Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 14 sockpuppet investigations
- 21 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 15 Fully protected edit requests
- 2 Candidates for history merging
- 5 requests for RD1 redaction
- 39 elapsed requested moves
- 3 Pages at move review
- 8 requested closures
- 93 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 26 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Request to remove graphic content
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, how do I report graphic content on a wiki page? 77.102.37.56 (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- You may discuss it here, but it depends on the context. Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. If there is a graphic image that is inappropriate for the article it is on, or should be in a different location in the article, we can do something about that, but a graphic image can be present if it is relevant to the topic(such as an image of male anatomy in the article about it). 331dot (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- You may also discuss it on the article talk page, this isn't specifically an administrator issue necessarily. If you just don't want to see graphic imagery, there are ways to suppress the display of images(see WP:NOSEE) though they require creating an account. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Ruda Real
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real be deleted? Per discussions here and elsewhere, the person really did exist but just wasn't notable (this includes a link to their album which corresponds with the track listing given on Discogs). As there is proof of this person not being a hoax, I see no reason to archive it among other hoaxes (indeed, it has been removed from WP:LOHOW, meaning this page is no longer linked from anywhere). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be deleted (again) because that was the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruda Real. It was only restored from deletion and archived as a hoax per the request of a single editor. However, as you've pointed out, subsequent discussions raised doubts that this was ever a hoax and it was removed from LOHOW. I've deleted it again. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Three big discussions for Where is Kate?
We have Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 21#Where is Kate?, Talk:Where is Kate?#Requested move 21 March 2024 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (2nd nomination), all ongoing right now, and all affecting the same article. In case you'd not guessed, it's Where is Kate?.
Am I right in thinking that only one of these discussions should be open? Should we close the two that were started most recently, or is there an established order of precedence? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Liz has just closed the new AfD, which I think is correct as there was already an existing deletion review. I don't see why the move request can't continue, but obviously the deletion would have to be resolved before any move could take place. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- A move request with more than a dozen options feels more like a doomed RfC. I don't know how one would ever close it as anything other than no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's also the BLPN discussion, which seems the longest & most active (and, I think I see a consensus there). Most practical solution may be a new AfD (WP:XC-restricted, to avoid the obvious factors that lead to these BLPGOSSIP issues), or if admins are feeling particularly ballsy we could just go straight for the correct outcome and delete (based on BLPN consensus, WP:BLP, IAR if necessary), only recreating when (/if) it receives genuine secondary coverage, like academic analyses of the media phenomenon. DFlhb (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Starting a new AFD while the closure on the first AFD is being debated is just inviting chaos which is the last thing this debate needs. People need some patience for the process to work. I think it's possible that embarrassment or regret may be driving people to want to act quickly. Let the Deletion review run its course and see what its outcome is before launching into new discussions. DRV can always be closed early if it looks like a SNOW close. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The BLPN is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kate Middleton, and it appears to have been started before any of the three tht I linked in my first post. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the deletion review can be snow-closed, if an uninvolved editor is happy to check for consensus, so that we can move onto the third AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 19:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Negative stereotyping + accusing of a fellow editor of "misleading"
User:SLIMHANNYA has negatively stereotyped an entire race in the Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture page. Also, the user has claimed others of "obviously misleading" which is against the Wikipedia:Disruptive user under "False accusations". Kolossoni (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I used that expression because I thought it was a good analogy, and I apologize if it was a racist remark. I am not a native English speaker, and it seems there was a serious problem with the way I expressed myself. I will not use such language again. However, saying "obviously misleading" is not a false accusation. Please see the relevant talk page for more information.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
negatively stereotyped an entire race
Is this claim in reference to the kimchi juice comment? Because it seems pretty farfetched to say that analogy was some sort of defamatory comment. I don't see anything sanctionable here, just some misrepresentation by Kolossoni, who I also observe didn't bother to post the required notice to SLIMHANNYA's talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)- Unless you're an admin, your two cents hold no water here. Kolossoni (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Non-admins are welcomed to comment here, and if we're really going by your logic, I don't think non-admins have a say in whose comments hold weight in this noticeboard either.
- Could you elaborate on what, if any, personal attacks the user you have reported have made? The analogy with kimchi juice doesn't seem like
negatively stereotyp[ing] an entire race
to me, and the quotedobviously misleading
seems to be a comment on content and not other contributors. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)- "Kimchi" is a racist slur used by anti-Korean rhetoric propagators who stereotype the entire race as the "most commonly known food" of Korea. It is the equivalent of calling Mexicans "Salsa and Chips" or "Tacos" simply because their ethnicity is Mexican. The page was directly alluding to Koreans and their influence on Japanese history and the usage of "Kimchi juice" analogy to describe an entire race's genealogy is not only discriminating but also against Wikipedia's rules of keeping things civil and objective. Kolossoni (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Unless you're an admin, your two cents hold no water here." wrong Kolossoni. Admin have the tools to enforce the will of the community, we aren't the police or judges. The most helpful or insightful comments matter most, no matter who makes them. That said, I don't see how the kimchi comment was racist, even after your explanation, although I'm open to be convinced otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I can see where you are coming from, since using kimchi as an analogy for Korean people does seem to be inappropriate. (see wikt:kimchi#Noun) I don't think this raises to the level of sanctions though. They have apologized and said they won't use this language again. Let's try to assume good faith here, as I don't think the choice of analogy was intentionally used as a racist dog whistle. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- 0xDeadbeef, I just want to point out that there is a difference between directly calling a person a kimchi (much like calling a German a "kraut"), which is a clear slur and what the Wiktionary link supports, and the way in which SLIMHANNYA actually used it (i.e., talking about "kimchi juice"). It may not have been wisely chosen, but it's also not as far into inappropriate as Kolossoni has cast it in their version of how it was used. Grandpallama (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Stop with your gaslighting.
- Using "kimchi" to allude to Korean genealogy in regards to a topic on Koreans is highly inappropriate. The fact that "Kimchi juice" was used, not "Orange juice", "Lemonade" or any other average analogy that would be more appropriate shouldn't prevent criticism of misusing the word. Kolossoni (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Grandpallama: Agreed, thanks for making this point. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- 0xDeadbeef, I just want to point out that there is a difference between directly calling a person a kimchi (much like calling a German a "kraut"), which is a clear slur and what the Wiktionary link supports, and the way in which SLIMHANNYA actually used it (i.e., talking about "kimchi juice"). It may not have been wisely chosen, but it's also not as far into inappropriate as Kolossoni has cast it in their version of how it was used. Grandpallama (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have not called the individual a "racist" by any means. The term was brought up by other fellow members of Wikipedia. I only called out on the individual's negative stereotyping in which they have apologized. This was a safety measure in case the act continued. Kolossoni (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- This sort of escalation is unnecessary. For next time, try to resolve with the person on their talk pages. We are working in a diverse place with people from very different backgrounds, so it is important that we assume people are not here to do harm unless we can be convinced otherwise.
- In this case, you have implicitly claimed that SLIMHANNYA was a disruptive user, and by bringing the matter to here have suggested that admin actions were warranted. I don't believe either of that is true. Posting to this noticeboard can give people stress, and requires admins to invest time and energy to handle what is brought here. Please reconsider whether it is necessary to post here the next time you encounter cases like this. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I understand, but you must also take into consideration that the analogy was made in an article's talk page that revolves around Koreans that came out of nowhere. It is not difficult to think such claims as discriminatory especially without proper context, in which was not given.
- Like you said, it is difficult to figure out what background an individual is from, but at the same time, I doubt people would keep such negative stereotyping under the rug if it happened elsewhere. It was a hasty action on my part, but only in hindsight. I still believe a show of level of discrimination should be on high surveillance since any form of racism or negative stereotyping is not permitted on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it was a "mistake" by the individual or not.
- Thanks for the quick response though. Kolossoni (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I have not called the individual a "racist" by any means. The term was brought up by other fellow members of Wikipedia.
That's false. Not only did you use the term "racist", but you incorrectly recast what SLIMHANNYA actually said (you were the one who made a racist analogy in regards to the Korean people being "Kimchi" from the start which clearly screams "agenda"
) on the talkpage as part of a pretty massive assumption of bad faith even after they had apologized.the analogy was made in an article's talk page that revolves around Koreans that came out of nowhere
This is also untrue. Whatever your feelings about the analogy, it was clearly used to illustrate the point SLIMHANNYA was attempting to make. Multiple editors have now told you this wasn't a case ofracism or negative stereotyping
, so please stop characterizing it as such.- I would invite admins, though, to take a look at your userpage and talk, which feature some clear WP:BATTLEGROUND comments that might explain what is going on here.
- Your userpage states
Any baseless vandalism to propagate one's agenda will be manually reverted regardless of amount or length unless it's backed by proper citation alluding to a reputable source. Talks for dispute are always welcome, but come prepared though.
- Also on the userpage:
I absolutely DETEST Japanese nationalism, Chinese nationalism and Korean nationalism, so all you Nettouyos, Wumaos and Ilbes can buzz off.
- Complaints on the talkpage about WP requiring sources:
I have tried and tried again to help you with creating translated pages for the articles you've posted, but Wikipedia's strict criteria is starting to tire me out. . . I'm not so keen in doing another edit battle with the Wikipedia mods again, but if enough sources are available, I'll see what I can do to contribute.
- Your userpage states
- None of these are sanctionable, but I think there's a clear mentality here (combined with Kolossoni's two cents response to my initial comment) that shows an over-willingness to see WP as a place to fight/argue. I think they need a caution about their approach to other editors. Grandpallama (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Addendum: They just scrubbed their talkpage of a conversation where you can see Kolossoni frequently dipping into borderline uncivil comments. Not to mention that in scrubbing most of the conversation, they selectively kept only a portion of what the other user had written. TPO gives a lot of latitude around one's own talkpage in terms of what to delete/keep, but this feels like misrepresentation of the IP's comments. Grandpallama (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Kimchi" is a racist slur used by anti-Korean rhetoric propagators who stereotype the entire race as the "most commonly known food" of Korea. It is the equivalent of calling Mexicans "Salsa and Chips" or "Tacos" simply because their ethnicity is Mexican. The page was directly alluding to Koreans and their influence on Japanese history and the usage of "Kimchi juice" analogy to describe an entire race's genealogy is not only discriminating but also against Wikipedia's rules of keeping things civil and objective. Kolossoni (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Unless you're an admin, your two cents hold no water here. Kolossoni (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
After doing some more digging into edit histories, I have filed a case at SPI. I know there is a backlog right now, but perhaps a CU who has seen this AN thread would be willing to prioritize a check? I'm now suspicious this was really about a POV-pusher trying to use this noticeboard to silence opposition. Grandpallama (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Kolossoni, see WP:BOOMERANG. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- At a minimum, this looks like meatpuppetry. At worst, it is socking and trying to use AN as a tool to silence or remove someone who disagrees with your edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Report of User "McGamer YouTube" Promoting ISIS
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I am writing to report concerning behavior by the user "McGamer YouTube" on Wikipedia. Upon reviewing their contributions, I have observed a pattern of edits that appear to promote ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), a recognized terrorist organization. Additionally, the user's profile picture prominently features an ISIS flag, further indicating their support for this extremist group. Evidence of the user's behavior includes: |https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khawarji&redirect=no |https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahrar_al-Sham&action=history |https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Ayyub_al-Masri&action=history |https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Nujaba_TV&action=history |https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shurat_Islam |https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah_Shehade [1]https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MCGAMER_YOUTUBE Promoting terrorist organizations such as ISIS is a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies, and immediate action is warranted to address this issue. I urge the administrators to thoroughly investigate the user's activities and take appropriate measures to ensure the integrity and safety of Wikipedia's editing environment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Larrymhardy (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Large backlog at UAA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Need some admin eyes over there to address a large backlog of bot-reported usernames. I've boldly cleared out some obvious false positives, but many of them are indeed questionable and will need further evaluation. The bot list had grown to the largest I've seen in a long while. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- You don't need to be an admin to see that most of those reports aren't actionable, as most of the bot reports aren't because the purpose of the bot is to cast a wide net and catch anything that even might be a problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I blocked one account and noted a few that are false positives, but there's more to check through. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I stumbled upon 2a02:c7c::/32's block log today and am not sure what exactly I'm looking at. An indefinite partial /32 rangeblock, anon-only, for whack-a-mole responses until the page limit of 10 for such a block is reached? Is 2A02:C7C:3E09:A400::/64 related? Four pages were affected – do I now add them to the block?
This is strange. Does the block have to be indefinite? Sadly we can't see how many edits have been prevented by it, but my guess would be that for every prevented edit, another attempt was made to a non-blocked page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, there are 10 pages in the block already! Perhaps we can now start indefinitely blocking two /33s at the same time, and then four /34s for every page that needs to be added.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know the history of the block. 2A02:C7C:CB99:5F00:0:0:0:0/64 has made nonsense edits to Gin Wigmore three times in the last few days, and also edits to other articles which are outside my areas of interest. I was planning to partial range block the /64, and would have done so for a few days, but noticed the existing /32 block and decided to add to that, as other users of this SKY UK IP range are unlikely to be interested in the NZ singer.
- Clearly the /32 range has some problematic editors. It probably also has productive editors. I'm happy to remove my part of the block and apply it to the /64 for a limited period instead, and perhaps other admins who added to the indefinite block would consider doing the same.-Gadfium (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I re-examined the ranges for the targets I added; none of them need to apply to the entire /32 range, so you're free to clear Forest Gate Community School and List of Super Smash Bros. series characters from the block if someone wants to refactor it. That's a pretty big range, but so far I haven't seen any LTAs that seem to be bouncing across the entire /32 (Jefté and Super Smash could be addressed with a /39 range, and Deglet Nour can be addressed with a /64 range). I wouldn't impose an indefinite block on a range without discussing it with other involved admins; even for really bad ranges, it's not a big deal to renew every few years. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- My contribution was adding Talk:British Post Office scandal & Talk:World Book Day to the block. Personally I would not have made an indefinite block, and I had misgivings about adding to it, but it seemed more straightforward to just add to the existing block than anything else. Perhaps it would have been better if I had instead opened a discussion, as ToBeFree has now done.
- Looking at the editing histories of the two pages I have mentioned I can't see any reason for a block of more than /64. I am much inclined to think my decision to use a wider block was due to evidence which made me think that the edits,were from someone who had also been active on other pages, using a wider IP range, but at present I am very short of time, and can't check the history to find what that evidence was. For now I intend to just remove my part of the block, but I may come back to this discussion when I have more time. JBW (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I removed my block as well and restored the previous settings, as it seems my addition changed the duration to indefinite. Widr (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The indefinite-ness (indefinity?) of the block was the main reason why I started a discussion instead of just thinking "well, it will expire anyway, and if it's really needed, someone will renew it". Thanks everyone
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The indefinite-ness (indefinity?) of the block was the main reason why I started a discussion instead of just thinking "well, it will expire anyway, and if it's really needed, someone will renew it". Thanks everyone
- I removed my block as well and restored the previous settings, as it seems my addition changed the duration to indefinite. Widr (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia admins need to all take a course in IPv6. A /32 covers millions of users and even /64s can have multiple innocent customers behind a router for example in houses of multiple occupation. And with ipv4 address exhaustion hundreds of computers can be behind an ipv4. I think ip blocking should be phased out with more focus on semi protection and edit filters. 77.103.193.166 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC).
Abusive use of Twinkle
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I've recently made a small edit, in good faith, which was quickly reverted by a user who, apparently, is using Twinkle. No message or attempt to contact me was made prior to this revert, but I did get my personal Talk page soiled by an entry that accuses me of Disruptive Editing, and threats of me being banned.
After visiting that user's own Talk page, and scrolling all the way to the bottom, I realize I'm not the only one being affected by this behaviour. At least two other people have actively complained about spontaneous reverts, but others may have remained silent. Basically, the user in question simply reverts people's edits, assumes Disruption or Vandalism, and never tries to communicate with his targets before reverting their edits.
I believe this is a form of abuse and not how Twinkle is meant to be used. How should I proceed in a situation like this? I never had to report anyone on this platform before, so some guidance would be welcome.
Note: I'm not naming the user here because I don't know if the situation warrants it, and I'd like some feedback before "naming and shaming" (so to speak).
Thank you. Raven-14 (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- You have not notified the reported of this thread; I have done so. And you are required to name who you have a concern with, which is easy to ascertain based on the talk page notice, and that was Vif12vf. As I'm not in the topic area, I have no say on the dispute itself. Nate • (chatter) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I explained why I haven't mentioned any names, and that was because I was NOT reporting anyone. I was asking for information and advice. You, apparently, did not understand my message and acted according to your assumption. If the information received was that there's nothing to be done, no report would go forward, and a conflict would've been avoided - but through your actions, a further conflict is now inevitable. Raven-14 (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
[Y]ou are required to name who you have a concern with
, emphasis mine. Your message was understood, but if you wanted to keep things anonymous, you should have gone directly to an admin to ask for advice. If you post on a public noticeboard, it's not fair to the other editor to deny them a chance to explain and/or defend themselves. Your version/narrative can't be the only version/narrative. Grandpallama (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I explained why I haven't mentioned any names, and that was because I was NOT reporting anyone. I was asking for information and advice. You, apparently, did not understand my message and acted according to your assumption. If the information received was that there's nothing to be done, no report would go forward, and a conflict would've been avoided - but through your actions, a further conflict is now inevitable. Raven-14 (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't generally expected to notify someone before reverting an edit. After your edit was reverted, the proper course of action would have been for you to start a discussion on the article's talk page to resolve the content dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I posted this based on the text that appears under the Wikipedia Twinkle page, where the Abuse sections says:
- -
- "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith.
- If a change is merely "unsatisfactory" in some way, undoing/reverting should not be the first response."
- -
- This is why I brought the issue here, to get clarification. Raven-14 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that WP:TWINKLE is neither a policy nor a guideline. The other editor might argue that your change was inaccurate, thus not constructive. Please, take it to the article talk page and work it out between you. Schazjmd (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's nothing to discuss on that article Talk page because it's not an issue with content dispute, but rather with a user's attitude.
- Put simply, I'd like to know if Wikipedia is meant to be a friendly place where people talk things out before action, or if it's a place where some users can just act like they own the place.
- If it's the former, then I believe some users are acting in an abusive manner. If it's the latter, then I might as well quit Wikipedia altogether. I've been here since 2010 and never had an argument with anyone. So I don't appreciate being accused of disruption and threatened to be banned by other people when they feel like it.
- The opinion of an Admin would be welcome. Raven-14 (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- "The other editor might argue that your change was inaccurate, thus not constructive." they wouldn't be allowed to use twinkle in that circumstance. You use twinkle when something is disruptive, if its just inaccurate/not constructive its not a tool you can use. They can revert on their own, but using the tool there is actually kind of abusive. Let me put it this way: both of them can be in the wrong (but neither to the point where we need to be talking about it on a noticeboard). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that WP:TWINKLE is neither a policy nor a guideline. The other editor might argue that your change was inaccurate, thus not constructive. Please, take it to the article talk page and work it out between you. Schazjmd (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I've recently made a small edit
Are you talking about this edit? That might be small in terms of text changed, but it's a pretty major edit, in general. Changing the orientation of a political party isn't usually the sort of thing one does without getting consensus, and certainly not after being reverted. Since you brought up Twinkle guidelines, any Twinkle user would be justified in considering that a disruptive (rather than constructive) edit, as well as in questioning if it were made in good faith. It's also clear Twinkle was used because there was an intervening edit in between your initial edit and the revert that also needed to be undone. Grandpallama (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)- I'd also like to point out that Raven-14 later reverted themselves, effectively restoring the article to the same version as me. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide wikilinks, usernames, and WP:DIFFs if you'd like this report to be actionable. I could go digging in your contribs looking for this information, but in my opinion you should present this information clearly so that other editors don't need to spend a bunch of time researching. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikilinks
- UserNames
- - Raven-14
- - Vif12vf
- WP:DIFF
- The point of this report is that the user Vif12vf is in the habit of reverting people's edits without any sort of prior communication, and then invades user's Talk pages with accusations of bad faith edits, and threats of banning.
- There are certainly more friendly ways to deal with an edit you don't think should've been made.
- As mentioned before, I'm not the only target. I can't speak for other users, and don't know if they wish to complaint as well, but Vif12vf's talk page reveals I'm not the only one to be greeted in the same way.
- I'm obviously the most interested party here, but I'm also thinking that if Vif12vf behaviour continues, there will be many users rightfully aggrieved by his unfriendly attitude.
- A further reminder that I've been on wikipedia for fourteen years, and never had an issue with anybody. In my view, the user should've tried to talk to me first, ask if I had a source for the edit, and try to work things out politely, rather than what he opted to do.
- If the information listed above isn't enough, please let me know.
- Thank you. Raven-14 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment the OP made a bold unsourced edit that was reverted. Instead of starting a discussion about it (per WP:BRD), they reverted the revert with an edit summary that makes no sense (according to them, only knowledgeable editors can revert unsourced/unexplained changes), they accused the other editor of vandalism (in the edit summary of the second revert) and then went through Vif12vf's talk page to look for something that will help them build a case for ANI. If that wasn't bad enough, they also canvassed a couple of editors (see diff and diff). M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. In fact, it looks like all of their article edits from the past few days have been unsourced orientation changes to Portuguese political parties. Pretty close to the very definition of disruptive behavior. The editor is so inexperienced (despite the repeated protestations otherwise) that suggesting a boomerang sanction seems severe, but they need a firm admonition to bone up on core policies...like sourcing. Grandpallama (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I never claimed to be experienced editor.
- I said I was here for fourteen years and never had a problem with any other user.
- Please, note the difference.
- Thank you. Raven-14 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- The issue isn't, and never was, about whether my original edit was good or bad. In fact, I reverted the page back myself, to stop the reversion war.
- The issue is the aggressive way the other user opted to address his issue with the edit. Were the roles reversed, I would've contacted him before doing any reverts, and tried to be polite about it (assuming good faith, as is suggested all around this site) - not accuse him of anything or threaten him with being banned.
- I'd appreciate if people focused on the issue of the user's behaviour, rather than the straw man of "but what about the quality of the OPs edits". Raven-14 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. In fact, it looks like all of their article edits from the past few days have been unsourced orientation changes to Portuguese political parties. Pretty close to the very definition of disruptive behavior. The editor is so inexperienced (despite the repeated protestations otherwise) that suggesting a boomerang sanction seems severe, but they need a firm admonition to bone up on core policies...like sourcing. Grandpallama (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you post here, your conduct will be examined too. In this case, it appears that the behavioral problem lies with you, not the person you're complaining about. Acroterion (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Closure of ANI discussion
I ask that an uninvolved administrator close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Follow up from VPM. Discussion in the main two threads has slowed to a near-halt, and the subsection I opened to ask for closure quickly turned into heavily-involved participants relitigating the debate. Resolution before the thread is archived would be preferable. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- A good place to request closures is WP:ANRFC. The section "Topic ban for Thmazing" looks like a straightforward close for someone (maybe me if I get time and if my one comment in the Rachel Helps discussion doesn't make me INVOLVED). The section "Topic ban proposal for Rachel Helps" looks a bit trickier. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Forgot there was an "Administrative discussions" subsection at CR; now posted there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
User openly admits that their edits were made for an organization in return for possible compensation
User:Suriyanarayana admits that they edit on behalf of the organization called BCCI, as seen here:
As seen in the diff, they say "You undid an official piece of work I did for the authorities within the BCCI".
They also go on to say, "However, I humbly request you to not remove critical information that plays a factor for fan following and hence has financial ramifications".
Not sure what they mean here, but they seem to be claiming that they edit on behalf of BCCI for advertising or promotion.
(Wayfarer Pacifist (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC))
- In case anyone's wondering, the edits in question were made to Kolkata Knight Riders and probably other articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The last line in their comment is worrying -
Failure to do so will result in you being reported to Wikipedia and authorities in BCCI.
There's a hint of WP:NLT pressure there. Ravensfire (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)- (ec) "Failure to do so will result in you being reported to ... authorities in BCCI". Not a legal threat as such (since the BCCI is not a court or other legal entity). However, this is still a threat, and as such is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Fix mistake with protection
Over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias I do not see the little lock emblem up in the top right corner, and yet when I try to edit, a 30/500 banner suddenly warns me of potentially being blocked for doing so; which I, apparently, could. Maybe I'm mistaken, but this makes little sense to me. Maybe remove protection entirely and let me fix the formatting issues? Biohistorian15 (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- The article is not protected. The banner is warning you that unless you meet certain qualifications, you must not edit it. You do not meet those qualifications.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Biohistorian15 (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
DYK at 2-a-day
WP:DYK has moved to 2-sets-a-day, which means we will need more admin to help promote preps to queues. Admin instructions are located at WP:DYKAI, and I recommend installing WP:PSHAW, which automates many of the technical steps. Any help with is appreciated, and questions can be asked at WT:DYK. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a review of my decision to remove extended confirmed user rights from an editor
See User talk:Doug Weller#Grievance Regarding Revocation of Extended Confirmed User Rights. I thought that this had been amicably settled here[2]but obviously not as User:BlackOrchidd has replied talking about escalating, as is their right. It now seems best for me to ask other opinions. I know I made a mistake is mentioning minor edits as the reason when I removed them, I should have said trivial edits as they clearly weren't what we formally call minor edits. Pinging User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Sean.hoyland as they took part in the discussion on my talk page. As always when I take normal Administrative actions I'm ok with my actions being reversed, I know I'm not perfect. :} Doug Weller talk 07:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Advice sought on personal attacks in AfDs
As an AfD closer, I occasionally come across personal attacks by people who are offended by an AfD nomination, and sometimes I act on them. I recently was strongly criticized for blocking somebody for what I considered a personal attack in an AfD, but which almost everybody else who commented considered not to be one. So now I'd like to take the advice of the community and particularly fellow admins to recalibrate my civility sensor, as it were.
In another AfD I am now faced with, a high school radio station was nominated for deletion for lack of notability. One of the responses read in relevant part: "Outright deletion achieved through consensus in name only, built on a nomination intended to promote systemic bias, would solely benefit the desires of those editors who appear more interested in defining what's notable than reflecting what's notable." Then they go on to complain about a "group of SPAs unafraid to edit-war and WP:OWN content". The editor who made this comment has no prior blocks, but several complaints about personal attacks on their talk page. (I'm not naming the editor or the AfD at issue, as I don't want to drag anyone into the spotlight unwarrantedly.)
Now, my assessment is that alleging without evidence that the nominator "intend[s] to promote systemic bias" through their AfD is a personal attack, particularly in view of WP:ASPERSIONS. But, as noted above, my assessment may be out of line with community consensus. What do others think? Sandstein 17:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:Aspersions are repeated claims of wrongdoing without evidence, not a single one. If somebody is claiming something that you think requires evidence, ask them to provide evidence. If they are unable to do so, then tell them they cannot repeat such claims without evidence. nableezy - 17:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that User:RadioKAOS did not cover themselves with glory in that discussion, but AingGF, in another light it sounds like railing against the AfD 'system' rather than directed at any one individual. And it's true that 'enthusiastic amateurs' can flock to school AfDs like moths to a flame occasionally. I think it was a good idea to close it before posting here, though. ——Serial Number 54129 18:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Reporting @Juli Wolfe
Reporting this user @Juli Wolfe
Trying to delete articles that I've contributed to in bad faith. This user is disruptive and needs to be removed.
I donate to Wikipedia insane amounts of money and do not want to see users like this on the platform. Please delete and remove @Juli Wolfe Yfjr (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- First off, when coming to WP:AN you need to realize your own actions will be under scrutiny. Including where you called another editor a clown and tried to vandalize their user page. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Obvious boomerang block for incivility, given the diffs provided above. JustarandomamericanALT (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- (after edit conflicts) I have not looked into the matter, but I must say that the amount of money that you donate to the WMF (nobody donates anything except time to Wikipedia) is both unknowable and irrelevant to an editor's presence here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- This report seems a bit exaggerated. Juli Wolfe nominated a single article for deletion, and Yfjr's only contribution to that article was adding an image. Yfjr's comments at the AfD and Juli Wolfe's talk page are overly aggressive. Schazjmd (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- For clarity, I had warned Yfjr about personal attacks prior to their most recent edit at the AfD and this report. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)