think we may still have editors who have effectively multiple votes. Ugg. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You just voted oppose and now you posted a non-neutral message at AN asking fellow admins to close the discussion with your preferred outcome? Going so far as to accuse other editors who disagree with you of being disruptive? You're trying to win a content dispute by leveraging your status as an admin to ask other admins at the admin noticeboard to step in. Even if you weren't an admin, voting in an active discussion that is trending away from your vote preference, and then immediately requesting a close? That's not cool. And to accuse those who disagree with you of disruption is even more not cool. That you're an admin makes it even worse. You should know better, and I hope you don't do this again. Request closes at CR with neutrally worded requests. There's a section there for closes that need admins. I request you withdraw this and if you must, just go post a neutrally worded request at CR. Btw the separate discussion headers were useful to separate the discussion prior to RD posting from the discussion afterwards. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was disruptive and has resulted in considerable confusion. My position as an admin is neither here nor there as I am not using the tools. Any editor is within their right to request admin intervention to correct serious problems as long as they disclose any COI or involvement, which I did. You are of course free to disagree with my view, which clearly you do, and express your contrary opinion. At this point the separate headings have been removed and I would encourage an uninvolved admin to review the discussion for possible duplicate votes at a minimum. Any additional action I leave to their discretion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Closes are requested at WP:CR, not here at AN. That's what CR is for; why would you post here? And they need to be requested neutrally. You're not engaging with either of those two points.
    Let's also memorialize what happened here. 28 July 02:25, the RD was posted with a note that discussion can continue on the blurb. I posted a "support blurb" vote, and later at 05:33, I added this line: Sinead O'Connor's death made it to the front page of major papers in England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark Australia, Brazil, Argentina, United Arab Emirates, China, Canada, and the USA. BTW, that took me like an hour to collect. That's an hour of volunteer work just to write that sentence with those links.
    After that, 12 new votes came in (one person changed from a "comment" to a vote). Of those 12, 9 supported a blurb, and 3 opposed a blurb. One of those three is Ad O, who posted an oppose vote at 14:18. Then at 15:14, posted this canvassing close request. In total, not yet 24 hours have passed.
    What you're doing, Ad O, is trying to engineer a shut down of a discussion that is polling 9/12 in favor of a blurb over the past 12 hours or so. And you're doing it with a non-neutral message at AN accusing others of disruption. Dude, just vote, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't try and pull extra levers or leverage your social capital or disparage other editors as disrutpive, in order to engineer a result that you agree with. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only was it disruptive, but I'd argue that anyone in the discussion who's trying to impose their own rules or criteria for putting something on the main page is engaging disruptively. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad Orientem: The bottom line is that O'Connor has been posted on the main page under RD and there was/is no realistic chance of a consensus forming for a blurb. - How, under any reasonable definition of the word, can this announcement of yours not be WP:CANVASSING? You don't excuse yourself by disclosing you are WP:INVOLVED either; there is no exemption process for WP:INAPPNOTE canvassing by doing so that I know of. We know that consensus at ITN regarding significance, especially for death blurbs, is highly subjective and it can sometimes be a very complicated process to determine whether to post or to not post. If anything, if you want a real chance at hashing out a consensus either to post or to not post, what needs to be done is this item needs to be displayed on WP:CENT in a neutral fashion. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban proposal: Phanuruch8555

    Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fumikas Sagisavas: The user has been globally locked since October 2011. There is no reason to spend time on a community ban discussion of this user. -Niceguyedc (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... Why in the world would we do this? This user has been blocked for nearly 12 years now. They were blocked closer to the creation of Wikipedia than to today. How did you even find them? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Alt-medicine 2011 topic unban request Technophant

    I need some help formatting. The discussion is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%20talk:Technophant/Archive%203/#Topic_ban_from_Alternative Medicine. It was long ago and I’ve made numerous controversial edits. I'm dying from the consequences of undiagnosed Lyme disease and connections starting with my first EM rash 1975, brief hospitalization for “juvenile arthritis” before Lyme was public in 1979 improved spontaneously but some symptoms never went away typical to post Lyme syndrome.

    Then camping Memorial day 1991 and 1992 at Weedstock in high epidemic central Wisconsin. Acquired also mycoplasma fermentans incognitus from gulf war vet 1991. Then got lost in nation forest all night 1992 had 8 tick bites on my chest in the morning. Pulled off with fingers. Mouth parts left leaving cherry angiomas.

    My medical qualifications. Was a physician in four past lives. As a child I secretly read and understood my moms medical textbooks and self-educated mostly but did attempt to get a biotech option to my computer and electronics technician degree Technophant (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1167708673"