Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	6	16	138	160
TfD	0	0	1	1	2
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	9	19	28
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

• 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 99 sockpuppet investigations
• 24 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 5 requests for RD1 redaction
• 43 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 32 requested closures
• 63 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 33 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (44 out of 7879 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin OTR-21 Tochka 2024-06-20 20:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Kyiv strikes (2022–present) 2024-06-20 20:26 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Mykolaiv strikes (2022–present) 2024-06-20 20:22 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Kherson strikes (2022–present) 2024-06-20 20:18 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Battle of Vuhledar 2024-06-20 20:14 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Battle of Mala Tokmachka 2024-06-20 20:10 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Battle of Huliaipole 2024-06-20 20:06 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant crisis 2024-06-20 20:03 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Tehran 2024-06-20 19:15 2024-07-20 19:15 edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Thumb Cellular 2024-06-20 04:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup final 2024-06-20 04:00 2024-06-27 04:00 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Xelia Mendes-Jones 2024-06-20 03:29 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack 2024-06-19 21:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Shadia Abu Ghazaleh 2024-06-19 19:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Battle of Bucha 2024-06-19 12:55 indefinite edit,move Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AXXXXK 2024-06-19 08:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ToBeFree J Williams 2024-06-19 04:09 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Writers Against the War on Gaza 2024-06-18 22:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the Netherlands 2024-06-18 21:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Municipal resolutions for a ceasefire in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 21:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case University of Texas at Austin stabbing 2024-06-18 21:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Palestinian sports during the 2023-2024 Israeli invasion of Gaza 2024-06-18 20:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2024 2024-06-18 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Reaction of university donors during Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case European Union reactions to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-18 20:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Akash Anand 2024-06-18 19:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated TomStar81 TJ Monterde 2024-06-18 18:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Template:Getalias2/core 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2508 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Getalias2 2024-06-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2511 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Jain temples, Pavagadh 2024-06-18 10:32 2024-07-18 10:32 edit,move Persistent vandalism Black Kite Rick and Morty: Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty – Go to Hell 2024-06-18 02:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Heart of Rickness 2024-06-18 02:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Crisis on C-137 2024-06-18 02:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Rick and Morty: Infinity Hour 2024-06-18 02:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Sukhoi Su-57 2024-06-17 20:07 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Meragram 2024-06-17 17:18 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Union Council Khot 2024-06-17 17:17 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ivanvector User talk:Aviram7/Editnotice 2024-06-17 16:20 indefinite edit,move user request UtherSRG Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Talk:Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article Ad Orientem Timeline of the 2014 Gaza War 2024-06-17 02:28 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Elli DWYE-FM 2024-06-16 21:40 indefinite create Liz DWIP-FM 2024-06-16 21:39 indefinite create Liz

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)

Hello @Philipnelson99 thank you for reverting back my talk page to normal. And thank you everyone for stepping in, This user @Yfjr has been using personal attacks towards me for no reason, and mentioning things like if I try and edit any articles that "he will have me removed from Wikipedia" saying things like that under my talk page. And if you take a look at my contributions I contribute very well and fairly to help make articles better and then this user creates this thread under the Administrators' noticeboard for zero reasons claiming that I am "trying to delete articles contributing to bad faith, and that I am being disruptive". Which you can see is clearly not true, my mission to to continue to to make meaningful contribution whereas this random user has no user page is, trying to say because of the use of their "claimed" donations they can enforce editors off the website, using personal attacks seen here calling me a clown, single handedly making edits adding certain images that are copyright violations under articles like Luca Schnetzler & Pudgy Pengins. It's safe to say that this new User @Yfjr is potentially a troll and needs to stop.

@JustarandomamericanALT @Phil Bridger @Schazjmd @Lepricavark @CambridgeBayWeather What should I do now with this thread noticeboard that the troll @Yfjr made under my name? Thanks guys, Juli Wolfe (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything further. It's clear that this was a frivolous report. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Obvious boomerang indef 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)

Support boomerang indef of OP for trying to use their purported donations to influence these proceedings. Yfjr, your sense of entitlement is pathetic to those of us who have donated countless hours of our lives to this project, a far more meaningful contribution than you will ever make. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The single edit you made to Luca Schnetzler was to add an image that was a copyright violation. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Yfjr, I must say that I simply have came across the article for "Luca Schnetzler" that was newly made simply had false information in the career part of the article, all I did was correct it. Making edits to Wikipedia you must have notable articles cited for things placed. And you decided to Report me for being disruptive? Is quite I must say outlandish. And not to mention you called me a "clown"? For what? Following the rules and making Wikipedia a better place?@Yfjr Juli Wolfe (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You nominated an article for deletion because you “thought” that a fact is false, when it fact it was true.

It is shocking to see how many came to your support despite making my case very clear.

You have not done your research on Luca Schnetzler and made a false report and nominated the article to be deleted.

This should be punishable considering you never even took the time to review what you are reporting, thoroughly.

It honestly embarrasses me to say I’m part of this community after seeing the few people who were quick to respond in such a haste and unfair matter.

I will no longer be donating to Wikipedia and will be reporting all the users who took action to reverse my reports which were made in good faith.

I’m passionate enough about Wikipedia to stand and defend articles I’m passionate about and contributed to.

you will not take that away from me.

You deserve to be banned for your lack of awareness and thorough research before nominating articles to be deleted @Juli Wolfe

You are a literal danger to this platform, I am the one speaking up against you. You are not allowed to take this and turn it against me. 2001:1970:4DA3:D300:0:0:0:7C56 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Fairly certain this is just @Yfjr editing logged out... Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It honestly embarrasses me to say I’m part of this community you aren't a part of this community. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow! you are still here?.. Thinking logging out would we wouldn't know it was you... Listen this person or whoever you are working for or even if it's you paying for press WILL NOT get you on Wikipedia so you can continue trying... You are going against Wikipedia's rules!! And I wont stand for that as to why I opened up a "discussion" to see if it's notable. Since you made things worse gonna make sure you don't get it & I can definitely speculate that you are associated with that said individual in CA/LA wherever you/he is... Plus you are trying to use the use of your purported donations to go against certain rules, you thinking you are entitled to is piteous to those of us who have donated countless hours of our to actually make this website a better place. Juli Wolfe (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

In retrospect, the hypocrisy is a little staggering. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, this whole thing felt off to me after viewing the interactions between Juli Wolfe and Yfjr. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support boomerang indef. The donations' joke tipped the balance. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Hasn't this cryptospammer been blocked yet? Why not? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• I blocked Yfjr indefinitely. If Yfjr hadn't attempted to vandalize someone's user page, I could see starting off with timed blocks or even warnings, but the totality is just a bit too much, I think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• The OP target has been blocked for two weeks for socking. That said, the AfD has been NAC by an obviously involved participant, for incorrect reason. (Blocked for two weeks, not banned). The way I see it the close should be undone, and the sock vote stricken. I’d do this myself but I don’t think I’ve dug deep enough into it to be 100% sure, and I’m about to disappear for 3-4 days, so if I muck it up it’ll just make it harder to rectify. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've reopened it. As you say they were involved and the nominator was not banned. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  A short block (two weeks) for socking to vote in the same AFD is extremely generous. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  @78.26: The OP is Yfjr, not Juli Wolfe. --JBL (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• @JayBeeEll: you are absolutely correct, I have rectified. Thanks. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

What's going on here?

I'm beginning to think that this whole thing needs more eyes. Juli Wolfe's talk page access should probably be revoked since she's using it to pursue a battleground campaign against DIVINE, who merits some scrutiny as well for trying to close the Luca Schnetzler AfD despite being the article creator. Meanwhile, with Juli blocked for socking, Bhivuti45 has taken up the crusade by opening Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DIVINE and taking two of DIVINE's article creations to AfD (1, 2). Curiously, Bhivuti45 had not edited in two months prior to wading into the middle of this dispute. At this point, it's not clear which of these editors, if any, are acting in good faith. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I havent checked up on Bhivuti45, but I'm pretty sure that none of the other protagonists are editing in good faith. The fact that Juli Wolfe has been blocked for sockpuppetry doesn't mean that Yfjr and DIVINE have been cleared of any wrongdoing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

They seem to be parrying accusations of socking, meatpuppetry, and UPE back and forth. Maybe they are all guilty. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This is honestly extremely worrying as there is a lot of missing context. Both articles are clearly notable and were instated at the same time.

The user @juli wolfe saw something in the article that she didn’t approve of.

then she nominated the article for deletion falsely.

this is what caused this whole ordeal.

editors should not be harassed whatsoever and these things need to be resolved more amicably. 199.7.157.86 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

No, the article subjects are not "clearly" notable so there is no fault attached to nominating them for AfD, which is where things are usually resolved amicably. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You can bump up the article i don’t have any issue but as a creator of the article its my responsibility to defend them. If it weren’t notable or didn’t seem to be notable i would have not created those articles. But the act which i have been around and the mental pressure which i am handling without any wrongdoings is really not that good. I cannot agree on upe just because of someone’s personal assumptions again and again if i haven’t especially done UPE and yes i also don’t know what’s going on here and why this personal attack on me. DIVINE 04:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

And about closing the AFD discussion: Yes maybe i did mistake there which i can agree on and two wikipedians told me about that i closed because the sock were block but i forgot to check the word where i was involved. I close that on good faith but another editor re-opened it which i don’t have any problem with. And about good faith i have contributed alot of my time to wikipedia while fighting with vandalism or reviewing new pages which i got award of too. But due to some dispute on ANI my NPR was revoked long back and due to that circumstances i asked my Rollback and PCR to be revoked. Thankyou if anyone need to know anything you can ping me now i will just be in peace with my personal life. Have a good day DIVINE 04:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

DIVINE, every day I review dozens of AFDs and while I know it is not a good feeling to have an article you created nominated for a deletion discussion, I'd estimate that 95% of the time it is not personal. An editor stumbles upon an article that they don't believe meets the standards of sourcing demonstrating notability which is expected of main space articles. That other 5% is when an editor notices that there is a possible problem with an editor's page creations and does target their articles for review but that is not what happened here. I don't know anything about your "personal life" and why you have brought that up or your revoked permissions or why you think a discussion on two blocked editors is a personal attack on you. Editors were saying that you shouldn't have closed that AFD but you were not the subject of the discussion here. It's fine to defend an article you created in a deletion discussion but this AN discussion was about two other editors (and possibly some IPs) and I thought had reached a natural conclusion was going to be archived soon until your recent comments. In a roundabout way, you admit that the AFD closing wasn't a good idea and so, if I were you, I'd step away from this noticeboard and go back to your own editing routine. If you were seeking support from your fellow editors on your work, AN/ANI is the last place I'd go to find that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• DIVINE has been a paid editor since oh so long ago. This just looks like rival UPE farms fighting, if you ask me. One of the editors DIVINE was coordinating with once upon a time, Ozar77, was determined to belong to the Vivek.k.Verma farm. Which group DIVINE belongs to or if they belong to any group, I do not know. But they have created articles for Nepalese subjects, Indian subjects and Western subjects. Now, that can happen with actors and musicians, sure, but minor businesses and businesspeople? I see that they even tried their hand at declaring one of their clients. What a coincidence that the one editor I had been accusing of UPE for five years happened to get a paid job! The harassment of OP with socks and IPs sounds familiar. The last time DIVINE was trying to get me removed from Wikipedia[1], there was an off wiki campaign to find out my identity with assistance from journalists and Nepali Wikipedia admins.(still live:[2][3][4][5],[6]) If you noticed that one of those gentlemen was named Prakash Neupane, you might find these interesting:[7][8] You may also want to search for "Prakash Neupane" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurav456/Archive. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
  • There's surely enough here to CU compare Yfjr with DIVINE. You will note that, when I was taken to ANI back in 2019 by DIVINE, it was over my dispute with Ozar77, not DIVINE. Who knows why? Maybe they just forgot to switch accounts.[9] — Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

    Doxing is a big NO! If you have any further evidence regarding socking, please post at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DIVINE. Regards, Bhivuti45 (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

    That's... not doxing. Sheesh. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

    Right, a failed doxing attempt[10][11]. Bhivuti45 (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

    My mistake. I thought you were accusing Usedtobecool of doxing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Lepricavark I am sorry you had this feeling but I am not here to carry a crusade against DIVINE or anyone else. I genuinely stumbled upon his AfD and shocked to see such a promotional article about a non-notable individual was created by an experienced editor like DIVINE. That was a red flag so I asked him to use AfC. Then Juli Wolfe pinged me on their talk page and provided me with the diffs. That grew my interest and I am pretty sure Yfjr is a sock and there may be more. So, far I only opened AfD for 2 of his articles that I think are not passing the criteria and opened a SPI case and informed about UPE on the Spam Talk page. If you find anything problematic then let me know. Bhivuti45 (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  Your first edit back after a 2-month absence is timestamped at 18:47 29 March. You voted in the Schnetlzer AfD at 18:53, having already concluded that it was a UPE creation. Within three minutes, you were draftifying the Pudgy Penguins article. Now I'm aware that coincidences do happen from time to time, but your claim that you just happened to stumble across those pages is stretching the limits of my AGF beyond the breaking point. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  I cannot help with that, sorry because what I did so far based on my findings, align with the guidelines. You are free to report me if you think I acted in bad faith. However, I am finding it surprising that a frivolous thread was open by a seemingly sock @Yfjr (after 7 years of absence) and now what @Usedtobecool has posted with diffs, specially[12] and [13], they don't merits some scrutiny for closing a AfD but a lot more for possible violation of Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use given the coordination with other UPE farms that are already blocked. Bhivuti45 (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Bhivuti has suddenly become very interested in AFD, participating in 36 different AFD discussions over the past 3 days despite never having participated in one before. (afd stats). Their participation speed indicates to me that they are highly unlikely to be interacting with sources, which is reflected in the bulk of their AFD comments being a couple words, saying that an article fails a guideline without saying how. [14] occurs 60 seconds after [15], [16] 69 seconds later, [17] 46 seconds after that, [18] 44 seconds later, followed by the Schnetzler AFD [19] 2 minutes and 34 seconds later. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, I am interested in AfDs now but I do check the sources, not in all cases but in some cases when I feel it is necessary after looking at the article's contents, for instance[20] or [21] etc. Bhivuti45 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for review of conduct dispute

• Mistamystery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, could an administrator please review this discussion regarding a conduct dispute. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, admins, please do so. And when you do, be sure to look at the history of the page in question, where it will be seen that User:IOHANNVSVERVS has been editing warring with at least two or three other users, in spite of acknowledging that they are in a contentious topic area. Wp:TE and WP:BATTLE may apply; it's not usually useful to inform editors with 11-years tenure that competence is required!

Talking of competence good faith, and despite the massive orange box in this editing window advising that When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page, you did not manage this; I have now done so. ——Serial Number 54129 14:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

CIR is a valid question whenever an editor argues that the expulsion and flight was nonviolent (and removed the word "violent" from the article), regardless of how old the account is. Levivich (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

But not when an editor removes unsourced political assertions from a CT article per ONUS. ——Serial Number 54129 15:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: to clarify, from an editorial point of view I agree with the premis; it seems hard to achieve the former without the latter. ——Serial Number 54129 15:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

One might say that because all expulsion is inherently violent, the "violent" in "violent expulsion" is redundant, and if that were the rationale given, it might not have led to this content dispute. But where the given rationale is that violence wasn't a significant part of the expulsion and flight, well that's just either ignorance or propaganda, and it's alarming when the person claiming the Nakba wasn't violent is accusing others of POV pushing or OR. As someone said on the talk page, let's see an example of a source talking about one of these mythical nonviolent expulsions.

This is one of those examples where on the surface one sees edit warring and a content dispute, but in fact, one person is with the sources and the other person is not -- which in the real world we call "being wrong." And as we all know, "BRIE": being right is everything. Levivich (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that IOHANNVSVERVS seems to demonstrate battlefield tendencies, but wrt the rest, you're preaching to the choir. Although the term casus belli would be as well used in the article body as well as in the lead—which, remember, doesn't need citations if the assertion is contained in the body. And while a particularly political article such as this might suggest using a citation ('material likely to be challenged' etc), if we were to follow that, then the entire lead would be cited in every sentence. That may or may not be a good thing, of course, but it would attract even more attention, albeit primarily from the MOSheads I guess. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 15:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"And while a particularly political article such as this might suggest using a citation ('material likely to be challenged' etc), if we were to follow that, then the entire lead would be cited in every sentence."

Almost every sentence in the six paragraphs of the lead currently does have an inline citation, many of them even have multiple inline citations and with direct quotes from the sources showing undisputably that the content is well sourced - something which seems to be required to prevent unjustified removals like we've seen here.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The idea that the information is unsourced is not true; it doesn't have an inline citation but it is doubtlessly supported by the list of references which the article is based on. As I alluded to on the talk page discussion, finding reliable secondary sources for this should be rather trivial, and I highly doubt that either of the editors who are challenging the content have made any effort to find such sources. Neither did the challenging editors provide any RS which would suggest the information is untrue, and indeed I wonder which RS their knowledge of the relevant history is based on. Mistamystery argued that there was an "abundance of Arab Leaders who stated their aim as plain elimination or expulsion of the Jewish population. And this is well before the refugee crisis began.", something which, to the best of my knowledge, can only be described as a myth. They were asked to provide a source for this but failed to do so. Although Mistamystery has accused me of OR and seems to be concerned about that, I remember a previous discusion we had together regarding this exact same history, where they objected to my thoroughly cited position, in a response which was entirely citationless actual OR. I also provided two RS in the talk page discussion of this present dispute, one of which was rather weak but the other, though a primary source, definitively supports the content. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

And speaking of competence, SN, Iohann did, in fact, notify the editor of this discussion. Your notification was a duplicate. :-) Levivich (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I have rephrased. ——Serial Number 54129 15:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

He notified him on his user talk page. It just didn't use the template but it's in the preceding section. Levivich (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I know. I saw it. That's why I rephrased and told you I had rephrased. I would not have rephrased just on your telling me; that would automatically imply I believed you without checking. And then people might think I thought you were 100% trustworthy. And then they might think so too. And then... god knows. ——Serial Number 54129 15:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

But your rephrasing still says he didn't manage to do something that he did do, which is why I was confused. (And you're right, believing me about anything is a tell-tale sign that someone lacks the necessary competence to edit.) Levivich (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for casting an aspersion. ——Serial Number 54129 15:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

What makes you say thay I've engaged in edit warring, @Serial Number 54129? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you've been edit warring probably. That usually does the trick. When one edit wars, one becomes an edit warrior. Then, having edit warred and become an edit warrior, one is prone to be described, empirically, and indeed, telelogically, as an edit warrior. Hope that clears things up. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all this a rather unprofessional and uncivil answer don't you think?

Secondly, I forgot that I had violated 1RR which is presumably what you're referring to. That was unintentional and I selfreverted when I was made aware at User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS#1RR violation. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I was not referring to that at all (although I had noticed it, and yes, also your self-revert, which was certainly a fine thing). I said you were edit-warring, not that you had breeched 3RR / 1RR. The policy reminds us that it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Anyway, it seems that a useful discussion is now taking place on the talk page; with Levivich's input, a consensus will no doubt form quickly and civilly enough. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 18:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

But then what exactly have I done which is edit warring? I'm not following. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Also the content dispute is trivial. The conduct of Mistamystery is what I'm concerned about here. As I said to them on their talk page: "It's clear that you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that your removal and the way in which it was done (no discussion, poor edit summary) was inappropriate. It is reasonable then to suspect that you will likely make furher edits repeating these same mistakes." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

First law of holes comes to mind here. Drop it, go make your points on the article Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussing an editor's conduct on the talk page of an article would not be appropriate. I think you're missing the point here and I'm not sure how 'law of holes' applies. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, more unhelpful throw-away comments. This is the right page to request admin attention to something. There is already a discussion on the talk page, which is the thing to which admin attention is requested. Telling someone to "drop it" is stupid when it's in response to a person's first post about something. Iohan is not in any kind of hole, and one revert does not constitute "edit warring" under any definition (plus, it was a good revert, because "no consensus" is never a proper reason to revert an addition).

Meanwhile, this edit and this edit by Mistamystery are rather obvious POV-pushing, specifically of the "whitewashing" variety.

Focus on the beam, not the mote, folks. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. Un-cited items were removed from a page, and the filing editor here has done everything (including this tendentious use of AN) but provide appropriate citation to restore what are clearly POV items (including attempting to extort some kind of apology or concession on my talk page instead doing the requested homework).

Everything else seems a tendentious overreach and should be subject to administrative censure for inappropriate use of this noticeboard if this behavior continues. This is not an appropriate venue for an extension of what is clear battleground behavior. Mistamystery (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is not the removal of content alone. I obviously didn't come to AN immediately after the removal but only after discussing the matter at both the article's talk page and then on this user's personal talk page.

The fact that this user continues to believe their removal was justified and that the content removed was "clearly POV" is the problem here. Especially since I've cited two RS, one of which, though a primary source, definitively supports the content.

They speak of myself as having not done "the requested homework", but they themselves have not provided or made reference to a single RS throughout these discussions, despite being asked to do so.

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've now provided a pretty definitive secondary source [22] to support the challenged content, but this has not been accepted either, nor sensibly responded to. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Revert CV-RevDel

Hello, I recently removed material I believed to include copyright violations at Open Book Collective. I then requested revdel, which was completed. As Flavoursofopen pointed out to me, however, both of the sources were CC BY 4.0, so the material, to my knowledge, should not have been removed given that it included attribution. Can we revert the revdel? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I have un-RD'd the content. Nice to see WMF finally made all CC 4.0 variants compatible. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Request to lift the contentious topics page sanctions on Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton

I am requesting that we lift the contentious topics page on these two articles. I support Bill Clinton's being removed and weakly support removing Hillary Clinton's. I feel that we are at a point in time where the majority of post-1992 American politics sanctions are usually for pages related to Trump and Biden. Bill Clinton's article doesn't seem to get much disruption other than simple vandalism and test edits. Hillary Clinton's article, while there has been some disruption, has been minimal to an extent, but not as much as high-profile articles like Trump and Biden which is why I say weak support. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. I think in this way, this would be a major step towards pushing the date where American politics that is not current anymore is not sanctioned anymore to say 2000 (maybe 2008 or 2016, but would not go beyond that). I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Surely this is outside our remit - it's an ArbCom matter. Related pages: Wikipedia:Contentious topics, Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think a case would need to be opened- and if done it shouldn't be limited to Bill and HRC, it should discuss moving up the year in general. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Appeals_and_amendments and it said that I can appeal on this noticeboard. Unless I read the page completely wrong, I believe I did the right thing here. Interstellarity (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not think lifting CTOPS from the Clintons is a good idea. We still have some recent disruption over at Clinton body count conspiracy theory and don't forget the Jeffrey Epstein links. Especially with this being a presidential year, and with Trump looking for a foil, I imagine we'll see more negativity in U.S. politics involving the Clintons in 2024. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The original decision to place these articles under "contentious topics" restrictions wasn't made by a single admin, but was an arbcom decision. Therefore, only ArbCom can modify it, and the place to ask is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu. They are literally on the campaign trail. BD2412 T 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Last night, in fact. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That link also says "Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.", which you don't seem to have used. – 2804:F1...75:DAC1 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems that this has since been recreated at WP:AE, with the template. So I guess we can stop replying here. – 2804:F1...75:DAC1 (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think CTOPs are a topic, not specific pages. Even if a page is unmarked with the CTOP talk page template, edits on it that fall within the CTOP topic can still result in {{Alert}}s, WP:AE, etc.

The CTOP you're talking about, I think, is "post-1992 American politics". I think the correct way to request a change in scope (for example, changing it to "post-2017 American politics", which would exclude Hillary's presidential run in 2016) is WP:ARCA. Although I don't recommend it. I think post-1992 is a good scope, and post-2017 would be too narrow. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

1992 is, of course, the year that Bill Clinton was first elected president, and he appeared with Barack Obama and Joe Biden at a fundraising event yesterday that took in $25,000,000. That is a lot of money, about one seventh of the annual revenue of the Wikimedia Foundation, for example. I oppose any change to the 1992 date. Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals

Pending in the Wikipedia:Requested moves backlog now are a half dozen separate move requests, mostly multi-moves, encompassing 55 articles on the names of royal figures, all seeking to remove specific regional or national identifiers from the names (e.g., "Charles XII of Sweden → Charles XII"; "Pharasmanes III of Iberia → Pharasmanes III"). These discussions have all drawn heavy participation, and spirited debate. In my experience, any close is going to draw furious objections by those who disagree with the outcome, so I think it behooves us to come up with a plan for closing all of these. My reading of the discussions is that there is an absence of clear consensus for any of the proposed moves, but I am open to differing interpretations. BD2412 T 17:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think just closing them all as no consensus would probably be for the best. I'm staying away from those moves though, since the last time I closed one of those types of moves I ended up dragged to move review. I doubt it will be much different for whoever ends up closing these. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly my concern — that the discourse has become so divided that no admin will want to clear these out of the backlog. BD2412 T 15:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really understand the issue myself, although admittedly I'm biased as I support the moves. The community held an RFC on this issue in the autumn, and the updated guideline is clear that such disambiguation isn't needed when the monarchs in question are already and indisputably the primary topic. Noting also that the proposed names are fairly clear WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE examples too. It's possible the consistent opposition means the RFC result should be revisited, but I don't think relitigating it in individual RMs is the way to do. The overarching point is that per WP:NOTAVOTE, move requests are decided not through counting heads but through evidenced and policy/guideline compliant comments. @BD2412 and EggRoll97: since you seem to think there's a case for closing as no consensus, please could you explain how the oppose !votes stand up when viewed through the lens of policy?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

While I am not here to argue for a specific outcome, I would note that WP:COMMONNAME (being argued by some opposers in some discussions) generally trumps technical guidelines. Of course, WP:COMMONNAME discussions then become focused on evidence of external usage, which these have not particularly, which is disappointing. BD2412 T 15:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Without wishing to get into the nitty gritty of the matter and having the argument spill into this page, I'd simply say that COMMONNAME arguments shouldn't be taken at face value if they come without supporting evidence. At Talk:Edward V of England I see opposers arguing COMMONNAME, yet when you look at an ngram [23] you see that the shorter form is overwhelmingly more common in book sources. I just think it would be an incredible let down for these to all be closed as "no consensus" when really what's needed is an uninvolved admin to cut through the WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments and actually simply enforce the RFC that opined on this matter at WP:NCROY. Like where would we even go next if it's deemed no consensus? Would this invalidate the updated guideline? I have no clue.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem, frankly, is not the strength of the arguments but the strength of the divide. I think we need a community solution to close these in a definitive way, that leads to finality. BD2412 T 16:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If someone is being a pain in the ass, they can be topic banned or partially blocked. Topic bans would require community consensus, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any specific editor whose behavior is beyond the pale. What I am certain of, however, is that editors on whichever side is deemed the "losing" side of the discussion will be certain that the close was wrong. I am also a bit concerned about uniformity across these myriad similar discussions. BD2412 T 21:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Parallel drafts of Ramgarh Hill, Gandabahali and their talk pages

Draft:Ramgarh Hill, Gandabahali (now moved to Draft:Ramgarh Hills) also has a deleted parallel version. Its talk page goes with the deleted version, so I did not move it. The deleted version (created by an IP user at 14:20, 9 November 2023) needs to be undeleted. Also, Talk:Ramgarh Hill, Gandabahali (the talk page for the other version of the draft) needs to be undeleted and moved to Draft talk:Ramgarh Hills. GTrang (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

A quick look shows it’s been edited by several socks and several IPs who are probably block evading. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

IP unblock request

Hi. Hope this is the right place for this, I was sent here from a help page. To briefly explain my situation, I am a high schooler and the only way, aside from my phone, that I can edit Wikipedia is through a laptop given to me by my school. The issue is that the school uses Securly to block unsafe websites which also functions as a VPN. I tried to make an edit a while back only to discover the IP address was blocked by User:Materialscientist with the reason given “Securly is basically a VPN, but likely limited to PCs of a given ‘school’” Looking through the edits from that IP address I don’t recognize any as mine so I think it was either blocked preemptively or after an edit by another user. I know that open proxies generally aren’t allowed but I read that exceptions can be made for editors who can’t edit without a VPN, though I’m not sure if I would qualify for that. I’ve since made this account (from my phone) and have made some minor edits on here (and a few on my phone and a few on my laptop before I got a block message again) but I have been quite limited as to what I can do on mobile. I hope you can see from my edits that I’m genuine in trying to improve Wikipedia and will consider my request.

Thanks, Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion: This shouldn't be requested at AN, but rather by following the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY and emailing the CheckUser team. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah my bad. Thanks for the help :) Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion: I can address some of that here. Securly (at least the parts that I'm familiar with) is only anon-blocked which means that logged-in users can edit. As for why it's anonblocked? Imagine funnelling all the kids in all the schools through a small set of IP addresses. There's going to be problems. That's why we need to raise the bar a little and require accounts. If you get repeatedly hit by autoblocks, caused by other people, repeatedly, you're going to need a bit of history to distinguish yourself from your vandal schoolmates. Otherwise, autoblocks are not usually too bad, and I'd say you have the opportunity to make some edits, if you're logged-in. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Huh, it seems to be on and off blocking me but I'm able to make edits here (laptop) again so I guess I won't stress about it. I can definitely see the issues with a bunch of high schoolers able to hide behind a VPN. I appreciate the help. Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Kryako personal attacks

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

---

On the Talk:Kingdom of Kush#Reference to "Noba Invasions", there were two editors, @Kryako and @Jedorton, both engaged in personal attacks. I have been notified by Jedorton who seems to instigate the incident. I warned Jedorton on his talk page, and on my talk they stated that they will not engage in something similar again. Although they still to amend their comments. However, Kryako doubled down and called the other editor a “racist” (among other words). I gave them a chance to rephrase their opinion without personal attacks but they refused. Giving their dismissal of basic policies and their refusal to back down, I recommend @Kryako editor be blocked for attacking another editor and not adhering to such basic principle. Same goes for the other edit if they did jot amend their comments. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Both users are attacking each other in clear violation of the NPA policy, but it looks like it may be winding down, so I'm not sure blocking serves an effective purpose just yet. I've given them a final warning on the talk page that any subsequent attacks are going to result in an immediate block without warning. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, they both retracted their comments. So, it is safe to assume they both realised their mistake, and we can consider this matter closed with that final warning. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussion

I decided to join in on the fun of making "joke" deletion discussions for April Fools, making one for Loreen. It is currently on my talk page, can anyone move it to the deletion discussions and add the joke and April Fools templates? 92.249.183.225 (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

April Fools jokes are not allowed to affect articles.-Gadfium (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I've seen multiple "joke" deletion discussions, like one for one of the F1 seasons. - 92.249.183.225 (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, April Fools "jokes" on Wikipedia are inherently lame, not funny in the context of building an encyclopedia, and ought to be phased out based on social disapproval rather than administrative action. I have been around long enough to remember when the creepy sexist Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan character was commonplace throughout Wikipedia. We've outgrown Wikipe-tan, and it is time to outgrow crappy April Fools jokes, which are often puerile and rarely funny. Cullen328 (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's still creepy and I came across one yesterday, unfortunately. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

At least one of these happens every year that I have seen. Copyrighted song lyrics always end up in at least one joke AFD. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 10:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I possess some sort of unusually virtuous monastic constitution, but when I see a line drawing of a girl, I am not overcome by any sort of paraoxysmic passions, so I would object to a drawing of a girl being called creepy *ipso facto*. Perhaps it could more accurately be called "creepy to people besides JPxG" or "creepy to people unfamiliar with Japanese cartoons". jp×g🗯️ 12:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Rules for Fools. NebY (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup in onwiki arguments?

TheSpacebook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13444&sid=6a36c41186b953e95c1930d77476b218 and the ongoing discussion at WT:BLP; it looks like the OP of the thread at said talk page (or at least somebody with the same username and writing style, and the user later admitted it was him) made a thread over at the ol' 'ocracy in which he said he was "requesting eyes on a topic". Now, I'm not saying Wikipediocracy needs to be burned to the ground or whatever, but I really don't think people should be allowed to blatantly call in air support from other websites like this.

What the hell? Is this blockable? It doesn't seem quite clear to me what the official guidance is here. It's one thing for somebody to have an account on another website but it's another thing for them to do it openly, with the same username, and be asking people to come back them up in arguments. (I mean, if this is allowed, let me know, because it would make my life and my own wiki-arguing a lot easier, but my understanding is that it's not) jp×g🗯️ 12:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly "and call in air support" and "be asking people to come back them up in arguments." are complete misrepresentations of what I posted on the forum. I opened the post with a neutral request saying “Hello everyone. I’m requesting eyes on a topic on the BLP noticeboard regarding Wikipedia publishing the home addresses of notable individuals, and concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them.” They may well have disagreed with my argument and not backed me up, because I never asked anyone to back me up.

At no point did I try to influence anyone, I just requested they have a look; and WP:CANVAS says “Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way” and WP:MEAT says “Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate”.

Neither are these apply, as I neutrally asked for eyes on a BLP debate I opened, and didn’t try to influence anyone. There is nothing wrong with airing valid criticism of Wikipedia, and everything I have said on that site, I would also say on Wikipedia, so I have no shame in using the same username, in fact I think it’s more commendable to do so. Furthermore, in a later post, I applauded others editors response to their common-sense approach the issue I raised. I am using Wikipediocracy responsibly to give light to valid concerns I have with Wikipedia, and not using it in bad faith. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

TheSpacebook, you've made no fewer than 15 edits to your comments here. You'd do better to work on your comments using a tool outside of Wikipedia (such as a word processor) rather than endlessly editing your material here and making it very hard for anyone else to chime in. --Yamla (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I think I’m done, I just don’t like being misrepresented, and painted to look like I act in bad faith. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In my view, it's blatant canvassing. You posted your own POV to an non-neutral external site. I don't know how you can perceive that as a neutral request. Polyamorph (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC) changed from non-neutral to external, see WP:STEALTH

What the heck would a 'neutral website' look like? Who would determine whether it was 'neutral' or not? Clearly, Wikipedia is in no position whatsoever to make such a determination - that would be absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The actual Wikipedia article for Wikipediocracy starts off with “Wikipediocracy is a website for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia.”. The consensus on Wikipedia is that it’s just for criticism of Wikipedia, which is what I did when criticising the doxxing of notable individuals. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

What the 'consensus on Wikipedia is' (whatever that is supposed to mean) is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia is in no position to decide what is or isn't 'neutral' on external websites. Not ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologise to you and Black Kite for stating it like that - as you will see I struck the offending word. My point was only that it was blatant off-wiki canvassing. Polyamorph (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said below, I only asked for them to look at the discussion when I said I was “requesting eyes”. At no point did I ask anyone to join in. The post contained the post they would’ve seen if they clicked the link anyway. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't mean 'blatant off-wiki criticism'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I see, I interpret the "request for eyes" as a blatant request for input. But YMMV. Polyamorph (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

My post was a criticism of Wikipedia, so I posted it in the appropriate location- a criticism of Wikipedia forum. How is this not the right place to post it? Black Kite said before “I am reminded of things like posting notifications of deletion discussions to relevant WikiProject pages (which would obviously have an interest in the article being deleted)”, so a criticism of Wikipedia forum is an appropriate place to notify criticism of Wikipedia. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I did it per WP:APPNOTE to post a notification in a centralised location to “draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion”. Which part says I can’t post my POV in the post? They would’ve clicked the link and seen it anyway? All the same, it wasn’t in bad faith. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Per APPNOTE, the notification must be neutral. Including your POV is makes it non-neutral. APPNOTE also applies to on-wiki locations, it specifically mentions off-wiki communication as a form of WP:STEALTH canvassing. Polyamorph (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

However, WP:STEALTH is only “strongly discouraged”, and not “disallowed”, as per “other off-wiki communication to notify editors is strongly discouraged”. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's strongly discouraged. This means please don't do it. And please don't then argue semantics when you get challenged for doing so. Polyamorph (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

But also, I only asked for them to look at the discussion when I said I was “requesting eyes”. At no point did I ask anyone to join in. The post contained the post they would’ve seen if they clicked the link anyway. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As I wrote above please don't then argue semantics. Polyamorph (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The notification was neutral, I didn’t ask anyone to join in , I only asked them to look; and it contained what they would’ve seen if they clicked the link. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh come on! It's hard to believe that you didn't think/hope some of them would take part. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite said below “I am reminded of things like posting notifications of deletion discussions to relevant WikiProject pages (which would obviously have an interest in the article being deleted)”, so a criticism of Wikipedia forum is an appropriate place to notify criticism of Wikipedia. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Your story is changing by the minute. Polyamorph (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

How so? I notified critics of Wikipedia to look at my criticism of Wikipedia, and didn’t ask them to join in. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This entire thread seems to be based on the dubious premise that everyone at Wikipediocracy thinks the same, and will accordingly participate en bloc when called. As anyone who has actually read the endless debates on Wikipediocracy will be aware, this notion is absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, whilst WPO is a criticism site, that does not mean that there is not also constructive criticism, and indeed it has helped to highlight improvements that can be made to articles on a number of occasions (disclosure: I post there). Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The only premise is that there was off-wiki canvassing to a specific thread. The idea that it was not actually canvassing, and is in fact valid criticism, was only raised once AndyTheGrump mentioned it. I find that premise to be completely unbelievable. But as I said, YMMV. Polyamorph (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I refuted that this was canvassing (as this was the initial accusation) first in my initial reply, and in the reply on the BLP talk page. The subtitle in the BLP talk page is “The creator of this thread seems to have opened a thread on Wikipediocracy to canvass people to this discussion” TheSpacebook (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree, which is why I joined. I refute all labels that this was canvassing, as WP:CANVASS says In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus and that Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way and WP:MEAT says do not recruit people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate TheSpacebook (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding to my above comment, which was alarmingly deleted by editor @Randy Kryn: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1216704820&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diffonly=1): Labelling this canvassing doesn’t apply here as the not everyone on Wikipediocracy share the same view on everything. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit unconvinced by the use of "non-neutral site" there. Would it have been any different if, for example, they had posted it to WP:BLP/N instead? I am reminded of things like posting notifications of deletion discussions to relevant WikiProject pages (which would obviously have an interest in the article being deleted). We have long tolerated those types of things as long as the notification itself is neutral. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The notification was neutral and contained the text they would’ve seen if they clicked the link anyway. Furthermore, in my post I requested EYES, I didn’t request FINGERS for anyone to actually join in the discussion. I just asked them to look at it. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You think that making a BLPN thread titled "Doxxipedia: The Publication of Living People’s Private Home Addresses" [sic] would not have neutrality issues? Even if didn't, there is a difference: BLPN is a part of Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy is not. People who see a bunch of editors showing up somewhere all at the same time, if they were linked from somewhere onwiki, have the ability to go find where they came from, and see whether it is neutral. Here, not only was the notice done on an external site, it was done on an external site with no notice. And Wikipediocracy is not only an external blog, but also external blog that frequently publishes invective about BLP policies. I am not saying they are always wrong, but it seems to me basically impossible to argue that they are neutral. I agree with Cory Doctorow's opinions in re most all copyright issues, but I think we all know it would be a crock of BS for me to start an argument about NFCC and then go link it to his blog's comment section with the title "CopyrightTrollpedia: Hysteria Over Fair Use". Yes? jp×g🗯️ 15:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Granted, the title was just used to be eye-catching. However, I think that Wikipedia should engage more with Wikipediocracy, and have some bridge- and make it generally more acceptable to use both (in good faith, which is what I’ve only ever used it for), to bridge the gap over between the sites and allow for dialogue so its not penalised on an Admin noticeboard. Wikipedia will only be made better if it allowed room for criticism. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy, and those who participate there, are under no obligation whatsoever to be 'neutral' by any particular definition - and certainly not by one coming from Wikipedia. Criticism isn't supposed to be 'neutral', whatever that is supposed to mean. It is, if it is any good, based around the principle that one ideally assesses whatever one is criticising first, and only then forms an opinion. If the opinion is that the subject one is criticising is a festering heap of ordure one should say so. Likewise, if one thinks that the subject being discussed is the most wonderful enterprise ever concocted by intelligent life, one should do the same. As for criticism of Wikipedia BLP policy on Wikipediocracy, I'd have to suggest that a great deal of it - almost certainly the majority - is focussed on the failure of the project to actually hold to the policy it proscribes. If anyone has a problem with that, I'd like to hear it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

What is 'allowed at Wikipediocracy' is solely determined by those who run the website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry -- I mean "are people allowed by Wikipedia to do this", obviously the jannies of another site can run it however they please. Like, "are people allowed to take nominate pics at FPC they took while drunk driving" -- well of course the car and the camera allow them to do this, that's not really the issue, the issue is whether we do. jp×g🗯️ 15:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking whether Wikipedia contributors should be permitted to criticise the project on external websites? I sincerely hope not. I didn't sign up to a democratic centralist organisation, or a religious cult, as far as I'm aware, and if I have, I'd like to know where this is laid down in policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Surely you can see the difference between "posting on a website" and "posting on a website, and opening a thread on that website, to specifically draw attention to the thread on this one, that you also started, and also in both threads you are attempting to argue for a specific policy change"? jp×g🗯️ 17:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Simple question. If the posting in question had occurred on Wikipedia, rather than Wikipediocracy, would you still expect a new contributor to be blocked, rather than warned, for raising an obviously-valid concern over core WP:BLP policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if they had posted a "get a load of THESE dicks" thread to a part of Wikipedia that didn't show up in their contribs, and was at a different URL that wasn't linked to from here, populated almost entirely by outspoken critics of the BLP policy, this would seem to me like an unbelievably obvious open-and-shut example of canvassing. jp×g🗯️ 18:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

TheSpacebook is blocked for one week for canvassing by GeneralNotability, apparently as a regular admin action rather than a community sanction. --Yamla (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked without discussion? While there is an ongoing discussion on this noticeboard? How exactly was this such an urgent matter that an immediate block was required? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I speculate the blocking admin wasn't aware of this discussion. --Yamla (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Then how exactly did they become aware of the issue? This block stinks. Looking beyond some poor phraseology, unsurprising in someone new to Wikipedia, the essential point that TheSpacebook is making both on Wikipediocracy and here is that core WP:BLP policy regarding privacy isn't properly being adhered to. Blocking someone for that is unconscionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Methinks the lady doth protest too much... That is clearly canvassing, its a valid block. Why are you taking this to 11 when everyone else was calm and reasonable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the block log the discussion in this thread is cited in the rationale. I'm not sure what "per" means in the rationale. Does it mean the block is intended to be a community action? DeCausa (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 'taking it to 11', that would be ArbCom. Which might very well be appropriate if this can't be resolved any other way, since it appears that a contributor has been blocked for pointing out the way Wikipedia's own core WP:BLP policy regarding privacy has been given the run-around through creation of articles on people's homes. Blocking people for pointing out off-Wikipedia that policy hasn't been adhered to cannot possibly be in the interest of the project. Not under any circumstances. Never. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

They weren't blocked for that, they were blocked for canvassing. By "11" I was more noting the hyperbole and battleground behavior, which continues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Started writing this earlier, before the block, etc. Hm. I was expecting something more sensational for WPO to be involved. IMO yes, talking about an ongoing on-wiki dispute on Wikipediocracy is bringing it to the attention of a group of people with some known beliefs/attitudes and thus against the spirit of WP:CANVASSING. But we have several long-time users who seem perfectly content to do so, and even to proxy for banned users who post there, so I'm not inclined to commence enforcing such rules with a relatively new user who probably didn't know better.

I haven't looked to see if anyone joined because of WPO (not that doing so would be easy to demonstrate), but if so, I'm more inclined to wag a finger at the group that should know better.

For Spacebook: WPO is where people go who find themselves aggrieved with this or that aspect of Wikipedia, and for those people I get it (if you have an axe to grind or venting to do, and you're not too far detached from reality, you'll probably get a sympathetic ear/encouragement, and people will lend a wiki-cynical hand to help you to contextualize your objections and perhaps event dig up personal information and mock the Wikipedians who were so very wrong at you), but at least wait until consensus forms against you.

Responding to Andy, that everyone at Wikipediocracy thinks the same, and will accordingly participate en bloc when called - for any venue someone considers to be canvassing, you will have members saying this. It is not required that everybody agree or everybody act to understand that there are a variety of well known biases inherent to the forum. I'd be curious to see what correlations there are between posts at WPO and its members' participation in relevant threads over time (that's a desire for someone else to do it, not expressing my own intentions, to be clear).

In this topic area in particular, from what I've seen WPO will generally err on the side of defending BLPs even where (or especially where) Wikipedia's BLP policy does not. Any sort of "get a load of this BLP-related BS on Wikipedia" seems likely to get some encouragement unless it's nonsense on its face -- and that's perhaps the closest I've ever come to giving WPO credit for something (even if being extra cautious on BLP also happens to provide an opportunity for moral highgrounding while simultaneously dunking on Wikipedia and/or Wikipedians). Of course, if the person is themselves a Wikipedian or associated in any way with Wikipedia, they are presumed incompetent/deleterious and their motives insidious, but I digress.

Now seeing the block, IMO it should be converted to a warning/admonishment/whatever clearly stating "yes this was canvassing. don't do this again". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That reads very much like a 'block for posting on Wikipediocracy' rationale. I don't believe for one minute that if the same 'canvassing' comments had been posted somewhere on Wikipedia itself the end result would have been anything more than a warning. Not for a new user, with an obviously-valid concern regarding core Wikipedia policy regarding WP:BLP privacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

...? I said this twice, more or less, in the comment you're replying to, but I did add one of those after-the-fact, so to be unambiguous: I'm in favor of a warning for Spacebook and not a block. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if I'd missed that. I was getting edit-conflicts, and may have misread, or misunderstood. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

TheSpacebook has not requested an unblock, I assume that this block would be lifted shorty after they explained that they understood what happened and how to proceed. Blocks are to prevent ongoing issues, not to punish. I think in many ways this sort of block *is* "a warning/admonishment/whatever clearly stating "yes this was canvassing. don't do this again". " I would note that after joining wikipedia this editor made a beeline for the most controversial BLP issues of the day, Catherine, Princess of Wales like a moth to a flame and them made hundreds and hundreds of edits to the topic and related pages... A suggestion for an unblock would be to have them stay away from BLP until they find their feet and understand their way around. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

So when are we going to clear out Discord etc? If youse want to clear out the Augean stables, 'off-wiki canvassing' goes a fuck sight further than some public noughties-styled bulletin board. ——Serial Number 54129 17:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hush. Do not state the blindingly obvious. If they can't see it, it isn't happening. And everything is wonderful in Wikipedia-land once more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think myself, and all of the moderators of the Wikipedia Discord (of which I am not one), would love to be pointed towards instances of canvassing there so that it can be quashed (if such examples exist). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This comments assumes a lot without actual history to back it up. Speaking from experience, I rarely, if ever, see canvassing occurring in the public channels on the Wikipedia Discord server. When it does, we're usually pretty quick to tell a user that it's not allowed. At which point, the user(s) usually delete the link they shared or a moderator removes it and gives a further talking to or ban if necessary. If you think canvassing is occurring on Discord then please do report it to the moderators. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also not a moderator on the Discord, but of all the complaints I can imagine about it, "the mods aren't strict enough about shutting down conversations that seem improprietous" is not one of them. Certainly, I have not seen any "fuck sight furthers". jp×g🗯️ 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Given the current nonsense that's going on with ARBPIA and allowing external anonymous POV sources to post in arbitration, imagine my surprise that an Arbitator has blocked this person (and another Arb is involved in the block) for, er, posting externally. Oh, that would be ... no surprise at all. Disgraceful. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  On the face it of it, a one week block for that mildly non-neutral CANVASS at WPO by a newbie seems quite harsh. I suspect it's more to do with their WP:IDHT silly wikilawyering defence of the canvassing in this thread. Only GeneralNotability can say. DeCausa (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it would be good to hear from them, since a block notice of "per this thread" doesn't exactly tell us their thought processes (and why a fairly neutral posting on an external site deserves a block, whereas we don't often block people for posting on-wiki canvassing unless it's particularly egregious). Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I see from User_talk:GeneralNotability that they don't feel they need to actually bother to post to this thread. Strange one, though ... their first edit or admin action on Wikipedia for 6 days, makes you wonder how they found out about this issue, doesn't it? Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: 10 quid says... reading threads on WPO  ;) ——Serial Number 54129 19:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  which would be truly ironic :) Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Having voted yes in General Notability's RFA, I would ask them to consider whether the effect of this block is not more likely to be that folks register at WPO under untraceable pseudonyms, rather than being upfront about who they are. Also I'd thought "more eyes" was Wikipedia-speak for "look at this"... Perhaps the understanding here is that it's a hidden homonym for "Moorize" calling Saracens everywhere to a holy, civilizing action (removing personal addresses from BLP)? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I now see from GN's talk page that I was wrong - the block was purely for the WPO canvass and nothing to do with the user's poor response in this thread. Curious. Actually, really strange. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because I'm not talking doesn't mean I'm not listening. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Once I hear from GeneralNotability, to make sure I didn't miss anything important, I plan to unblock. Blocking for a week when it appears from this discussion to be a grey area is unhelpful. So I'd suggest re-focusing away from whether it was a good block or not, and back to whether we want to clarify whether this is OK or not OK in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've unblocked (this was possibly warning-worthy, but not block-worthy), so now they can participate in this discussion again. I am not saying they did right or wrong, I'm saying a block wasn't the answer. Also, they've committed to not revising so much text (to limit the number of edit conflicts for others). Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. As I said in my block review comment, notifying a centralised place where editors would be interested in the discussion is acceptable under WP:CANVAS. Wikipediocracy is not a monolith and has a wide range of differing opinions. However they are critical of Wikipedia, so a notification that I’ve critiqued Wikipedia is an appropriate place for it to be. I copied my original post to the forum, however they would’ve seen the post anyway if they clicked the link. I requested eyes, and I did not request fingers. I didn’t tell anyone to join in the discussion. I still think a dialogue should be made between the two sites to allow for Wikipedia to improve, and not a heavy handed approach whenever Wikipediocracy gets mentioned. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't think you should have been blocked and am glad that you are unblocked i think you should be reblocked if you maintain this nonsense. "I requested eyes, and I did not request fingers". Stop the ridiculous pseudo-pedantry - there's no difference, but that's not a problem. Fact is there is nothing wrong with requesting fingers anyway, so long as you do it neutrally. "concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them" is what you needed to have left out. You should acknowledge that you made the (minorish) error of not doing this neutrally and move on. if you don't you should be blocked. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Valid. I acknowledge the error that I made was that I wasn’t being neutral by saying “concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them” in my post on Wikipediocracy, about a BLP policy flaw I thought needed updating. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• The whole "we don't talk about Wikipedia except on Wikipedia" thing was supposed to have died back in the days of WP:ATTACKSITES. As I pointed out back then, it is unreasonable to expect outside criticism to kowtow to WP regulations, but it's conspicuously perverse to think that people making such criticisms aren't going to point at specific discussions. How could they not do so? I would say that the "requesting eyes" phrase invited a certain reading by the suspicious, but again, how could it not be reasonable on such a site to say, "take a look at this, and here's my opinion"? Looking at the WP discussion in question, I see no sign that any of the WPO regulars have been participants, anyway. I think the anti-canvassing policy is being misconstrued here, and I will also note that this is far from the first such discussion which has been pointed out on WPO, and yet nobody is regularly blocking its known members. There seems to be an element of newbie-biting to this, by the same token. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it could be reasonable to do that, in the hypothetical situation you made up -- I maintain that it's not reasonable to just make a thread there specifically about a talk page discussion you just started, and then express your opinions at length. I mean, do you pledge to support me at AN if I go over the next time I'm getting my ass beat at an RfC amd open a thread called "[inclusionists/deletionists/FACers/anti-FACers/etc]s trying to mess everything up again"?

  (Parenthetical note in re the regulars not getting owned for this: first of all, I never see them do anything this egregious, and second of all, they do get owned, have you forgotten already the extremely dramatic defrocking of Beeblebrox?) jp×g🗯️ 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the two are comparable. I've been an admin here for 17 years and I've posted at WPO for a decade, yet the number of times I've ended up at a discussion purely because of WPO I could probably count on the fingers of one hand (maybe two at a push). And of course, many of the regulars at WPO don't (or can't) post here anyway, so I'm unconvinced that trying canvassing there would be particularly useful anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Looks like blatant canvassing to me. The norm is to post stuff like that on-wiki, to article talk pages or noticeboards, and without commentary. I use the {{Please see}} template for this. Quite a few words have been typed about this, when all we really need to hear is TheSpacebook saying "I'm sorry, I won't do this again". Which really should have been in their unblock request. Instead, an unblock request that ended in Blocking me suppresses criticism in an authoritarian fashion, as a ‘warning not to step out line again’. was accepted. I thought I knew where the canvassing red line was, but perhaps not. I will watch this thread and re-calibrate based on its outcome. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve acknowledged it here: I acknowledge the error that I made was that I wasn’t being neutral by saying “concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them” in my post on Wikipediocracy, about a BLP policy flaw I thought needed updating. I won’t do that again. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's ironic that you chose that forum to raise doxing concerns when they just doxed the guy who blocked you. By my count that's three doxed arbs in the last few months, plus a fourth who had his photo posted and appearance made fun of. But tell me again how you went there to raise privacy concerns. Levivich (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see any manner in which this isn't obvious canvassing and with a non-neutral notification to book. Specifically notifying a group well known for harassment of Wikipedia editors, doxing, and other such activities. It's not worth it to even bother at this point in interacting with the people over there, defenders by participants here besides. I tried a decade ago and then realized that the terrible people there, many community banned and serial socking types, exist only to try and make Wikipedia worse and to harm any editors they dislike, particularly if they can manage to dox them and cause real life harm as well. Silverseren^C 22:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• (ec) A couple of quick notes:
  • it is my understanding that Beeblebrox was not removed for using Wikipediocracy per se, but for saying something that other arbitrators felt was inappropriate.
  • According to a poll at Wikipediocracy, most users there do in fact have a unblocked Wikipedia account. This is self-reporting of course, but perhaps food for thought.
  • At any given time there are usually more guests on the website than logged-in users. I know I used it before I joined to keep track of events in the Grabowski arbitration.

Apart from Wikipediocracy though, I think the canvassing policy could use some clarification. I was recently accused of canvassing for notifying another editor of an ANI about a Portuguese speaker because we are trying to enlist the help of Portuguese speakers. The accusation went nowhere, but I can't say at this moment that I know where the line is, so all the more reason not to block a new user over it. Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think:

• It's OK to post a neutral notice of the discussion at Wikipediocracy.
  • I don't recommend it, however -- it's probably not worth the ensuing aggravation.
• It's OK to discuss the issue at Wikipediocracy if one wants to.
  • Like editors here, there are a wide range of personalities participating at Wikipediocracy, some good, some bad.
  • A visitor can sort through the chaff and read some interesting insights there.
  • Regardless about what our official rules may currently say about editor behavior offsite, expect to be held accountable in the Wikipedia court of public opinion for comments made there that would cross a line here.
• It's a mistake to combine a notice with an opinion - that's canvassing.
• It can be expected that readers at Wikipediocracy will skew towards BLP privacy concerns, so one might try to make a case that's forum-shopping even if posting a neutral notice there.
  • Then again, I think the same could be said about the participants at WP:BLPN.
• A tactical error: TheSpacebook argued too much for their own good here. Sometimes you just make your case and leave it to others to have the last word. A bone can get gnawed an awfully long time here.
• The canvassing violation was mild and the editor pretty new. I'm glad this editor is unblocked now.
• Everybody needs to go participate in the BLPN discussion now. It's important.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Continued questionable editing by Orange sticker

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

---

The above user flagged an article for deletion on 22 March. [24]

An admin decided that the deletion nomination had been incorrectly formatted and the article was again re-nominated for deletion. The conclusion was to re-direct the content to the parent Liverpool and Liverpool City Region articles. It was felt that there was no need for a separate article. [25]

I conceded to this as author of the article and was happy to agree that at this moment in time there was no need for a separate article.

The above user then resorted to delete whole sections from the Liverpool and Liverpool City Region articles without any consensus. See [26] and [27]. I reverted those edits and asked her to build consensus.

I feel that she has twisted the outcome of the AfD and has misinterpreted its conclusion. I understand that the outcome of the AfD was that there was no need for a separate article but to merge and re-direct its content to parent articles.

Unhappy with my edit reverts, the above user has now resorted to installing templates which attempt to discredit the content and citations. See [28] and [29].

I can assure the admins that I have very carefully selected these citations myself and have argued at length for their inclusion. The above user will not stop but to discredit their inclusion and I feel that she has twisted the outcome of the AfD.

I have previously flagged this user here but no action was taken previously. Her latest behaviour I feel should be given attention.

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: previous ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#Uncivil and biased behaviour by user Orange sticker. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know whether to open a new discussion or re-open the old one. The last ANI report resulted in no action and was archived. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am just linking it here for convenience in case anyone wanted to look at the previous thread. there isn't a way to re-open old discussions once they are archived. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, many thanks. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you are probably in the wrong noticeboard for this complaint. But that being said I'd suggest the demonym section of that article deserves the citation check tag. It seems WP:UNDUE to spend quite that much space on the demonym, especially considering how many of the citations make only passing reference to the demonym. About all the citations really seem to say is that politicians would prefer a broader demonym and one activist citizen has been campaigning to make it kind of official but it seems most of the local citizenry can't be bothered. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That is why its inclusion has been very carefully worded. The above user is attempting to discredit its inclusion at every step of the way. There is also content which provided reliable citations. The term Scouser has its basis in the mid 20th century. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly still a simple content dispute and, as on the AN/I thread I would strongly recommend addressing it as a content dispute. Please WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The simple fact is that this user attempted to delete a whole section before consulting the Talk Page. She has now resorted to citing the harrassment guidance. This is casting aspersions on my contribution to the encyclopedia. I have already considerably taken on board the AfD. She may well dispute its credibility but the way in which this user is attempting to do so warrants attention. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, and as a dispassionate and uninvolved editor, if a section that long based on sources that weak were added to an article on my watchlist I might also use WP:TNT on it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The Liverpool demonym section as it stands now - is only being disputed by one editor - continuously. She already successfully had an entirely separate article on the subject deleted. She is persistent to continue this discussion. I thought there was a policy on Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass

I have already conceded that there is no need for an entirely separate article. But this user is content to delete any mention of other demonyms completely from the encyclopedia. Therefore, this is not a neutral point of view since there would be no mention that the Scouse demonym is based on the mid 20th century. There is a serious risk that the demonym section will not based on a neutral point of view if this user makes unreliable edits.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

See her attempt to completely remove any mention of other demonyms that are steeped in historical fact. [30]

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am deleting parts that are not neutral such as those which include references to articles which are about the editor themselves, questionnaires they carried out, or interviews they took part in. Orange sticker (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but has Liverpolitan1980 self-identified as a subject of the demonym section? Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm not sure how to approach this without revealing someone's identity but I'm now seen clear evidence off-wiki that this is possible WP:COI/WP:ADVOCACY. Orange sticker (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I give up. I am deleting this account. Completely not worth it. All my contributions have been in the best of faith. It is clear that this subject means a lot to you Orange Sticker and you will resort to any length to achieve that. I am out. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry to hear that, if you could address your bias you have the qualities of a really good editor. But obviously I've googled the term 'Liverpolitan' and it's not hard at all to see your many connections to it over the years. Orange sticker (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - WP:OWN.

This is the second time this user has tried to report me to admins because he doesn't agree with my edits. He also makes multiple replies to any comments I make and immediate reverts to my edits. I would like this editor to read WP:HARRASS and consider their actions. Orange sticker (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not harrassment, but contribution. It is you that keeps deleting my contribution. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted any contributions that you have made that I find to be poor quality and in this most recent case, very lengthy discussions had taken place which reached consensus that the article I flagged for deletion failed numerous standards, such as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DICDEF and WP:FRINGE. Instead of improving your article, you copied parts of them to Liverpool and Liverpool City Region with the issues still present. I deleted these sections, you reverted my edit, I then added Template:Cite_check_section. You then reported me to this noticeboard. Nothing about my conduct warrants this action. Orange sticker (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You have also copied another editor's comment on the Liverpool Talk page along with their signature.

This editor has not consented for their comment to be on the Talk page.

See...[31] Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In actual fact, the editor's comment which you have re-posted - without their consent - agrees to a re-direct to the Liverpool article. He mentions that an WP:ATD has gained acceptance. The term "Liverpolitan" is now discussed among others. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Your assertion is also completely disingenuous. I have considerably reduced the inclusion of the Liverpolitan term and they have been significantly edited as per the discussion. I made it perfectly clear within the AfD discussion that I would take the most notable parts for inclusion in to the Liverpool article. You still seem very very unhappy about this. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That was an error which I apologised for. I pasted the Admin's AfD decision into a talk page because you have read it, and the numerous comments in the AfD discussion calling for deletion or massive improvement to your article, and somehow are still ignoring all criticism. You have decided that there was nothing wrong with the content of your article, despite editors taking time to examine your many references one by one, and moved this content to other articles. Until you address the issues I listed above, your contributions on this subject do not have a place on Wikipedia, as agreed by multiple editors. Orange sticker (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Completely disingenuous. As you can see from my contribution to the AfD. I have considerably compromidsed on this. It is you that has not compeomised and continue to discredit the contrbution. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Admins and editors had to ask you to modify your conduct in the AfD discussion, and went so far as to hide two of your responses. I once again urge you to take a step back, remember that most editors are here to ensure Wikipedia is a high quality and trusted resource, and there are some topics which you might personally be too close to to be able to contribute to dispassionately and objectively. Orange sticker (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am focussed on the subject - as are you. Of course the encyclopedia is open to anyone. It is you that is attempting to take my contributions off and are doing so persistently. As well as re-posting other editor's comments on to other pages with their signatures in tact - without their consent. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Guy on some rap record label is obsessively adding himself to the page and reverting anyone who reverts him "vandalism"

Not really sure how this works but take a look at Opium (record label)... this guy keeps adding himself in, seeming to use both an account AND ip address to do so, and his only 'source' is some apple music page he presumably made himself that claims hes on this very big well-respected rap label. He obsessively reverts everyone who deletes this nonsense. Im not sure hown this can be handled personally. Im not too experienced but I figure someone can step in so the viewers can not get the wrong information about this page 158.140.53.34 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for either : 3RR, vandalism or promotional editing - take your pick. Amortias (T)(C) 20:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

My joke deletion discussion got deleted for "vandalism"

Draft:Loreen april fools deletion. WP:APRILFOOLS literally says they're allowed, you just need to clarify it's a joke. 92.249.183.225 (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to consider the deletion a joke too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)