Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by S Marshall (talk | contribs) at 17:57, 21 June 2020 (YARFCCR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
    CfD 0 0 9 16 25
    TfD 0 0 1 7 8
    MfD 0 0 4 3 7
    FfD 0 0 1 2 3
    RfD 0 0 36 27 63
    AfD 0 0 0 23 23

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (25 out of 8388 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Talk:Beliveo Lamoya 2024-09-14 19:25 2024-09-17 19:25 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Beliveo Lamoya 2024-09-14 19:23 2024-09-17 19:23 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/portal/core 2024-09-14 17:01 indefinite edit,move RFPP request Anachronist
    Jol Thoi Thoi Bhalobasha 2024-09-14 06:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
    Ogaden (clan) 2024-09-13 20:38 2026-09-13 20:38 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生
    Galileo Galilei 2024-09-13 19:05 indefinite move Persistent vandalism: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Template:Infobox cricket tournament 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Archive top red/styles.css 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3381 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Communist Party of India (Marxist) 2024-09-13 15:28 2024-12-13 15:28 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; up to ECP as semi isn't sufficient; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Anastasia Trofimova 2024-09-12 21:06 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter
    Halhul 2024-09-12 16:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    Kuči (tribe) 2024-09-12 00:06 2025-09-12 00:06 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/EE ToBeFree
    Russians at War 2024-09-11 18:14 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    Flourless chocolate cake 2024-09-11 16:00 2025-09-11 16:00 edit Edit warring by autoconfirmed Valereee
    Marron glacé 2024-09-11 15:57 2025-09-11 15:57 edit Persistent sock puppetry, ongoing, by autoconfirmed editors Valereee
    Koi Mil Gaya 3 2024-09-11 05:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem
    Koi... Mil Gaya 3 2024-09-11 05:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem
    Sarah McBride 2024-09-11 03:33 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action under GENSEX Daniel Case
    Election denial movement in the United States 2024-09-11 02:06 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CTOP AP Ad Orientem
    Lisa Cameron 2024-09-11 00:47 2025-09-11 00:47 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree
    Virtuous Pedophiles 2024-09-10 23:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Aoidh
    Elisa Hategan 2024-09-10 23:45 2024-09-17 23:45 edit Dropping to ecp, edit war is between non-ec accounts ScottishFinnishRadish
    Caleb Alloway 2024-09-10 23:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Confirmed WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo
    Jaime Macías Alarcón 2024-09-10 23:22 indefinite create Confirmed WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo
    Anomaly detection 2024-09-10 21:36 2024-09-17 21:36 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan

    AWB requests need attention

    1-day-old PERM requests do not need a post at AN. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Note: I may be a bit biased, as half the requests there are mine. However, could the admins look at the requests there? While they’re at it, they could probably take a quick look at the other permissions... Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 (talk | contribs) 19:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Phil Bridger: Okay then. Here’s the link: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser, though I must admit I thought you guys knew where it was already. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 (talk | contribs) 19:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Permission to edit User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam

    When I try to edit the page I get the message that it is restricted. It does not say why. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Why exactly are you trying to edit this blocked user's page? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting that removing speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself is not permitted. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Naypta and Lee Vilenski: could be the same editor—but that's OK of course... ——Serial # 14:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: Sorry, not sure I follow what you mean by "could be the same editor"? You mean that placed the speedy tag on? It was the same user account here (GerardM) who created that page and removed the CSD. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I'm suggesting that GM and GYAT are one and the same  :) ——Serial # 14:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, gotcha! Sorry! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very serious accusation. It's also false. Perhaps you'd like to strike it, Serial Number 54129? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an allegation at all, let alone a serious one. GYAT was only soft-blocked as a username violation, and we explicitly instruct the blocked editor to register a new account with a username that is in compliance with the username policy. ——Serial # 12:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since User:GerardM first edited on 2003-12-07, and in the light of this nearby edit, you might want to reconsider. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For your information, I am not the person who created that user page. I don't do that.. It is a board member of the GYA who created that page. As is stated on the page what I do is discussed with him so I do what is in line with what the GYA considers relevant. Again, this is about science, global early career scientists and relevant awards. It is not limited to the GYA and therefor it is not self promoting. GerardM (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GerardM: Someone using your user account created that page. Was someone else using your account at the time? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not create that user.. I did add the entries on the page. GerardM (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So if you personally did not create that user, did someone else do so using your account? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GerardM: It also appears to be blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost, given the vast number of subpages of this user that you have created, per your user log. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When you hold such an opinion, lets discuss what it is that is reflected in these Listeria lists.
    It is what we know about early career scientists, organisations and so far awards that can be characterized as of having no bias. It includes images, links to papers and it shows a scholia for awards, organisations and scientists. It shows the extend English Wikipedia covers all of these. These particular pages are therefore as much about English Wikipedia as about the subject perse. Similar information can be found on other Wikipedias. So no, this is not a webhost, it is a reflection about science and it is relevant to this project. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a different person is behind the CYA (role/org account) than GM. But I think that doesn't matter...CYA is softblocked, so it's reasonable for that person to create a new person-account. DMacks (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That person did create a new WMF account has used it a lot on Commons. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GerardM: I think you need to clarify the situation with your account. Has someone else used your account to edit wikipedia? As others have mentioned, the user page User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam was created by your account and a large amount of the content was added by your account. Who created the account GlobalYoungAcademyTeam is IMO not so important as whether anyone else has access or has used the GerardM account. Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quite happy to claim that I created this page and maintained it. I did not create the user, I do not use sock puppets. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replaced the speedy tag. If someone who didnt create the page wants to remove it, go ahead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Already deleted by Fastily. P-K3 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Like a speedy ninja. I left a query on their talk page about the subpages, but I am pretty sure they need to be looked at as a group per my below comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    From taking a look, I concur with C.Fred that given the subpage content linked from here that this is on the face of it, a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTDIR. From past experience it looks similar to link-farming - as everything appears to be stored on wiki-data, the only real purpose to having it on ENWP is to gain higher status. There is a related issue that a lot of them appear to have been created using ListeriaBot (see here for recent issues with that.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    From taking a closer look. The subpages all appear to be lists either of wikidata or wikipedia articles. If they are for the purpose of improving wikipedia's articles about the relevant subjects, then a Wikiproject is probably the best option - many wikiprojects contain lists of articles they want to focus on. If they are merely for GerardM to use in their own editing, then move them to his userspace (but there is likely issues with WP:UNOT). But we shouldnt have over 100 subpages being actively curated by an editor and/or bot in a deleted user's userspace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So what is the process to get this page restored. The deletion is based on assumptions, they are manifestly wrong. These pages provide information about the extend English Wikipedia supports science, particularly science related to early career scientists. It does enable collaboration, many of the scientist gained Wikipedia articles as a result.
    You have not made a case properly and imho it reflects badly on Wikipedia process. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GYA is patently not a user. It might be a project or a Education program and may be something for the Wikipedia:Project namespace but definitely not the space. Nthep (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Nthep noted, with GerardM's assertion that these pages provide information about the extend English Wikipedia supports science, particularly science related to early career scientists, and that it does enable collaboration, this sounds more like a WikiProject. There's more information here about what they are and how to start one. Maybe a pre-existing science WikiProject exists that suits your needs? The science WikiProject directory may be something worth taking a look at. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    With such arguments you basically assert that a speedy deletion and the reason for it is wrong. It should not be a speedy deletion in the first place, its execution while it was discussed is an affront to the due process that is expected as part of a defined process. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wish to specifically contest the speedy deletion, the place to do that is WP:DELREV. A blocked user's userpage is not an article, nor a directory, nor an advert. If that information is for the benefit of improving the encyclopedia, then either your userspace (as you appear to have created all of the content) or a wikiproject (if it satisfies the criteria, which has a low bar since about the only requirement for a wikiproject is 'to improve the encyclopedia'). Here is a question: What is the intent/purpose of all those lists? Is it intended to be used/turned into an article? Is it intended to be used as an admin aide to collaborate in improving articles? Are they just going to sit there and be periodically updated by ListeriaBot? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, if it helps, I am one of the many people that GerardM has worked with. I was also there right at the start of this process. I am a wiki newbie, just like hundreds others that GerardM has brought to contribute (mostly to wikidata) over the last months (from Bangladesh to Panama). I just tried to access the project page and couldn't find it anymore. The page is basically the starting point for more than 50 organizations of professors (young scientists that are part of young national academies of science as well as their alumni) that are being mapped as part of a wikidata project. See here for more information: https://globalyoungacademy.net/national-young-academies/. PPEscientist (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Strikes me that if the page is being used as the "starting point" for an organisation's efforts, that's prime WP:NOTWEBHOST territory. Reading through that web page, I'm not clear at all on what the link to Wikidata or to any Wikimedia project is. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ask that as a very direct question: what is the ultimate intended outcome of all this work in terms of Wikipedia article content? DMacks (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi PPEscientist, I feel you may have been misled or giving incorrect information as to the basic point of wikipedia, so I will start from there. English Wikipedia's (ENWP) purpose is to create an encyclopedia. Much as Wikimedia Commons (Commons) is to create a repository of free media, and Wikidata is to create a shared resource of data to use in multiple language wiki's (altho this may have changed in scope, as Wikidata is doing its own thing). ENWP has a number of different spaces for different purposes. Article space is where we store the articles for the readers. Userspace is where editors have their user and talk pages where collaboration/communication to improve articles takes place. Project space (usually denoted by a WP:<title>) is where all the policies, guidelines, noticeboards, documentation for the running of the encyclopedia sit. Its also where we have our Wikiprojects. Wikiprojects are groups of editors that come together to improve a group of articles within their projects scope. WP:MILHIST focuses on military subjects, WP:WIRED seeks to improve the coverage of articles involving women, WP:MEDICINE seeks to improve content on medical articles. The key point here is they are all intended to improve our article content for readers. From your description above, and reading the website you posted, what you describe is something that is more of a project, but it is more of a data gathering/tracking exercise, that doesnt have any direct (or indirect that I can tell) goal/purpose of improving the encyclopedia. This isnt to say its not something that should be done, just that it does not appear to be something that is within our scope for Wikipedia. Hence the rather direct questions to GerardM and from DMacks above. Wikidata being a data collecting project is probably more a good fit for your purpose than wikipedia, and as (from looking at a lot of the pages created by GerardM) a lot of the information is already stored there, likely in scope for that project. Another alternative would be starting your own dedicated wiki. The references to WP:NOTWEBHOST are linking the relevant policy/guideline that lays out that we are not an indiscriminate web host for the hosting of material. We host stuff that is directly (or indirectly) intended to improve the encyclopedia. Data/Tracking does not really fall within that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It strikes me that you first abuse your own procedures and then ask questions. In the information provided by Robert, you find a link to its website. It shows other organisations and, the majority of them have their own websites as well, they are linked in the information as provided. They are fairly active, they list their members and inform about their accomplishments. Largely this information is used as references for the people involved. They have their own scientific programs, one of them informs about Covid19. These are not specifically linked in our data. Where these papers have a DOI they are included in Wikidata through the normal ingestion methods. This gets reflected in the relevant Scholias.

    The ultimate outcome is "share in the sum of all knowledge", a bit like what we do as a movement. Each Listeria lists shows information that is particular for what it is about. As time goes by, more people, more papers are included and as a consequence it becomes no longer viable to just utter "not notable" because the information about people, awards, organisations is directly available and as up to date as we have it. This data will be correct and not suffer from the false friends you find in Wikipedia lists and links.

    In Listeria lists and, you know that, it is clearly known what list items have a local Wikipedia article. It follows that as lists are followed, it is easy to check on the quality of articles and provide additional information. One such is that every year new recipients happen to awards. As you may know, there is a Scholia template and it is used on many Wikipedia articles providing additional, up to date information.

    For me personally it is again obvious that you do not know what is in front of you. Your procedures are open for abuse as is clearly demonstrated and the only way to address this is to contest this deletion. Given that there was an ongoing real time discussion your procedures are abusive and do not reflect what Wikimedia stands for. I have been an admin for many years and I am glad those days are done. I do not need to reflect on this collective behaviour.

    I doubt that there is room to discuss ways that will improve Wikipedia quality by 4 to 6% in its lists and wiki links. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead of rants which don't answer any questions, perhaps you can't explain why this wasn't done either in your own user space, or in project space (or on Wikidata), but on the page of a non-existant "user", actually a front for a group (or a shared account), which has been blocked since long. I notice that you already have 640 userspace subpages[1], which is more than the number of mainspace edits you made over the past 5 years. Your activity on user talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk space are minimal. So what exactly are all these pages (in your user space, and in the userspace under discussion here) actually doing for the improvement of enwiki? Fram (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This project was not my initiative but something that I consider important. Otherwise it would be a project with a subpage of my userprofile. At the start a name for a profile was chosen that reflects what the project is about. The user was blocked and this matters little as long as the page is available.

    Yes, I have a large number of subpages and they all reflect projects I work on. On my profile page you find what they are about. The problem that I face is that Wikipedia does not have the quality in its information that we seek. In these Listeria lists I provide consolidated data from several Wikipedias about these subjects. Often a Wikipedia is superior in a given domain, I use tooling and manual edits to include the data in Wikidata. These Listeria lists are shared with other Wikipedias. This enables comparison and improvement on the data local and in Wikidata.

    Given that we are working in a Wiki way, it allows for autonomous growth. Both local changes and changes from data are reflected in my watchlist. In this way these Listeria lists provide an excellent tool to learn about particular subject matter. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    None of that actually seems to be about improving Wikipedia articles however. And from your description this looks like a project that should be on wikidata. Also your lists are in userspace and so won't be visible in any real fashion for readers to learn from, and they can't exist for the most part in article space as they would be subject to the rules around lists and bots. As well as other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, all of this seems to belong on Wikidata (if they can use it), but not here. Fram (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the problem with role accounts and promotionalism connected to the Global Young Academy has been long and ongoing; see for instance GlobalYA (talk · contribs) from 2012 and GYA Press Officer (talk · contribs) from 2017. (I created the article myself in 2011 but have not been very active in keeping the promotionalism out of it since.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that the main page has been deleted as U5, should I tag the 109 subpages[2] all with U5 as well, or will some kind admin spare me the work and delete them outright? This is separate from the 600+ subpages of the GerardM account, which may need some action as well. Fram (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    De-tagging bulk speedy nominations

    I need some help, please, to de-tag speedy nominations for a large number of articles in the User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam user space (example: User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam/Sackler Prize for Biophysics. I started doing so manually, then by rollback, but there are too many.

    I believe these to be valid pages, created in good faith to detect notable people and, as part of a project, to write their biographies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps the pages should be moved to be sub-pages of, say, WP:WikiProject GlobalYoungAcademyTeam? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see WP:AN#Permission to edit User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam a bit higher on this very page. The main user page has been deleted as U5, the editor has been blocked, GerardM has been asked questions to which they gave evasive (or at least completely next to the point) answers... The deletion (tagging) of these subpages was announced there as well (after it had been raised there by multiple editors that the subpages needed attention as well). Please undo your removal of the U5 tagging and let these user subpages of an indef blocked editor / role account be deleted. Fram (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    [Moved under the earlier section, of which I was not aware]
    None of what you say means that the material in question is not useful to Wikipedia, or should be deleted. There is only a soft-block, because of the user name, and the user is welcome to edit under another name. We have enough problems to deal with without inventing them, to the detriment of the project and the demotivation of a wanted, novice, contributor.
    Your tagging for speedy is challenged; the tags must be removed; you can use AfD if you wish to persist with this nonsense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Which wanted, novice contributor would that be? There is no evidence that any "User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam" exists, and GerardM is not a novice at all. The pages are part of a Wikidata project, according to those working on them. Why then they needed to be created on enwiki, in the userspace of another user is completely unclear, and no answer to this (or to suggestions about where this all belongs) have been given by the editors involved. Fram (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "There is no evidence that any 'User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam' exists". False: [3]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if they edit on other wiki language versions, it is not really clear how the deletion of subpages not created or edited by them, nearly a year after the editor was blocked here, would have a negative effect on this "wanted, novice contributor". Fram (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You removed the speedy tag from User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam/Dufferin Medal with edit summary: "Perfectly valid preparatory work for future Wikipedia articles", even though we already have an article on the Dufferin Medal and no one will look for material to improve it in a subpage of an editor with zero edits on enwiki. And even if they found it, there is nothing there that can be used to improve the target article, the eight recipients were already included with better descriptions. Fram (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "no one will look..." Having had your previous false assertion refuted, you strangely persist in making false pronouncements, based on your own flawed assumptions. They are unedifying, but also irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, back to the personal comments I see, making broad negative statements instead of dealing with the actual "false pronouncement". Why does this always happen in discussions with you? (If someone wants an example of similar unhelpful negative replies, look e.g. at Template talk:Infobox comics creator#Convert to wrapper. Trying to have a useful discussion in this manner is next to impossible). Fram (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No personal comment; I was addressing - and very specifically at that (and just as I did in the linked dicussion) - what you did, not who you are. Unlike you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec: Can you stop constantly changing your comments. It is rather annoying to reply to a statement only to get an edit conflict because you have again added stuff to it). Let's see, "you strangely persist in making false pronouncements, based on your own flawed assumptions. They are unedifying, but also irrelevant." is a broad negative statement without any indication of what you base these claims on. Dismissing another editor's comment "just because" is hardly "very specifically" adressing anything that was said. It boils down to "you made an error above, so everything else you say is wrong". I prefer to discuss things in a more adult manner. Fram (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think I have deceptively changed the meaning of any of my comments once someone has replied to them, please provide a diff. Otherwise, I will continue to add afterthoughts, fix typos etc. My comment about your false comments was - as anyone can see - preceded with a specific example, highlighted thus: "no one will look...". If you wish to continue to attack me, rather than discuss the user pages at hand, I suggest you open a separate section. As it is, it is clear that the speedy-deletion tags must be removed, and nothing you have said refutes that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The pages I de-tagged are now at AfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam/ASEAN Young Scientists Network. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It was brought to my attention that the subpages were being discussed here after I had already speedied them. I'm recusing myself from further administrative action on this matter, and any admin is welcome to restore pages as they see fit. -FASTILY 21:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't merely brought to your attention; I asked you to undelete them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I'm recusing from further administrative action, because I consider myself to be involved now. I note that there are also editors who support deletion, and so to ensure a fair outcome for all parties, I think that call should be made by another admin. -FASTILY 21:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're not involved; you do not need to recuse; and you should undelete the pages as requested. If someone disagrees with their existence, then they have MfD at their disposal, to allow the community to come to a consensual decision: that is the process established "to ensure a fair outcome for all parties". I shouldn't have to be explaining any of this to someone with access to admin tools. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with everything you just said. Let's examine the facts. You are disputing an administrative action I perceive to be correct which also has support from other editors. I have also !voted on the associated MfD. This is a textbook case of WP:INVOLVED. As previously stated, I am open to my actions being reviewed (in fact I encourage it) and overturned by a neutral third party. I'm tired of repeating myself, so barring any significant new developments, I won't be commenting on this thread any longer. -FASTILY 20:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User page

    I doubt that User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam warranted deletion under U5; please will someone restore it? It can be sent to AfD if anyone disagrees with me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to challenge the speedy deletion of a page, take it up with the deleting admin and, if they disagree, take it to WP:DRV. Regards SoWhy 12:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ready to do so if necessary, but it seems pointlessly beaurcratc to require that given the context and volume of discussion here already. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than a small header naming members of "GlobalYoungAcademyTeam" it's just a prettified version of Special:PrefixIndex/User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam. Cabayi (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All the more reason why it should not have been speedily deleted; and why it should be restored, then. It is absolutely not U5 material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DRV Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you; that was suggested above. Did you not see so, and my reply? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That you personally find something pointless doesn't change the fact that DRV is the consensus approved process for dealing with the situation. Take it to DRV. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot claim consensus when the process has not been maintained. It is obvious that questions were raised at the time that were by "consensus" ignored. So your consensus is of those doing the policing, not reflecting on the reason why, their process and purpose. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Best practices

    We've had discussions in the past that failed to gain consensus on including Wikidata-generated lists in mainspace. Have there been any attempts to define good practices for using them outside of mainspace as an error-checking tool? There seem to be a handful of them (<20) on article talk pages and one or two on subpages of talk pages. In the long run, I think some input from people actually doing article improvement as to the most beneficial use of these would be more helpful than leaving them abandoned in userspace somewhere. Choess (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Account restriction (User:Therapyisgood)

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    Due to recent misuse of multiple accounts, Therapyisgood (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted to editing with one account.

    Support: Joe Roe, Maxim, SoWhy, Casliber, Bradv, Beeblebrox

    Oppose:

    Recuse:

    For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Account restriction (User:Therapyisgood)

    Scunthorpe problem

    Resolved
     – Whitelisted by Dirk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm trying to add a link to the European STAMP workshop (an industry/academic conference about the STAMP accident analysis methodology, https:// www.stamp-workshop.eu/about-stamp/ ), to Nancy Leveson's biography, and encountering a Scunthorpe problem: an edit filter is rejecting the url because it contains the substring "shop.eu". Can someone help with this? Easiest way might be for an admin to just add this link to the external links section of the article. I think I can then move the link into the article text without hitting the filter again, since I would no longer be adding a new link. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WT:WHITELIST may be what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What Gråbergs Gråa Sång said. That way if it gets reverted out, you don't need an admin to put it back in, etc etc etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What a pain, I wonder if there is a way to fix the filter. Unfortunately the error message doesn't identify what filter it is that blocked the edit, since I wanted to check how often the filter actually triggers, though chances are it's one filter for multiple patterns. shop.eu spamming is probably rare enough that it can be handled by xlinkbot instead of a filter. Anyway I'll see about whitelisting. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And wait, will whitelisting even help? The substring is not in the mediawiki spam blacklist, that the whitelist counteracts. It's being stopped by an edit filter, which is different. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had an account, you would be able to see the spam blacklist being hit. The entry is at m:Spam blacklist (listed as "shop\.eu\b"). Also, for the record, even admins can't add blacklisted links. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, it does say blacklist in the error box. Not sure why I thought it was an EF. Thanks. Can you see how often that blacklist item is triggered? And it's crazy that admins can't bypass the BL. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have whitelisted the link, basically a false positive on an intentionally wide rule after large attacks of XXXshop.eu spam. Sorry for the delay, I had to see the records first. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Made mistake in moving article

    I wanted to move the Nahal Hermon article to its english name Banias River, but it didn't work because the redirect already existed, so I changed the redirect to the article and made Nahal Hermon a redirect, the problem now is that the history of the article is now at the redirect. I probably should not have done this. Can some admin please properly move the Nahal Hermon redirect to the Banias River name? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Supreme Deliciousness. I think I covered this for you (Let me know if there is something further, or I made a mistake). In future, see WP:RMT for page moves where there is a redirect at the target and it has more than one edit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You will need to cleanup the lede due to the page move though! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lee Vilenski, It should not have been moved. The common name is Nahal Hermon, not Banias River. WP:COMMON applies. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Joseph - I simply fixed the copy-paste move. I have no ties to the article. If it needs/should be reverted, I suggest that this should be discussed with Supreme Deliciousness. Although I agree this probably isn't a non-controversial move. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lee Vilenski, you're an admin, you should have reverted and put it back to what it was and told Supreme Deliciousness that a controversial move should be discussed first. I'm a page-move and I know that a page move that is controversial should not be done without discussion. This is not his first time at the rodeo. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lee Vilenski, Please move it back to original title if there is any objection that I will do the move my self? Shrike (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved the pages back to the prior locations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lee, you picked the very worst of the options to mollify objections of process but not substance, but no worries will go through the normal process here. nableezy - 19:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've treated this the same as an opposed technical move. If a RM is inevitable, then it should come from the more stable name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal concerning WP:OUTING / Appeals

    I've entered a proposal to update the outing process on Wikipedia to allow for appeals where it concerns outing. Feel free to add your voice Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_update_the_Outing_procedure_to_allow_for_appeals Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 01:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit of concern

    To be as brief as possible, could an admin review this edit which I quickly reverted? I am quite concerned, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted the revision and have notified the WMF about the concern. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tumbleman specialist to the bridge please

    I reverted an edit by an IP to Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) earlier, and I was puzzled because I knew it to have been permanently semiprotected due to, as far as I recall, Tumbleman socks (this is one of Tumbleman's focus topics, here and off-wiki). Turns out that the article was temporarily fully protected in Feb and of course when that expired, it went back to no protection. I restored SPROT for now, as the status quo ante as it were, but can anyone familiar with Tumbleman please say if this is still needed? I think Tumbleman is still active, certainly he is still active and bitching about us off-wiki. Maybe ECP would be better? Does someone want to do that? Guy (help!) 11:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ECP should only be applied if and/or when semi proves inadequate. El_C 12:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, I like ECP because it allows IPs to edit, but removes isues of bonkers content being visible to the reader. Guy (help!) 13:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, I think you might be conflating pending changes (WP:PC) with extended-confirmed protection (WP:ECP). El_C 13:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, d'oh. That is what I meant, of course. Thank you. Guy (help!) 14:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if Tumbleman is involved, but there has been a recent and apparently off-wiki coordinated or solicited effort to modify Sheldrake's article. Most of the active participants are either autoconfirmed or ECP-confirmed but they have been sticking to talk pages and not edit-warring. So they aren't a concern and even ECP wouldn't do anything anyway. PC would likely be enough to catch evaders. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "a recent and apparently off-wiki coordinated or solicited effort to modify Sheldrake's article". Do you have evidence for this? There are significant problems with the article, but nothing that any sort of protection would help remedy. The issues are essentially content disputes and there has been no edit warring. PC or SP are not needed here. Arcturus (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Arcturus, what, apart from the fact that everyone is asking the same thing, with pretty much the same arguments? Guy (help!) 20:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Aha, I see this has been on Gary Null's show recently. That may go some way towards explaining the observed facts. Presumably we can also expect some of Null's fans at his article. Guy (help!) 13:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Legacy Visual

    I removed TPA for Legacy Visual due to a series of off-topic misogynist posts. If anyone thinks that's unnecessary, feel free to reverse. Guy (help!) 12:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly looking at their edit history, and the recent ANI thread, an indef for WP:NOTHERE may have warranted. Adding those replies that caused the TPA revoke, I'm inclined to do so now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen that editor before. I just went over many of their edits again--they're definitely NOTHERE, except to argue a political point, and even that they're doing ineptly. I dropped the NOTHERE block, and I think the template restored TPA--but since this is an indefinite block the situation is a bit different and they might sing a different tune. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, I'll keep an eye out. Thanks. Guy (help!) 14:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Protecting 2020 China-India skirmishes

    About two times the request has been made on WP:RFPP for WP:ECP, however both times they were rejected by admin Woody[4][5] and his actions were indeed made in good faith. Nonetheless the page should be ECP already due to disruption (not vandalism) by inexperienced editors and the subject is really contentious. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My reasoning in the decline is available here and still seems to stand. We don't normally protect articles because they are busy. It didn't seem to meet the normal interpretation of disruptive at that time. Please discuss your issues on the talk page. I notice there are a number of discussion requests that haven't been answered. Having discussions in edit summaries doesn't count. As always, I have absolutely no qualms with any other admin protecting. Woody (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through the article...last 500 edits or so., and I concur with my colleague above. Semi-protection is enough imho, ECP-protection should only be used when semi-protection has been proven to be inadequate; we are not at this point yet. Lectonar (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Technical question about what kind of blocks are possible.

    Re: Wikipedia:Help desk#Can I block a user or IP from leaving messages on my talk page? could our new "block from editing individual pages" ability could be used to block that IP from editing that talk page? Assuming that it is possible, would it be desirable? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think we should be using partial blocks of that nature without some formal dispute resolution (likely at AN or ANI), simply "please don't post on my page" isn't exactly an "enforceable IBAN", as has been demonstrated by unregistered and registered users time and time again. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Worst case is that you get your talkpage temp. protected for a while. Speaking of what is possible, it would be great if you could partially block an IP range from editing a group of pages in a given category. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tech answers only: @Guy Macon: yes, a block can be placed against a user/ip/ip range that would prohibit editing only a specific page, and that could be a user talk page. @Lugnuts: Category blocks were declined in general (c.f. phab:T190349) as they would allow non-admins to extend the block by adding the blocked category places. — xaosflux Talk 19:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks xaosflux. Shame that can't be done (at the present)! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    block user:A.B.Siddiki

    Please block user:A.B.Siddiki, sock puppet of User:Prince Shobuz aka User:Abu Bakkar Siddiki (Shobuz). Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You can file a report on WP:SPI if you really think that this is a sockpuppet and you will get better response there. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Shashank5988, আফতাবুজ্জামান is a CheckUser on bn.wiki. Admins here can block based on their comments if it matches. আফতাবুজ্জামান, you might get a quicker response via email to checkuser-l. I’ll block here, though :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Derek Chauvin

    Please delete these revisions [6]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Revocation of CheckUser access for Bbb23

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    In April, the Arbitration Committee privately warned Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that his use of the CheckUser tool had been contrary to local and global policies prohibiting checking accounts where there is insufficient evidence to suspect abusive sockpuppetry ("fishing"). The committee additionally imposed specific restrictions on Bbb23's use of the CheckUser tool in ambiguous cases otherwise considered to be within the discretion of individual CheckUsers. Bbb23 has subsequently communicated to the committee that he is unwilling to comply with these restrictions, continued to run similar questionable checks, and refused to explain these checks on request. Accordingly, Bbb23's CheckUser access is revoked.

    Support: Joe Roe, Bradv, Beeblebrox, Maxim, David Fuchs, xeno, Worm That Turned, SoWhy, Casliber, Newyorkbrad, DGG
    Oppose:
    Recuse: KrakatoaKatie
    Inactive: GorillaWarfare, Mkdw

    For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Revocation of CheckUser access for Bbb23

    Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

    Hi, There is backlog from Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 27 March 2020 to Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 10 June 2020. If any admin have time clearing this then it would be great. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed some of these (and done so in the past) but it's time consuming if you check that the files genuinely are there and identical. Is it necessary to do that? Or are the bots close to foolproof? If they work well, maybe we could get an adminbot. Guy (help!) 08:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A bot can't do this task, because a non-trivial number of the files should not be on Wikipedia or the Commons either, because the person who uploaded it is not the copyright holder, or it's not clear that the stated license is the correct one, or other such issues.— Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This backlog was also noted recently at WT:CSD#Backlog of local copies tagged for deletion per F8. --Izno (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Waterwizardm and NOTHERE

    Part of me just wants to disengage from them, which I have, but another part of me would like to see them at least warned to take their WP:FRINGE theory elsewhere. I admit it is tempting to continue debating them but I shall no longer contravene NOTAFORUM myself. @David Eppstein:. I would just like other eyes on this situation because I believe my further contribution to it would serve no purpose.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    They have been told to take their fringe theory elsewhere, repeatedly, in Talk:P versus NP problem. At least they migrated from article space to article talk space to (now) their own user talk space, but I don't see any evidence that they are giving up their crank views or their desire to push those views into Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: Looks like no other admins are interested in this. I'll escalate further if they post further screeds.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They haven't edited article space since 6 June. But if they resume, let me know and I might be able to do something. They already received an admin warning on their talk page about WP:Original research. Any continuation might be blockable as WP:DE if they get lots of pushback and are clearly not paying attention. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston and David Eppstein: [8] I am not convinced they understand that their user talk page isn't a place where they can keep on this nonsense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Attention needed at edit warring noticeboard

    Hello, There are several reports that are becoming stale (including one I made, despite ongoing issues), and newer reports are being answered before older ones. Could one or more admins please attend to the backlog? Thanks. — Tartan357  (Talk) 18:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) @Tartan357: If newer reports are being treated over older reports, that generally indicates that the patrolling admin(s) have chosedn not to action them, for a variety of reasons. Regarding your filing, for example—presumably the one your driven to comment by—is probably seen as too multi-faceted for ANEW: they like things simple there, on the whole, and your case would probably be better suited at AN/I, as it involves a number of different behavioral / policy issues rathern than simply edit-warring. YMMV of course (as might theirs). ——Serial # 18:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: Are you sure? It may appear complex on its surface, but the editor made the same edit (changing the picture) across multiple pages in the same series, so it seems pretty straightforward to me. And there are many other requests above mine that haven’t been answered, as well. — Tartan357  (Talk) 18:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure I'm not sure  :) no, carry on, you might get a result: just that you mentioned something that I've often though about too. ——Serial # 18:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if the practice of "reviewing admins not commenting = decline" is a valuable one. --Izno (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think it is; thankfully, they got to my report, though. But I find the practice of ignoring reports and answering them out out of order frustrating since they’re automatically archived after 48 hours. — Tartan357  (Talk) 22:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Izno, if there are no new diffs after 48h, I think we should default to "no action" (see below). I have seen several where the report was basically trying to get the other party in a dispute sanctioned out of the way, with non actual violation, but it took a long time to work it out. Guy (help!) 08:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, I'm not questioning how they should close in that case (I'm not sure I agree with you but that's not my main interest). I'm questioning whether admins should make a comment, even if it's just to say "I don't see an issue". This would help admins get to a consensus in hard/non-obvious cases and make the easy cases obvious to anyone onlooking. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Izno, maybe, but WP:NOTBURO and often I say nothing because it seems to need specific domain knowledge. Guy (help!) 13:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial Number 54129, yes, after 48h an ANEW report could probably be NACd by an uninvolved editor as "no action". Normally these are left because the issue is not obvious or because it has stopped. Guy (help!) 08:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A Question About Having an Account Created

    My friend asked me to check on how long it takes for account requests to be answered. They asked for an account three weeks ago and still haven't heard anything so they were wondering. If you could reply to them at (Redacted), they and I would really appreciate it. (They wanted the name Lugia1988.) Thanks! Sianna Ann (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Advise given on Sianna Ann's talk page. El_C 19:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Telling users not to edit?

    Every once in a while, I see somebody post something to a user's talk page along the lines of, "Please tell me if you have a COI, socking relationship, were hired by, etc, some other person. Do not continue to edit until you answer this question." Is there any policy which covers such a request? It seems like my authority as an admin is to block somebody for cause, but if I'm not going to do that, then I don't see how I can give them a cease-and-desist order. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's built into the warning template, likely based on the TOU under WP:PAID and Meta:Paid editing. Praxidicae (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Praxidicae, Which template, specifically? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    template:uw-paid1 Praxidicae (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other templates available; I use {{uw-coi}}. Both it and {{welcome-coi}} address editors who may have a conflict of interest, and include information on disclosing editing for pay. I might use {{uw-paid1}} as an escalation if the editor continued without responding to uw-coi, but I'd probably look for an admin familiar with the area or go to a noticeboard instead. (Non-administrator comment) BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Praxidicae, Thanks. So, it looks like that language was added in this edit by Fuhghettaboutit and discussed here. I am a little concerned about Primefac's assertion that failure to respond is a blockable offense. If you want to block somebody for UPE, I'm fine with that. But, blocking somebody for failing to respond to a question that no policy obligates them to respond to, seems dubious at best. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have yet to see a block for *not* responding. It's always UPE but I am probably in the minority that thinks that failing to communicate is a blockable offense and inherently incompatible with Wikipedia regardless of whether it's related to UPE or general editing. Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Praxidicae, you are not the only one. I block per WP:COMMUNICATE (an extension WP:CIR, as far as I'm concerned) often. El_C 20:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I've actually imposed such a block myself, but I think that it is an acceptable reason for a block, especially when the unblock conditions of responding to the disclosure request are so simple to comply with. signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill, it usually had to do with stonewalling repeated queries and notices which, again, pertains to disputes. El_C 21:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill, I guess this is a US-centric point of view, but I grew up in the days of Miranda being a new thing. So, I've got the idea of requiring somebody to answer a question (and/or using their silence as evidence of wrongdoing) pretty much seared into my brain as bad things. I know, enwiki isn't just the US, and we're not a court of law, and a few other things, but it still feels wrong to tell somebody, "You're not allowed to edit until you answer my question". But, OK, I'll get off my soapbox now. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, I think it should be understood as stonewalling while in dispute, and continuing in this or that dispute, without ever bothering to communicate. El_C 21:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, I think there's a pretty big difference between what is reasonable to expect from a police officer and legal system that can impose fines, long-term imprisonment or death vs. what is reasonable to expect from a community of volunteers where the most severe penalty is being barred from participation (and where such penalties can be painlessly reversed). I think that a more equitable (if still imperfect) offline comparison would be a cashier asking you if you're of age before selling you alcohol. signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also said that an editor is not obligated to respond. Primefac (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, circumstances dictate when to invoke WP:COMMUNICATE/WP:CIR — which is in the realm of disputes. El_C 21:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's been some conflation of COI and PAID. Something like an umdisclosed COI or relationship is less blockable, and isn't specifically disallowed by TOU, so this type of message may be less than appropriate in some cases. I think this type of "do no edit" message should only be used where a block is policy compliant. If RoySmith has a specific recent example in mind, which they may or may not, I think this may not have been appropriate message. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zzuuzz, Well, there's a specific example which triggered my starting this thread, but I'm more interested in the general question (and don't wish to put anybody in particular on the spot), so, I'm not going to point it out. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said I think it's only appropriate when a block is appropriate, much as you explained in your original question. The only times I've ever used a "do not edit" statement is for username issues. There are other specific warnings, like "don't revert again", but "you must tell me if you have a relationship" isn't (always) a strong policy requirement. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockery

    I doubt an SPI will be needed to prove that @AndersonL7333: is a sock of banned @Lennox Theodore Anderson:. That duck is really quacking. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see User talk:Seongyunhong12345

    This user is in a difficult position at their workplace. They have been instructed to create an article for their employer. That employer fails WP:CORP. They have requested a brief block to get them out from under their management's disapproval. See User talk:Seongyunhong12345#Healthynox_Corporation Please will a friendly Admin help them out? Fiddle Faddle 14:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    They indicate that blocking their VPN would be preferable, even for a month. I doubt that remedy is available without serious discussion Fiddle Faddle 14:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They also say it's their 2nd account and an earlier one was banned, and that someone else will recreate the article (not a threat, just saying that they won't). You really need to read the talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've located and reported as socks two linked users here. All I can tell, and especially using WP:AGF is that this seems to be a young intern in a deep mess, potentially being bullied at work. And they are not even paid! Fiddle Faddle 16:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that this corporation claims to provide "a mental health platform created for institutions that want to see their people thrive". I can't think of a worse way for any institution to see their people thrive than insisting that they do the impossible. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Irony appears lost on them. I have no ability to help except by words. Please will someone use the right size hammer? Fiddle Faddle 16:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    An admin should do what normal protocol requires. I think salting is appropriate since the company wants it so bad, but I'm not commenting on the right admin action. The user will have to gain their own respect at work. That's called growing up. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted the draft as WP:G5 and salted the draft and article space pages since it's pretty obvious someone from that company will try and recreate them again. In case it becomes notable in the future, I've applied semi-creation protection so autoconfirmed accounts can create it. I've also courtesy blanked the user's talk page. Between that and User:Ad Orientem's block, I think that's the extent of what we can do for them. A checkuser might be able to block the underlying VPN but my knowledge of the proxy policy is limited. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the thoughts and actions of those who looked at and helped with this. Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV Needs Attention

    There is currently a significant backlog at WP:AIV. I am going to start working on it but some help would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleared out the bot reports; will start helping with the rest.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Handled Thanks to all concerned for the assist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's significantly backlogged from time to time now, and the AGF stuff about 4 warnings is really collectively shooting Wikipedia in the foot because of that situation. See how much damage 81.154.188.218 did because first there was AGF and then no one patrolled AIV for half a day. Also, editors constantly forget to revert all edits by the vandals. I just rollbacked 15 edits by vandal that was blocked 11 days ago. Now would a be a good time to nominate some recent changes patrollers for adminship because the battle is being lost. --Pudeo (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that increasing the number of admins is the answer, even if they do come from the rolls of recent change patrollers. Once they become admins, and the sexy wide-open spaces of adminship are available to them, how're ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm to do the nitty-gritty AIV grunt-work? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken, ArbCom should start sentencing misbehaving admins to recent changes patrol. Natureium (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It won't happen, but if they unbundled the toolset and made adminship truly "NBD", it might help. If these admins were approved for certain tasks only, like they are to run a bot via BRFA, and strayed from those approved tasks, flag removed. NBD. If they learned their lesson, let them have it back. No drama needed; any admin/crat could remove/add the flag without a drama board, similar to other PERM or BRFA. But this is a fantasy. So, never mind. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of the issue is that on his break, SQL disabled SQLBot, which was a large part of the reason we stopped having semi-regular "AIV is overrun threads". It removed all the stale reports, which had the benefit of 1) making it look more manageable so people would tackle it, and 2) indirectly declining stuff that didn't need admin intervention. Hopefully SQL will be back at some point in the next few months and can start the bot up again. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Half of the stuff that gets reported to AIV is not actually vandalism. Genre warring, for example, is disruptive but definitely is not vandalism. Unsourced edits that were made in good faith are not vandalism. And some random IP editor who puts "hi everyone! p.s. melinda rules!" in the middle of an article should not be given a final warning for vandalism if that was the only edit made in the past 3 months. And this IP should definitely not be reported to AIV after being given that final warning unless there's been further vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      which is why I personally would support the idea of having AIV/RFPP/PERM "clerk-y" type roles: vetted by the community who wouldn't have the technical ability to block, just decline obvious GF yet not needed reports of requests. Also the bad faith ones. It might reduce some of the workload on admins and would help put new potential admins in the limelight and let them gain experience in those adminn-y areas. There isn't technically speaking anything to prevent such action by a non-admin from a policy viewpoint that I'm aware of, but it's generally discouraged. Anyway, just some thoughts from a passing non-admin. \_(:/)_/ Cheers -- puddleglum2.0 00:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TonyBallioni: I see SQLBot's source code is linked from its BRFA. Could someone else run it in SQL's absence? 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A new sockpuppet of banned sockpuppeteer editing and edit warring on political pages

    The new sock of Peterjack1 is 108.14.43.250, starting 6/17. The prior sock, Smith0124 was blocked on 6/12. Since returning, they have edited (inc. edit warring) ~60 presidential and gubernatorial election pages. After the Smith0124 ban, I posted a list of the > 250 election/political pages they edited under that guise, seeking help in reviewing. That it's the same editor is evidenced here: this edit by Smith0124 == this edit by 108.14.43.250.

    I reported the 108.14.43.250 sock here, but am posting here in hopes of quicker response. It looks like this will be a recurring problem. Thx Humanengr (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive user User:NelsonTrafalgar

    This new user has been consistently removing text with a valid source from the article: Goals Soccer Centres.

    Examples here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goals_Soccer_Centres&diff=963655261&oldid=963557811 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goals_Soccer_Centres&diff=963553704&oldid=961866724 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goals_Soccer_Centres&diff=959761288&oldid=959560986

    The user may possibly be a connection of people as the material being removed.

    81.110.21.11 (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of rollback

    I have taken the decision to leave the project permanently. As a result I ask that rollback is removed from my account. IWI (chat) 12:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please remove PC as well. Thank you, IWI (chat) 12:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Have written an article in Kannada script.

    I have written an article on renowned Kavita Krishnamurthy in Kannada language using Kannada script. Shall I publish it? Is there a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinadMysuru (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @NinadMysuru: This is the English Wikipedia site. Topics can be from any culture or place, as long as they comply with our usual policies, but the articles themselves need to be written in English. There is a Kannada Wikipedia for articles written in that language. DMacks (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the reply! Help me how can I publish? Where can I publish? Can you share the link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinadMysuru (talk • contribs) 15:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NinadMysuru, I have no idea of the rules of Kannada Wikipedia, but you find it here: [9]. Ask there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    YARFCCR: Regarding Joe Biden's fingers

    • I'm sorry to bring yet another close review here. It's because I've been slowly clearing the backlog at ANRFC, and the stuff that had been unclosed for a long time was mostly pretty contentious. Anyway, a few days ago I made this close, and an editor has very politely and respectfully indicated on my talk page that she feels I might have been mistaken. I invite community scrutiny and, if I have erred, I'll be delighted to self-revert.—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=963769308"