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	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	12	31
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	18	46	64
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 9 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 142 sockpuppet investigations
• 58 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 24 requests for RD1 redaction
• 64 elapsed requested moves
• 6 Pages at move review
• 27 requested closures
• 125 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 18 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 7756 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Comedy Shorts Gamer 2024-05-16 18:08 indefinite edit,move This subject is still on WP:DEEPER and the title blacklist and should not have a standalone article without approval through DRV Pppery ComedyShortsGamer 2024-05-16 18:06 indefinite edit,move Restore salt Pppery Template:Fl. 2024-05-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2585 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Reform Zionism 2024-05-16 17:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Progressive Zionism 2024-05-16 17:46 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Nagyal 2024-05-16 17:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers British support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-16 12:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AIPIA Malinaccier Neil Hartigan 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Tad Jude 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Minneapolis 2024-05-15 17:15 2025-05-15 17:15 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Draft:CaseOh 2024-05-15 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dennis Brown Poot 2024-05-15 00:14 2025-05-15 00:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Spore (2008 video game) 2024-05-14 23:39 2024-11-14 23:39 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Jewish Institute for National Security of America 2024-05-14 06:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller Nava Mau 2024-05-14 03:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Andrey Belousov 2024-05-14 03:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Category:Hamas 2024-05-13 23:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Sde Teiman detention camp 2024-05-13 20:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Çankaya Mansion 2024-05-13 14:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:GS/AA Rosguill Second Battle of Latakia 2024-05-13 13:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Alien 2024-05-13 13:23 indefinite move lower to semi, time heals; requested at WP:RfPP The Night Watch Shays' Rebellion 2024-05-13 08:08 2025-05-13 08:08 move dang it. Not used to move protection, I guess.... Dennis Brown Chuck Buchanan Jr. 2024-05-13 02:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse 2024-05-13 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Michael Ealy 2024-05-13 01:22 2025-05-13 01:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: racist swinery Drmies Template:Nelson, New Zealand 2024-05-13 00:51 indefinite move Highly visible template that is vulnerable to macron vandalism Schwede66 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024-05-12 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Interracial marriage 2024-05-12 19:14 2024-11-12 19:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry RoySmith

Name of the Republic of Turkey

It is looking possible that sometime this year, the country currently known as Turkey will be acknowledged to have changed its English name to Turkiye or Türkiye (matching the spelling in Turkish). However, it has not yet done so to the satisfaction of the UN, the AP, or other sources that Wikipedia follows. There is likely to be a steady stream of ECP editors who want to change this name on articles such as Turkey before there is consensus to do so. Could admins please watchlist that page (and related articles such as Name of Turkey) to watch for any disruption that may occur, and to shut down untimely RM discussions? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Even if it does change its name, we should retain its current name until such time as the common spelling changes. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Rockstone35 makes a good point. We follow the sources, not the country's preferences. No one in Germany calls their country "Germany", they call it Deutschland. We use the name that is common in English speaking countries, so we may eventually change it's spelling at Wikipedia, but not instantly, and not until most sources are using that spelling. See WP:COMMONNAME. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Note that COMMONNAME does not support us following the name common in English speaking countries. Instead it supports us following the name in "independent, reliable English-language sources". The only time we restrict to English speaking countries is when it comes national varieties of English. Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  And even there we have the WP:COMMONALITY exception. BilledMammal (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• It took many years for us to change Kiev to Kyiv. (A change I was opposed to.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If only we were the sort of encyclopaedia that told readers about "Anadolis" (Anatolia), "Anadolu", "Türkistan", "Türkeli", "Rumi", "Osmanli", and what "Rum" actually meant. Like Masters 2010, p. 574 is. But we are, instead, the sort of encyclopaedia where Name of Turkey mentions the current name change twice over, once in the wrong section, devotes 4 out of its mere 20 sources to that, and has none of the history, even of the various competing alternatives for the Republic.

The fact that we have crap explanations in the first place is why we have ended up in these situations many times.

• Masters, Bruce Alan (2010). "Turkey". In A ́goston, Ga ́bor; Masters, Bruce Alan (eds.). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 9781438110257.
• Everett-Heath, John (2019). "Turkey". The Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192602541.
• Akşin, Sina (1999). "Factors put forward to explain independence movements in the Balkans". In Delilbaşı, Melek; Ergenç, Özer; Kayapınar, Levent (eds.). South East Europe in History, the Past, the Present and the Problems of Balkanology. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Companyğrafya Fakültesi Yayınları. p. 43. ISBN 9789754824711. […] When the Ottomans wanted to say 'Turkey' they used the Italian or Spanish form, 'Türkiye', instead of the Turkish forms Türkeli or Türkistan. […]

Sina Akşin is a history professor at the University of Ankara.

Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

NPOV discussion on Peter A. McCullough

This page seems to have become grounds for a nasty edit war recently. A user has noted that and put a POV warning in that page, which then lead to a pretty heated argument in the talk page. This is a topic in and on itself already, but there's also the issue that the user Firefangledfeathers, that was apparently involved in the edit war, decided to be the arbiter of that discussion and closed it. I decided to discuss it with said user in his/her talk page, but it was to no avail. The article is still quite controversial as of now so I think some administrator intervention is needed, it would also be good to keep the discussions going instead of arbitrarily closing them out of dislike of others opinions. 156.215.54.243 (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm involved, but this report is a nothingburger. The "edit war" was a user insiting on making unsourced edits and, more importantly, changing quotes from sources so that they no longer match the source material. Also, I assume OP is referring to this talk page section, which was indeed closed by FirefangledFeathers, but they have their dates wrong; that close was made on January 12th, several weeks *before* the recent changes, and ionvolved a completely different editor. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The article's under WP:ARBCOVID and WP:ARBAP2 DS, and thus so is the talk page. We've been dealing with a lot of people who've been trying to push some talking points from his appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast pretty much since that episode started. From what I've been seeing (note that I am involved, against my better judgment) a lot of the editors pushing for minimising the (cited) misinformation claims are drive-bys that don't bother to attempt to defend their position. A group which appears to include this IP. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of this discussion and would be happy to answer questions or provide info. I share Writ Keeper and Jéské Couriano's view about what's been going on at that article. Firefangledfeathers 19:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Arguably, we could justify EC protection on the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  (uninvolved) I think EC protection is warranted. ––FormalDude talk 00:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  I added the EC protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  You forgot to log it, Ymblanter. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  I did not think of arbitration enforcement (we can ec protect any article if semi-protection has proven inefficient), but I can log it indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  I get confused by that as well, since EC is much more common and we can use it on articles that don't fall under Arb restrictions now. But I see that they are still logged, I assume it is because it still falls under AE type of action, being an article that clearly does (BLP). My guess is that it makes it easy to review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but shouldn't this be logged as WP:COVIDDS rather than WP:ARBBLP? My own approach is that a bio needs to basically fail any other DS coverage, and also be special in some way, for me to log its protection as ARBBLP. I think my last one was Gina Carano, but again, I don't think it really matters. Anyway, for just straight BLP-whatever (from pc to ECP), I usually just choose the WP:BLP option in the protection drop-down menu. It's easier, plus, I already spam WP:AEL so heavily, so... El_C 23:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I just realized I'm 2 days late to the conversation. GG. Carry on. El_C 23:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it could go either way, but in order of importance, I think BLP trumps COVID in the potential damage and the particular circumstances. Either would probably be fine, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's about importance as much as it is about finding the right fit. I usually log AE actions of COVID-focused bios as, well, WP:COVIDDS. Just as earlier today I logged a bio involving a prominent Indian ultranationalist as WP:ARBIND (AEL diff), and so on and so forth. But, again, so long as it's logged, somewhere, I don't think it matters all that much. El_C 11:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, Dennis, not trying to be a dick (it just comes naturally to me!) — I actually think you've been doing a fine job at WP:AE, so kudos and keep up the good work! El_C 12:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Coldstreamer20 appeal

The following appeal is made by Coldstreamer20, posted by myself. I and several others discussed it and ultimately I advised the user to submit an appeal to the Community, which they do so now.

---

I was blocked back on the 13th of January for using (what I thought at the time) as copyright images free to use on sandboxes, but not on main space pages. Now, this quickly became an issue when @JJMC89 (who I thought was a bot at the time) kept reverting the images which caused the issues. These images, I can say I knew were copyrighted, however I didn't until around the 15th or so understand the images issue on Wikipedia. After I learned the issues this could cause, I began trying to fix the issue, but was blocked while removing them in my edit. Later on, I learned (after this block) that JJ is in-fact not a bot, and a real person so we were going back-and-forth. Editors can see here the back and forth issues. So, this brings us to the issues which at the time, but now after the block realise:

• 1) JJ is NOT a bot (something I thought, because the first edit says the user is 'JJMC89 bot', and didn't see the others weren't from this bot
• 2) The reverted edits from JJ stated "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). Non-free files are only permitted in articles." Something which at the time I actually thought was just an automated message.
• 3) After realising my mistake, I saw I was going back-and-forth as I stated with JJ, not realising he was actually an admin removing copyrighted images.
• 4) Why was this an issue for me? Well, I wasn't aware at the time that I couldn't use the copyrighted images even on my Sandboxes, which I hadn't understood. After the block, I took the time to check the image issues and noticed the problems it causes and the issued I didn't understand regarding the use of the images. I thought that they were fine to be used on sandboxes because they aren't in the mainspace, but I then learned this isn't the case, and can't be used at all, ONLY on the page is for.
• 5) What can I do? Well, #1 As I stated, I took the time to check what the issue actually was, and I will admit, after the block happened because I hadn't realised JJ was not a bot and wanted to stop with the back-and-forth. #2 after I took the time to check the issues, I saw how this can be an issue and very much understand how the images can only be used on the pages they are for, and nothing else. #3 Restrictions:
  • #3A) Remove ALL images from my sandboxes, and only add them with consent of an admin or someone who wouldn't mind checking over the page first.
  • #3B) Require all pages moving from sandboxes go to draft first and be reviewed, and in that case have an admin check for image/copyright issues, which can be problems on the page and down the road.
• 6) Where does that leave me? I will admit that when this was all occurring at the beginning of the month, I honestly didn't realise that JJ wasn't a bot. As I stated, that first edit was from his bot, and immediately assumed that they were all from the bot because it was the same changes every time. This caused issues, and I can freely admit now that this wasn't just a copyright issue, but a problem because I was reverting an admin's edits. I very much know how this looks to others as if I couldn't care about JJ's authority or his good work trying to make sure copyright issues don't occur.
• 7) As I stated, I freely admit I was wrong, and not just wrong, but an idiot (frankly) and acted like a fool, not checking that it was in-fact JJ, and not a bot who was reverting the edits so that way copyright issue wouldn't occur. At the time, I had no idea that the images couldn't be used on sandboxes, but now that I know this I very much see the problem this causes and an/will cause for me and my background for edits.

I hope I've answered everything which was needed to be answered, and hope I'm able to be un-blocked, because I really want to do more on Wikipedia and have plenty to share. The images issue is a very recently problem for me, as I've typically not done much in the way of images, and made an honest mistake which unfortunately JJ took far very quickly without warning. I know that even when I had this issue occurring, I was planning on making changes to my pages and such, especially regarding copyrighted images which need to be replaced, adding my own made images, and remove myself from post-1900 military edits as per the discussions by Buckshot06. I very much want to come back though, and hopefully get rid of this stain and not do any image additions which would cause copyright issues.

Cheers, Coldstreamer20

• Note: CS20 also requested I include a link to this discussion. That discussion also links to two other discussions, most notably this request for a TBAN that are likely relevant to any editing restrictions imposed in the event of an unblock Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Discussion

• Unblock per WP:ROPE. CS20 seems to understand why they were blocked, and are making the right statements about how to proceed going forward. I'm agnostic on the TBAN noted above; the discussion seems to have been cut short after they were blocked, and I'm not sure where the community would have gone given more time. However, I think the block is obviated at this point, and we should welcome CS20 back, with the understanding that they are on a short leash with regards to copyright vios and disruption of MILHIST topics. --Jayron32 16:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock - Coldstreamer20, you need to understand this:- the only place that a non-free image may be used is in article space. If writing an article in a sandbox or draftspace, the image cannot be added to Wikipedia until after the article is live. If you can keep to that then there won't be a problem. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock - given the circumstances surrounding this block and the likelihood of any further problems with image-use, I think CS20 should be unblocked. That said, editing restrictions have been proposed more than once (most recently by Buckshot06), and those proposals should not continued to be de-railed. There should be a complete sounding done on whether any restrictions are needed, or if mandatory mentoring should be required. That said, I know there have been several problems with CS20's editing, but I believe he has good intentions and a desire to improve. (imo) - wolf 04:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblocking The enormous amount of errors and mistakes this user has committed across large parts of the military history space require that editing restrictions - a topic ban - be imposed before this user is unblocked. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Remain blocked with a note that persistent problems with editing conventions are the cause, partially per Eggishorn. I do not want to have to clean up any more of this user's mistakes. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unblock with TBAN per the scope agreed in the prior conversations (milhist) - I think ROPE suggests we should unblock, but the prior conversations were very clear at showing a consensus for a TBAN so that need be a condition of any unblock. I'm just checking that @Buckshot06: is aware that a condition can be designated in an AN appeal - it would actually be unusual to try and designate it elsewhere first. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure whether this discussion *is* an AN appeal. I am not worried about the exactitudes of whatever formal process we're in. I just do not want this user editing any military-related articles, broadly defined, in future. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a full AN-appeal, submitted by request of CS20, although I did advise it I specifically didn't rule out a different admin making a direct choice on the indef (this does mean it comes with the flipside of, if we decline it, it will become a CBAN) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking A user who has amassed five substantive blocks in little more than three years has been given quite a lot of ROPE already. When Arbcom unblocked J-Man11/Coldstreamer20, they kind of goofed a bit. The then-current Checkuser block was successfully appealed but the prior disruptive editing block from Lourdes was apparently not. One would think that J-Man11/Coldstreamer20 would then try to step carefully. That they did not is evidenced by the two recent AN threads by Buckshot06 linked above which point to the exact type of sloppy referencing and repeated violations of the WP:CCPOL that preceded their reprieve and which they also committed while socking. The request above says all the right things but frankly is not credible. They claim that they mistook JJMC89's reverts and warnings for their bot's. Why does that mean they should have ignored those warnings? They say they thought the message from the bot was an automated message. Well, of course it was. Again, why does that mean they should have ignored it? The revert message was crystal clear and their own subsequent edit summary of "this is a sandbox, not an article" when warned against using non-free files anywhere but articles is baffling. The request explains over and over and over again that they couldn't tell JJMC89 bot from JJMC89. Are they really that unable to discern the difference between those user names? Didn't they think once to click the links? The previous blocks, warnings, AN threads, and SPI represent a sustained and repeated failure to either not read or not understand or not follow the feedback they receive. That they only mention their more fundamental errors as an afterthought of this request does not give any confidence they will suddenly start follow feedback now if unblocked. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Per Eggishorn, I'm skeptical of unblocking given this user's history of WP:IDHT. I oppose unblocking unless there is a topic ban enacted to prevent the constant time suck for milhist editors dealing with this editor's non policy compliant contributions. (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I would again strongly request all involved in this discussion to oppose any unblock. Coldstreamer20 should not be able to edit on this site. I have just (again) had to make a series of corrections at 24th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom) which demonstrated that Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) was unaware of the sequence of events regarding the airmobile trials for 6th Armoured Brigade; skipped lightly over a decade of service which meant that the unaware reader might have thought that the airmobile role for 24 Brigade started in the 1970s while it was in Northern Ireland; misattributed the nature of what Anthony Beevor was talking of when he mentioned the brigade's new role in Inside the British Army (did not give unit/location listing, but described the new role generally, including exercises); and missed out a whole Army Air Corps regiment which was mentioned in one of his key sources (Vieuxbill, *not "Vieux-Bill*), but probably not in the Wikia listing which this user was probably copying out of. I am beyond tired of having to run around after this user making multiple fixes of fact and implication. He's had far too much WP:ROPE already. Keep him blocked!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Closure review: Portal links on the Main Page's top banner

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

---

Main discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 186 § Removing links to portals from the Main Page's top banner

Closure challenge: User talk:The Gnome § Closure challenge

General debriefing with multiple editors: User talk:The Gnome § Main page closure

I am challenging The Gnome’s closure of WP:VPR § Removing links to portals from the Main Page's top banner as “no consensus”. I don’t want to add too much text to what has already been said, but I’m happy to expand if needed.

This was a proposal to remove links to portals from the Main Page’s top banner. It listed on T:CENT but not tagged as a RfC. It did not involve the application of a policy or a guideline, but essentially a judgment call by the community. Keeping in mind WP:NOVOTE, the numerical outcome was 30 “support” and 17 “oppose”.

The Gnome closed the discussion as no consensus. In brief, they noted that some support !votes also discussed the possibility of moving the links to another location on the main page, and that some support !votes revolve[d] around the general worthiness of portals. In their view, this lead to an an adulterated result and, therefore, no consensus.

I disagree, for two main reasons. First, I don’t think the proposal was as unclear as The Gnome makes it in their closing: it revolved around a single issue (portal links in the top banner), a point that was underlined shortly after the discussion began [1]. Second, I don’t think that the discussion of issues that were beside the proposal resulted in such a train wreck that the discussion yielded “no consensus”. People expressed their views on the main proposal, and also had discussions on other questions, and this should not affect the outcome.

My understanding of the consensus is as follows: there was consensus to remove portal links from the main page's top banner, but no consensus on whether they should be moved somewhere else. My suggested course of action is to take no action until this second question is discussed by the community through a second discussion or an RfC. JBchrch talk 15:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Though I 'voted' for the portals to remain on the Main Page, I've no objections to the closure, or any objections to it being challenged. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Greetings, all. My preliminary response to the objections to the closure has been posted here. -The Gnome (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• I made my comments on The Gnome's talk page already. I will just reiterate that I strongly appreciate The Gnome explaining their rationale in detail - that's good and should be praised, despite / especially when it leads to pushback! Anyway, there may be reasons to close the discussion as "No Consensus", but I strongly disagree with The Gnome's claim that the discussion was "adulterated" or otherwise too much of a trainwreck. It really wasn't that complicated: most editors wanted to either remove, cut down, or move the links, all very similar proposals, and the rationales were largely shared among everyone. I recognize that this may not have been The Gnome's intent, but the implications from a close such as this are that future RFCs should be extremely blunt - that a proposal should be laid down and people have to vote it up or down with no changes, no clarifications, no rationales, no extra thoughts. A Wikipedia consensus process that worked that way would be a worse and weaker one than the sometimes messy soup we have now. Maybe the discussion should still be closed No Consensus if there's other problems afoot with a close of "remove" or "move", but I would prefer the stance that the "adulterations" were a problem be explicitly repudiated. SnowFire (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  As someone who commented in the RFC, I agree with Snowfire's take. --Izno (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Long version on TG's talk page; TLDR: I think it should be reopened, tagged as an RFC, and TG's closure made into a relisting statement to help focus further discussion. Levivich 05:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• As I wrote in the talk page discussion: This was a good close as the discussion clearly did not come to any consensus, not even to "do something", let alone anything specific. It cannot be presumed that either those who want rid of the links all together or those who want to keep them would be happy with a move, nor that those who wanted a move (where?) would be happy with complete removal. The only hope of getting a consensus would be to start a new, properly advertised discussion with a much clearer scope. I'd also recommend avoid using page views as an argument as editors cannot agree on whether being viewed by a similar number of people to other links from the main page means they are viewed by many or few readers. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  You need to disclose that you are WP:INVOLVED here, since you !voted in the survey. JBchrch talk 23:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think that, so far, everyone who has responded to this closure challenge has been involved in the closed discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes but this was the first admin comment. JBchrch talk 13:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. But in that discussion, Thryduulf acted strictly as an editor who !votes and not as an administrator. Here too, Thryduulf offers an opinion. I have always understood that rule as disapproving cases where an admin takes part in a discussion or dispute and then acts as an admin in the same dispute. The pertinent text reads as follows: In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. In the present case, I did not see Thryduulf or any other admin "acting as admins". -The Gnome (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  I have no problem with anyone expressing any opinion about anything anywhere. But the point of coming to AN is to get input from neutral admins, so I think it's reasonable to ask admins who have !voted in the original proposal to just disclose it. To quote Bilorv on your talk page: I think a lot of people do not appreciate how deep WP:INVOLVED runs: if you participated in the RfC, it means you are involved, which fundamentally means you are unable to neutrally assess the consensus of the discussion. JBchrch talk 16:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have not, and have no intention of, acting in an admin capacity in this matter. I thought I had made it clear that I was involved in the discussion but that must have gotten lost in one of the several rewrites I did (at one point I had about three paragraphs worth of text, whether or not the comment I posted is helpful it's more helpful than that would have been). Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• This is interesting. If I understand you correctly, JBchrch, you're saying that if k admins take part in a discussion or an RfC strictly in their capacity as editors then when the discussion/RfC is challenged those k admins have no right to offer their opinions in the challenge even though they're still offering input strictly as editors. Wouldn't this reduce, in general, the right of admins to take part in discussions as editors? I'd think treating admins and their input as something of a "big deal" goes straight up against WP:NOBIGDEAL. (I'm not making any reference to opinions offered here by specific admins or how this challenge progresses.) -The Gnome (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  Clearly there's a misunderstanding here. All I'm saying is that admins who have taken part to a discussion should disclose that they have done so when they choose to express their views on a closure challenge at AN. JBchrch talk 14:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have boldly added a couple sentences to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE about this. Levivich 17:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• The title of the section was "Removing links to portals from the Main Page's top banner", which seems pretty clear to me. Multiple editors said they would find moving the links an acceptable second choice, but this is irrelevant if there is sufficient support for removal that the "compromise" option was not needed. Only a single editor (Skdb) indicated they only supported a move. The close was, probably unintentionally, "punishing" editors for merely mentioning a second choice had the consensus not been as strong as it was. See also the vacated close at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 179#RFC:_Citation_Style 1 parameter naming convention, where there was a good faith attempt by the original closer to pick a "compromise" option that turned out not necessary because there was sufficient support for one of the main proposals. SnowFire (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• The difference between this discussion and the citation style RFC is that there was not consensus here for the main option (or indeed any other option). Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• If another RFC is opened on the matter, we might want to use the Clarity Act as a guide, for the new RFC's question. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the RfC close. In the discussion on the closer's talk page, I advised @JBchrch: to come back with a fresh proposal which would remove or move the portal links without creating a pointless empty space in their stead, which was really the sticking point for a lot of those in opposition to the proposal. As such, I'm very disappointed that JBchrch decided to come here attempting to relitigate, rather than getting on with drafting the way forward and building WP:CONSENSUS as is the way on Wikipedia. Needless to say, I approve The Gnome's close which was well-explained and really the only viable conclusion from the discussion given the disparate proposals made. I hope we can end this and get to work on a way forward sooner rather than later.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• It's not fair to characterize a close challenge as "attempting to relitigate", especially when half a dozen editors are disagreeing with the close on the closer's talk page. You wouldn't be disappointed if you disagreed with the close. Levivich 13:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Amakuru I'm not going to do anything of the sort, actually. You see, this process has been somewhat stressful and, given how my life looks right now, I've been questioning whether I should continue to shepherd it after this discussion (irrespective of its outcome). This disgraceful comment of yours is all I needed to make a decision. So I'm sorry to inform you that if you want to "work on a way forward", you're gonna have to find someone else. JBchrch talk 13:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, the discussion being discussed here was never an actual WP:RFC. No RfC template was present, and the discussion was never added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. The proposition of such a major change to Main page should actually go through the RfC process, to encourage more users and readers to contribute and to receive input from a variety of such people. Also, as the proposal was worded, it came across as a survey, rather than an actionable matter. This is in part per where it states, "Survey (Portal links)" at the very top of the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it's what I said above and what @Levivich also addressed in more detail. I should note that, to the best of my knowledge, RfCs are not supposed to be launched without prior discussion, and I was certainly not going to launch a VPR RfC about the Main page out of the blue myself. My VPR proposal was supposed to simply launch an informal discussion about my idea. Then, it was WP:CENT-listed and attracted project-wide !votes. As for the "survey", it has become some sort of standard format for RfCs, so I'm not sure why it would affect the actionability of this discussion. In any case, I have no strong views on how the non-RfC-isation of the VPR discussion should affect the outcome hereof. JBchrch talk 15:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Also, I will just note that you are not neutral in this matter since you !voted in the discussion. This is not meant to push aside your comment, just to point it out for the purposes of this AN closure review. JBchrch talk 15:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Is an RFC going to be opened? If none hadn't actually occurred. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Is this a question for me? I personally have no strong views on this, but there have been suggestions of that kind at User talk:The Gnome § Main page closure. JBchrch talk 16:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Since you're the main challenger to a discussion that was closed which wasn't an RFC. Yes, I'm asking you. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Request closure I've unarchived this request and evaluated the discussion above. This comment is my summary of the discussion. I want to thank The Gnome for their good work and responses to many inquiries. First, there is a consensus here that the messy underlying discussion was still valid, and that "adulterated" is not the best way to describe it. We should respect the time committed by the 47 editors who commented. Second, the original discussion appears to have determined that the portal links are little used and don't belong at the top of the page, at least not all of them. This was the strongest reason given because it respects what's best for our readers—not cluttering the UI with infrequently selected links. The discussion was not ideal because some of the RfC formalities were not followed. Nevertheless, that imperfection is not so bad that it cannot be corrected. The result should be to remove the portal links from the home page banner. There can be a follow up discussion, preferably with all the RfC formalities followed, to determine if some or all of the portal links should be placed somewhere else on the home page, such as lower down on the page. I recommend having a discussion to work out the most popular options and then hold an RfC to choose among them. Would an admin please close this discussion and implement the result? Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Call for uninvolved admins

I am aware that I'm being a PITA right now, but I think it would really be valuable if at least one admin who has not participated to the VPR discussion accepted to express their views on the closure. I think the community would appreciate it. JBchrch talk 10:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

We can see three topics below this one how the community appreciates work of uninvolved admins willing to perform difficult closures. Good luck with finding one.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Don’t archive until it’s closed

I plan keep this thread open until somebody deals with it. It would be disrespectful to ignore the input of 47 editors and let this go away without a decision. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Question about page protection

Hello, I'm not sure where to put this question but it seems like it would go unnoticed on a policy talk page. But I just deleted Dauren Mussa, a page whose log says that it was indefinitely protected from creation from anyone but administrators. I've run into this a few times lately. A page is protected but somehow a new page is created or moved there by someone who should not be able to do so. Does the protection somehow get deleted with the page? Is there something I'm missing here? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

A quick check at the logs reveals that the page had been created at Draft:Dauren Mussa, then moved by a non-admin. 2.55.22.226 (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The above is partially correct. Draft:Dauren Mussa was moved to Mussa Dauren. Subsequently, the protection here was nullified when ONUnicorn (who is an admin) moved the most recent (now deleted) version of the article from Mussa Dauren to this title. At any rate, I've resalted. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It was created at the backwards version of the name. I came across it in the speedy queue and thought it would be better if it was at the correct name, even deleted so all the history would be in one place, so I moved it. I did not think it qualified for G4 as it was not "substantially identical to the deleted version". I had not finished evaluating the other speedy tag (G11) when I had to leave, so I did not delete it. I did salt the alternate title. I didn't realize that in moving it I had somehow unprotected it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't sweat it; it's basically another variation of the long-term semiprotect/short-term ECP bump (see thread directly below). One action done, followed by the other, and the first one is negated by the second one. We just need to take care to re-protect after deletion, or re-protect after a move etc. Lectonar (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI, the draft was created by a user subsequently blocked as a confirmed sock; it was moved from the draftspace by a user subsequently blocked as a suspected sock of the same user. 2.55.20.180 (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Per Lectonar below (and a test of his theory), it does seem that the create protection is removed once something is recreated at the protected title, and that it needs to be reprotected if said page is deleted. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I see it, if you protect the page before you delete it, the protection is nullified by the deletion. Once it is deleted, and you go to "protect page", the only protect option left is create-protection at whatever level you desire. The protection seems to die with the deletion. Lectonar (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the explanations. I typically protect up to extended confirmed so that a more experienced editor has the possibility to create a better version of previously deleted articles but I've found some new editors get around this protection by asking AFC reviewers or other editors to move articles for them. I don't think many editors, even very experienced ones, think to check the status of the page that a draft or article is moved TO before moving it to see if it has any kind of protection on it. I know that I rarely do but then I don't receive requests from new editors to move pages for them. I think reviewers should be properly suspicious of requests to move pages from editors who possess the ability to do it themselves but who aren't extended confirmed yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Admin has removed my account's extended confirmed user rights

• Jonathunder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights · renames · global renames)
• Special:UserRights/Righanred

Hi all, a few days ago I got an alert that stated that the user Jonathunder removed my account as an extended confirmed user. I'm not sure why they would have done this unless it was an accident because my account passes the 30 days tenure and 500 edits requirement per WP:XC. Jonathunder has made edits since they removed my extended confirmation and have not responded to my message on their talk page that I made on Feb 6. I am hope that by bringing up this matter here that I can either: A. Have an accidental change to my account rights reverted, or B. Figure out what I did wrong. Hope y'all have a plesant day. --Righanred (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

My immediate thought is to wonder why Jonathunder has not responded to the various messages left, and why removal of a perm you attained almost a year ago received no actual reason in the userrights change, and why it shouldn't just be re-added. I'm not going to wheel-war with them, but it's very tempting to reinstate purely from a "lack of reason" perspective. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If requires community consensus to avoid wheel-war, count me as supporting restoring rights absent an explanation from Jonathunder.Slywriter (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Very disappointed by the lack of communication, and I'm not seeing anything EC-remove-worthy. I did notice that this isn't the first time Jonathunder has removed EC,[2] in case that provides any clue. Am I right in thinking those people still don't have EC? I think all we require here is have a few more people check for any concerns, before we assume it was a mistake. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

They do not. I'm rather more interested in this granting of both Confirmed and EXCon for a brand-new user who then proceeded to make a single edit to an unprotected page (and has never edited since). Primefac (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Especially since the page in question has never had any protection applied. How does changing the image on a low-traffic uncontroversial insect stub require any permissions to "help a new user"? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and restored the right; Jonathunder seems to edit sporadically, was asked about this days ago with no response, and just because Righanred is being gracious about it doesn't mean we have to sit on our hands. I look forward to an explanation when Jonathunder resumes editing. It's quite possible the other two editors should also have extended confirmed restored, but I've run out of time to look into their edits, at least for a few hours. Any takers? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks everyone for the fast response.--Righanred (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)  Administrator note another admin has already restored this, I'm supportive that the no-reason logged removal should be reversed in this case without this beeing a WHEEL, at least during Jonathunder's absence from this discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It wouldn't actually be wheel-warring to revert - that requires reinstating a reverted action (here, the removal is the initial action, it's not a revertion). That said, I would support its return, but would like to hear the admin's response on their return Nosebagbear (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unrelated, but when going to Jona's talkpage to look at Righanred's situation, I saw there was another notification for an RFD on The Andrew formerly known as Prince. It's a redirect he created about two weeks ago as a joke, I presume? He's made some odd choices recently. — Moe Epsilon 15:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Here's a discussion about one user's rights being removed: User_talk:Jonathunder#Edit_rights. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Ok so I did some more digging and I noticed that the one edit that Jonathunder made on the day he took my extended confirmation rights away was an edit to Andrew Cuomo changing the lead image, claiming that there was "no consensus for other photo with odd expression". I don't do a lot on Wikipedia except for updating lead photos from time-to-time so I went back to see if I had made an edit on that page and sure enouch, I changed that article's lead image on 21:48, 30 November 2021. Did he remove my rights out of spite for changing the lead image of an article three months earlier? And isn't no one changing the lead image for three months a consensus in its own right per WP:EDITCON? As you can see, I'm new to this lol.--Righanred (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Assuming good faith, I would guess that he perceived it as vandalism, and removed extended confirmed to prevent you editing more controversial articles. Leaving aside whether that's fair, the process was definitely not. Theknightwho (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• FYI I nominated the Prince Andrew redirect when looking at this posting out of curiosity and seeing the edit history. Is this another case of an old (confirmed in 2006) admin maybe a little out-of-touch with current norms, as detailed above in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#We_need_the_ARS ? ValarianB (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  It's unlikely it would have been noticed otherwise, since Jonathunder popped back in to regrant himself autopatrolled in December. – Joe (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think at this point there's enough oddities going on, and weird choices, that Jonathunder kinds should explain these decision to the community. The rights thing that started this thread looks like a very odd punitive action for a very good faith edit to replace a photo with a more up to date one. Canterbury Tail talk 17:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree and the idea that this is a legacy admin "a little out-of-touch with current norms" looks weak. The sequence of edits that Righanred posted is very concerning and "Administrators are expected to never use the tools to gain advantage in an editorial dispute" has been a norm for as long as I've been around. I believe it extends right back to 2004, so this isn't an expectation he wasn't aware of. I don't want to impute malice to what could plausibly be oversight but we really need to hear from Jonathunder before he makes any other administrative actions. I think that's the very least we should expect here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Jonathunder got their admin stripes only 5 months before I did, so that's not really an argument. There are lots of us around from those days that are up to date on what the rules are. Are mistakes occasionally made? Sure, but they're acknowledged and learnt from. All being said, Jonathunder doesn't seem to use the admin tools very often, not that that's a crime. Canterbury Tail talk 18:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• The two other users Jonathunder had removed EC from were BC1278 and Darcourse. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Think they should be restored, if they asked at WP:PERM we'd put a call out to the removing admin, but barring some good explanation would re-grant. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm seriously tempted to restore them. Darcourse has edited as recently as today. BC1278 hasn't edited yet in February, but was active on January 31. There seems to be no reason for them not to have user groups that are supposed to be automatic. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  In fact, I did just restore them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  @ONUnicorn: That restoration of rights seems completely justified. Jonathunder appears to have removed Darcourse's EC rights solely because Darcourse restored an Oxford comma (diff) several hours after Jonathunder removed it at Paul Allen (diff). Jonathunder removed the Oxford comma again (diff) and EC rights (log) without comment. Based on the Interaction Analyzer, this is their only direct interaction. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• It might be worth adding to this conversation, that not all editors that got the mop long ago and don't edit much make 'weird choices'. Jeepday (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• As a longstanding PERM admin, to my knowledge, reversal of automatic EC is not something that I have ever seen done. I can't find any policy guidance on it one way or another. Regardless, just with any sanction, there needs to be clear violations, a clear explanation, and a clear demonstrable preventative aspect to the action, and I'm not seeing any of that here. The user was not even editing ECP articles when their EC flag was revoked, in essence partially blocking them from all 7756 ECP articles. Could you imagine if an admin just partially blocked someone from editing a list of over 3,000 articles, randomly spread across various subject areas, without any log entry or any explanation? There'd be an emergency desysop in a heartbeat, so please let's keep the gravity of this action in mind here. Also I note a clear pattern of out-of-touch permissions changes, including stripping others of EC (one without any log entry or explanation, one because he thought they "didn't need it", not because they did anything wrong), granting ECP to an account with one edit, and granting Confirmed to non-autoconfirmed accounts without good reason (he confirmed MeganKalene31 after unblocking her for copyvios (which a second admin disagreed with), and he confirmed Lanelsen "per request", an account that had only insignificantly edited in a sandbox and had never communicated on-wiki.) Not good. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  No comment on this situation, but I do know that ECP has been removed from people who are clearly gaming the system, often for PAID or DS reasons. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have not looked too much into this specific situation, but I know I have seen editors get EC revoked following a community discussion on AN/I or the like. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Swarm: removal of ECP is rare, and when it was more tied to an arbcom remedy was even rarer, as @Barkeep49: mentioned it is normally only routinely done when someone has obviously gamed the threshold, normally with an AN(/I) thread about them, and generally with a direction of something like "once you have made 500 new non-trivial edits, you may ask for restoration at PERM, or on "my talkpage"). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• There is a series of disturbing actions noted above. Is it too early to discuss desysopping? We all make mistakes, but there's a real issue here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's too early to discuss desysopping. Jesus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    • No, not Jesus... but thanks for the compliment. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
      • All of this is arguing in circles until Jonathunder responds to the above thread. It was only posted a day ago. Let's all simmer down. --WaltCip-(talk) 16:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Absolutely. Agree with you and Flo. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Why is it too early to talk about desysopping? We have seen proof that this is not a case of a legacy admin "a little out-of-touch with current norms", but of someone who obviously should never have been let anywhere near adminship. No response can change that. We are here to produce an encyclopedia, not to be nice to someone who has less ability to be a good admin than my two-year-old grandson. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Posts that register over 5.0 on the hyperbolemeter belong at ANI, not AN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• It has now been a week since Righanred's request for accountability from Jonathunder. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  True, but it has also been 5 days since Jonathunder has edited. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm primarily making sure that this doesn't get archived. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• My own two cents is that someone who edits as infrequently as Jonathunder does right now shouldn't be using the tools because there's no possibility of accountability. If they became more active that would be a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think there's necessarily an issue with an admin editing sporadically, but when they are alerted to a complaint about their admin actions and do not respond promptly, that is a problem.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wandering in kinda late, noting for the record that I've revoked the use rights granted to MamaTeeth as obviously out-of-process. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• On the Andrew redirect referred to earlier,its origins seem to be this post, which I admittedly found funny. But I was bit surprised to subsequently see the RfD and more surprised to see that the redirect was created by him. Now, us mere mortals might get up to that sort of malarkey but it does seem odd that an admin does that. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have deleted the redirect. Jay (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

remove redirect from EnerNOC to Enel X

EnerNOC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m Pamela D'Auria from Enel X, I’m contacting you to discuss an issue regarding Enel X and EnerNOC here on Wikipedia. Initially there was an EnerNOC page created in August 2007 and changed shortly after (October) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnerNOC. You can watch this here:

15:35, 13 August 2007‎ Dkhwang talk contribs‎  1,541 bytes +1,541‎  ←Created page with '{{Infobox_Company | company_name = EnerNOC, Inc. | company_logo = 150px|ENOC logo| company_type = Public ...'
17:18, 3 October 2007 diff hist  0‎  m Talk:Enel X ‎ moved Talk:Enernoc to Talk:EnerNOC: appropriate company naming convention
17:18, 3 October 2007 diff hist  +21‎  N Enernoc ‎ moved Enernoc to EnerNOC: appropriate company naming convention

The page is still accessible through the Wayback Machine, the version is dated 24 December 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20170308065752/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnerNOC. The issue then arose in March 2020, when a redirect was created without any reason from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnerNOC to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enel_X. This was done despite the fact that they are not the same company. EnerNOC is indeed only one of the acquisitions made by the Enel Group. Below you can find some sources confirming this:

• https://corporate.enelx.com/en/stories/2017/08/enernoc-global-leader-in-smart-energy-management
• https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/t5p4ccjwclzx6w_no9yj4g2
• https://theenergyst.com/italian-utility-enel-buys-dsr-aggregator-enernoc/
• https://www.enelx.com/content/dam/enel-x-na/press-releases/2017/ENOC_News_2017_8_7_General_Releases_0.pdf

Subsequently the page was distorted, as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enel_X&diff=944737638&oldid=930238714

• 16:47, 9 March 2020‎ 151.44.194.251 talk‎ 14,740 bytes +5,646‎ various updates and corrections to eliminate warnings undo Tag: COI template removed

I look forward to your kind reply to resolve this issue. Thank you --Dauripam (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:--Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I doubt my memory is good enough to shed much light on this beyond what I left in edit summaries three years ago, but I'm not sure if EnerNOC and EnelX are independently notable to the point that there ought to be two separate pages (which I assume is what is being requested here?) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the argument is that these are two different company and presumably there should be two different pages. The best course of action would be probably to write Draft:EnerNOC and submit it for AfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Unclosed Jacobin discussion

There is a discussion in the archive in which there seemed to be consensus to overturn the RfC closure but no one has yet done anything about it. Please do something about it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I have closed the AN discussion as clear consensus to overturn the RfC close and allow for a reclose. I'll leave it to others to perform that reclose, and it may be listed at WP:CR if no one initially takes it up. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reclosed the original discussion. – Joe (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Botched XfD closure

I closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 4#Recording artists as rename all [5 categories] using XfDcloser, but the result wasn't processed automatically. Please add the 5 nominated categories to WP:CFDW, so that a bot can handle the request. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Category:Lists of artists by record label to Category:Lists of recording artists by label
• Category:Lists of current artists by record label to Category:Lists of current recording artists by label
• Category:Artists by Japanese record label to Category:Recording artists by Japanese label
• Category:Artists by Philippine record label to Category:Recording artists by Philippine label
• Category:Artists by South Korean record label to Category:Recording artists by South Korean label

   Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  @LaundryPizza03: XFDcloser is currently not really useful for CFDs unless the outcome is Keep or No consensus. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole

For intractable differences of opinions and conduct both on- and off-wiki, the Committee resolves that HazelBasil (talk · contribs) and SquareInARoundHole (talk · contribs) are placed under an indefinite interaction ban, pursuant to the standard exceptions. This also precludes SquareInARoundHole from editing the Ashley Gjøvik article.

In addition, for comments and conduct made both on- and off-wiki, HazelBasil is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole

Arbitration motion regarding Timwi

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The "Timwi" request for arbitration is resolved as follows:

The Committee recognizes Timwi's long service, and encourages his continued editing. However, Timwi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is warned that the use of the administrator toolset must conform to the policies set by the community. He should especially take note of WP:ADMINACCT, and remember that the toolset is not to be used to further content or policy disputes. The Committee will consider any further misuse of the toolset within a two-year period to be immediate cause for opening de-sysop proceedings.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 22:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Timwi

Umm... we have a problem with Special:PasswordReset

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T109909

I big "hello" to my fellow colleagues and editors this fine Saturday! I hope everyone who reads this discussion is doing well, staying safe, keeping healthy, and are enjoying their weekend so far! :-)

TL;DR - All IP address blocks (whether applied to an individual IP address or range), regardless of the block settings applied (I found this issue with an IP range block with account creation still allowed), currently result in access to Special:PasswordReset being denied to non-logged in users that are from within that blocked IP address or range.

Long version - I'm here to bring a very interesting issue to the attention of my fellow knights at the round table here. I was poking around on IRC for a bit while taking a break from patrolling logs and updating some AbuseFilter code, and I saw that an anonymous editor was currently in the #wikipedia-en-unblock channel waiting for help from someone and with getting their password reset to their Wikipedia account.

The user stated that their IP address was currently blocked from editing Wikipedia, that they were trying to use Special:PasswordReset to recover the password to their account so that they could log in to edit, and were being disallowed from accessing the page and that the error stated that it was due to their current IP block. Writ Keeper had just started to respond to them when I did as well. This spiked my curiosity; as far as I remembered from technical knowledge and experience with helping editors in the past with similar situations, only IP address or range blocks that were set as hard blocks (no account creation, and no editing from existing accounts unless they are IP block exempt) would have access to the account recovery page restricted by users current under that range. I looked at the IP address that they were using to connect to IRC, and nothing came back at all; no range blocks - nothing. I wanted to keep digging and figure out what was going on....

After I had the user visit whatismyip.com and respond to us with their public IPv6 address, I went and looked for any current IP or range blocks that were affecting it. This is where things got much more interesting (and perhaps even concerning to me)... Their IPv6 address was currently affected by a range block. However, not only was it not a hard block that disallowed editing by existing accounts without IPBE, it didn't even have the account creation restriction set. It was a completely soft block that was placed only to disallow editing by anonymous users; it didn't restrict them from creating accounts. "Umm... what?!! am I seriously seeing what I think I'm seeing?", I asked myself...

From there, I told myself, "Okay, this is unlikely the problem, but why not?... Let's just temporarily unblock the IP range, have the user try accessing the special page again, and - if anything, I'll know for sure that this isn't the problem." I went and unblocked the IP address range and with an explanation that it was temporary, and in order to have a user who's requesting assistance test something to see if we might have an issue." I had the user try accessing the special page and enter username into the field. The user responded just a few moments later that it was now working. He could now access Special:PasswordReset and recover his account. I went back and re-instated the original block and set back to both its original parameters and duration.

So... It goes without saying... we obviously have a problem here. I do not believe that we should be restricting users from accessing Special:PasswordReset if their IP address or range is currently blocked, and where both account creation and the editing by logged-in accounts are set to be disallowed (a hard IP address block). In situations where less-restrictive blocks are currently applied, users should not be restricted from being able to recover their account so that they can log in and edit. In this situation, neither flag was set, and the user couldn't recover their account until I temporarily lifted the block for them.

Yeah.... I think we should discuss this, and if the community agrees that this is not how thing should be... we should facilitate filing a phab ticket to have this changed. What do my fellow Wikipedians and editors think about this situation? Personally, I think its laughably asinine and should definitely not be how it's currently set, but I'd like to hear from others and get a basis of community thoughts before I decide where things should go next. :-)

I give my sincere appreciation and "thanks" in advance for your time, input, thoughts, and ideas as to what next steps (if any) should be taken in order to have the status quo changed, and if so, to what level or restriction. This is definitely not the issue that I was expecting would cause the user to not be able to get into their account... ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be phab:T109909, which ironically happened under the exact same circumstances. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yay! Good to see this receiving some attention three years after I had the problem with it. DuncanHill (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This issue should seriously get more attention and have a (slightly) higher priority than what's been given. To me, this is a bug, and one that prevents users from being able to recover their account and log in so that they can edit and no longer be affected by the current block... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of text for "All IP rangeblocks currently prevent access to Special:PasswordReset". :)

The "block the user from sending e-mails" option is normally used for this purpose: Enabling it on an IP block should prevent password resets. It wasn't enabled, however, so I'd say it's a bug. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

ToBeFree - HA! Yeah, you got me there... I added a TL;DR section to the top of my initial discussion so that users don't feel obligated to read through my wall of text. I added a lot of details due to the (perhaps bad) assumption that I had that this is an issue that may not have been reported before ("the more details, the better" is what is usually said for these situations). I also shortened the section title due to it being annoyingly long (sorry everyone...). ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Heh, no worries from my side. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup

Hi.

+3798 is the magic number. Last week the above article was protected because editors, one of which is an IP kept adding and removing content with my Watchlist showing a constant change between plus and minus 3798. Well the protection has ended and the magic number is back via an IP account.

I'm not an admin so my powers are limited. Just a heads up about warring faction doktorb _words^deeds 06:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Semi-protected by Ymblanter. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Katherine Delmar Burke School

The blocking of an IP that has been adding a lot of Wikipedia-style content has been excessive and needs review please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:21E7:A4CA:EB07:8D84 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at WP:AAB to appeal the block- which is for a specific page only. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vladislav Davydenko 2

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

---

Need someone to take a look at it. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Appeal Edit Block on Elections in Cuba

I recently reported other users for editwarring on Elections in Cuba. However, even though I was the only one presenting arguments for my edits, I was the one blocked from editing the page. I would like to be unblocked and begin a disscussion on the articles talk page to resolve the conflict. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No. You should consider yourself thankful that the block (1) only applies to one page, and (2) is only for a month. Consider your behavior and learn from it, or your next block will be more punitive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• If you are blocking me, then User:Snooganssnoogans should be blocked as well. There are at least two recorded instances excluding mine on the articles talk page where they have reverted edits meant to ensure political neutrality. They, as an editor, have an obvious right-wing political bias against Cuba. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Two reverts an edit war does not make, read wp:editwar.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Propose upgrading to general block

I don't think being blocked from just the page has gotten the message through. Editor was extremely lucky to only be blocked from editing the page the first time around. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's a mild block (I placed it), but then it's the user's first block. That said, I've no objection if another admin wishes to embiggen it, especially considering this foolish report that they made. Note for Hcoder3104: you are not blocked from the talkpage, so I don't see anything stopping you from beginning a discussion there to resolve the conflict. Bishonen | tålk 17:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC).

At this stage I will point out the filer has made false accusations of meat puppetry (or as they called it "Uncoordinated meat puppetry" (whatever the hell that is)) and has left tit for tat edit warring warnings (and filed a report) after a single revert of their edit. Not as well that reasons were offered for reverting them such as " There is no discussion of this on the talk page." and "You need to make a case". On the other hand some of their reasons were " Edit is disruptive and unhelpful. You have been warned on your talk page" (a warning for edit waring after one revert) and "Contribution to an edit war so must be undone" (again after one revert).Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Nor have they informed anyone they are in dispute with of this ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hcoder3104 -- you are clearly not understanding either the plain text or the spirit of the edit warring policy. When several people disagree with you--even if you are "right"--the first thought should be "there is a consensus and I need to change it," not "people are conspiring against me." The latter requires extraordinary evidence, and I have seen you produce no evidence at all. I personally would not support a general block, but I think showing you get why the page block occurred would help you tremendously. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I never accused them of meatpuppetry, I was just saying how multiple people editing results in no one reaching the three revert mark. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And yes, I understand why I was blocked. I just don't believe it was justified. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes you did [[3]] " And yes, I am accusing you of uncoordinated meat puppetry", and not just once [[4]] "which is a way so they will not reach the three revert rule by teaming up".Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Misspell. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"Missspell" what word did you mean?. And this [[5]] "As I have noted, the three of you are working together so you won't reach the three revert rule"? With this I think it is clear the user is trying to game the system to wp:rightgreatwrongs (in this case over Cuba), and a Tban might be needed as I do not think this will end here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Support some type of upgrade. Unclear on the right scope. I have got to wonder how USER:Hcoder3104 ended up here.[6] I see no sign of interest in the Olympics before or since. Is it coincidental that, shortly after my involvement with this incident, the user put in a merge vote on an article I created (which admittedly may not meet WP:GNG)? I would also note this enormous deletion which the user misleadingly marked as "minor"[7] and tried a second time on [8] after being reverted. Also another enormous removal here [9] with a second try here [10] after the first one was reverted. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw it on your talk page, and I decided to contribute like any good wikipedian. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Also the edits were made before I was familiar with Wikipedia policy, and frankly they are just making the articles more factual. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hcoder3104, I suggest you read WP:3RR which explains the criteria under which you were blocked. Basically if you make more than three reverts on one article within 24 hours you can and almost always will be blocked, whatever your reasons are. Going forward, you may be blocked for edit-warring, even if you don't exceed 3 reverts. Take this time to learn the rules and decide whether you want to follow them or leave the project. Your appeal here incidentally is disruptive because you have no grounds for appeal and it shows you have not read the policy on blocking editors for edit-warring. You were given leeway because you are a new editor, but do not expect any in the future. I suggest you accept you were mistaken in this appeal and say that you will not edit war in future. TFD (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Overzealous antispam filter

Hello,

The official website of Parimatch seems to be global dot parimatch dot com. The infobox has another website instead which looks like a parent company. However the correct website is blocked by an antispam filter (it is also blocked on this noticeboard). Can someone make an exception to the filter on this specific article? Thank you and apologies if this is not the right place to ask. --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a Wikibusines/Bodiadub article. MER-C 20:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Holy hell what a mess. I've removed several sources that either didn't even mention the company name, or are clearly not reliable sources. This article needs a sweep. What happens to it after that, who knows. One of the worst link spam articles I've seen in a few months. Calling all editors.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• To answer initial question, you'd need to make a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

I'd like to file a formal request to lift my AA2 topic ban. I was sanctioned more than a year ago, based on this report. Following the initial imposing of the TBAN, I have also violated it due to a lack of understanding of WP:BROAD. As a result, I had agreed to avoid a broader variety of topics in August ("related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc.").

I've been away from these topics for a long time. In the meantime, I've contributed extensively to other WP:VG, WP:RELI, and WP:MILHIST-related topics. I've expanded and nominated two articles concerning medieval Middle Eastern monarchs (Fakhr al-Mulk Ridwan and Irtash), as well as a WP:VG article titled Castle Wolfenstein. I've also significantly expanded (about nine times in size) Hòa Hảo. Nine new articles were created (as seen here, starting from article number 133) by me. Apart from Hòa Hảo, I expanded numerous articles, like 2021 Erbil rocket attacks.

The articles I've presented are, in my opinion, examples of improved WP:RS usage on my part. I'd love to go back and edit the articles that fall inside the TBAN's purview, as well as successfully nominate new GANs on the subject. The TBAN covers my country of birth and the region where I live; normally, these are the most familiar topics for me. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 11:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• As an WP:AE topic ban, pretty sure you need to go back to AE to appeal it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox, oh, WP:UNBAN states that it should be at ANI, which is why I came here. I could move it if it's wrong. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 20:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The UNBAN section you indicated applies to community-applied bans, not AE bans. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Doesn't Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals by sanctioned editors indicate that appeals can take place at either AE or AN? DanCherek (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Beeblebrox, they're in the right place (one of the right places). WP:AN is an acceptable alternative for appealing this ban, per these instructions. There is a link to them in the topic ban notification that the user received. Bishonen | tålk 20:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC).

I'm new here, you can't expect me to know everything. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You're only new compared to User:Bishzilla. Bishonen | tålk 22:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC).

• Support. Solavirum has written a good unban request, and has been editing constructively in other areas during the ban. After one year, that is really enough for lifting the ban, IMO. Pinging El C, who was pretty much the only admin engaging with the original AE report. Bishonen | tålk 22:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC).
• Comment - Looking at the report, Solavirum was topic banned for nationalist pov-push and Armenian genocide denial, or rather genocide denial tropes. Interestingly, they also created, quote, "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim." userbox in az-wiki, where they are a sysop. Since the tban, they violated it multiple times and have been blocked for those violations as well. At this point, blaming the violations on "lack of understanding of WP:BROAD" is rather unconvincing to say the least, imo. Side note maybe not as important to admins unfamiliar with AA, but AA has been suffering heavily from various social media meat collaborations/campaigning (I can link them, but AN isn't an appropriate venue) in the past and especially recently, those concerns were brought up by others in the motion discussion as well. It seems like Solavirum himself isn't far off from the off-wiki collaborations, [11]. This should be also taken into account, imo, given the situation in AA with meats/socks and whatnot. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• I already made this mistake with GizzyCatBella and Volunteer Marek, so not again. In the recent past, I've indulged in certain lenient impulses to the detriment of the project. I still try to err on the side of leniency, but with a better measure of reasonableness (I'd hope).

I'd estimate that lifting this sanction will just add to an already pitched WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've spoken about some of the issues plaguing these non-ARBPIA Western Asia set of DSs in my latest ARCA (link), as clunky as that request was. I'm in opposition at this time. El_C 01:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

El_C, I've waited a year since my TBAN and worked on many articles from other WikiProjects, with several becoming GAs. I don't think it's fair to oppose the appeal because of what other people did. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 09:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm opposing because I think you'll continue to engage in BATTLEGRUND conduct, including in such sensitive areas as the Armenian genocide. El_C 09:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

El_C, I've never edited the genocide article and I don't intend to do so, its out of my scope really. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 10:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say page, I said areas. For example, the Armenian_genocide_denial page is one such obvious area (diff). El_C 10:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm slightly more optimistic about this user, El_C. They're a lot younger than the two people you mentioned (more room to grow).
Still, I get where you're coming from. If needed, we could just add a clause allowing unilateral imposition of the topic ban for the next 6 months or something (for like battleground behavior). Thoughts on that type of thing? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how you can tell their age. Also, not sure how decisive it is, because growth can happen really at any age. El_C 16:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment is the wider topic ban still the one in force? Since if it is, even if you've done good work at 2021 Erbil rocket attacks, it seems questionable for you to be editing it as an attack blamed by several parties on Iran (although relating to their dispute with the US rather than any of their neigbours or internal issues), indeed something you added [12]. Can User:El C comment on whether the topic ban was intended to cover actions or alleged actions of the Iranian government? Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it says Iranians, so... But Solavirum is the one who wrote the wider sanction rather than receive a 3rd block (blocks that came after multiple warnings). Anyway, I'd caution against supporting without doing a bit of research some on this user's past incidents, even if these aren't laid out cogently in this appeal. Because if and/or when it goes wrong, in increments, it may prove very labour intensive to reach the point when sanctions get reinstated again. Don't count on a magic switch.

The problem, again, as mentioned in my ARCA (linked above), is that many users edit disruptively in some, most, or all of the three non-ARBPIA Western Asia DSs (WP:AA2, WP:KURDS, WP:ARBIRP), and topic areas not covered so much or at all (more on these in the ARCA). So overlaps, holes in the overlaps. I'm finding it challenging to connect these more general observations with this particular appeal, but the connection is there, and I feel it's a strong one. El_C 16:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne, El_C, I worked on the article several months before the wider topic ban was imposed. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 16:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I see that now. In fairness, looking at it now, I think you've done some good work on that page (major expansion diff). El_C 17:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I missed that as well. Your contributions to 2021 Erbil rocket attack do seem to have been good. I have some suggestions I'll post on your talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to lifting it at this time. I expect to see at least one solid year of no violations whatsoever. It hasn't even been six months in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Like Beeblebrox, I oppose removing this topic ban at this time. The editor has been blocked in the last year for disruption in this highly contentious topic area; and on another Wikimedia site (where they are an administrator), they created an Armenian genocide denialist userbox. I lack confidence that they will not engage in Armenian/Azerbaijani nationalist POV pushing. Better for them to work on areas of the encyclopedia that do not provoke their nationalist feelings. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, keeping in mind WP:ROPE. If the ban will be reimposed, it will likely last several years nex time... traed lightly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I am astounded that Solavirum has the nerve to approach this forum after so short a period of time. His time spent in disgrace and exile has been wasted if the grounds of his appeal are to be believed; at no point does he express remorse for his actions. So he has been a good boy on unrelated topics; I remain unimpressed - even the pagans do as much. His rehabilitation should only proceed once it has been clearly demonstrated that he (1) Acknowleges that he has done wrong, (2) that his actions have hurt people and the Wiki project in general, (3) that he promises to never repeat those hurtful actions again. Having had a few dealings with Solavirum on Artsakh-related topics, I am of the firm opinion that he fulfills none of the above criteria. Just look at his intervention on International Airport: no amount of patient explaining would convince him of the reasons for UNDUE. He just didn't want to relent. In this, he was aided and abetted by his chum CuriousGolden - the usual tag team. CuriousGolden has since received a ban as a user of socks. Thanks to the services of a third party, Solavirum eventually relented on the airport. I have seen no evidence that this bias has been eliminated. I very much doubt that he is at all capable of doing so. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP of Mariam Memarsadeghi

I know it probably should go to the noticeboard but I'm also asking for protection and possibly block of a user. Mariam Memarsadeghi has written in Twitter that she was being portrayed as "war activist" in Wikipedia: https://twitter.com/memarsadeghi/status/1493657858163896321 and it seems some IPs have been vandalizing her article that went unnoticed. Also User:Sepehrsalar seems to have been adding copy-vio material to the article and other issues (including the "war activist" section) maybe they need to be blocked from this article? Ladsgroup^overleg 03:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I did the things. El_C 10:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ijtihad Article

Hello, what happened to the "Ijtihad" article in wikipedia? When I type "Ijtihad" currently, it only redirects to the Ulema. It used to be a separate article.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk)shadowwarrior8 12:35 pm, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ijtihad was moved to Legal authority in Islamic law, and the redirect was changed to point to Ulama. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Primefac. I have changed the article title to Independent Legal Reasoning in Islamic law since it is a better English translation. Could you please re-direct Ijtihad to that site?

Ulama refers to Islamic scholarship and legal authority. While the article on Ijtihad refers to the Independent Legal Reasoning employed by the legal scholars. shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Y I fixed the new article title so it uses sentence case (Independent legal reasoning in Islamic law) and redirected Ijtihad to that article again. @Shadowwarrior8: this is not the right noticeboard for this type of query. In the future, please consider using the teahouse instead. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Artem Avetisyan

In the new page feed. Wasn't sure to mess with the article, but does this have a botched AfD? I am somewhat confused. Govvy (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A PROD got turned into an AFD by an IP, so they likely couldn't create the AFD itself Special:Diff/1072070171/1072070837. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A proper AfD has been created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artem Avetisyan using Twinkle. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Mass sockpuppets on Novares Group

Hello dear English-speaking wikipedians,

SPI detected mass socks on the article about Novares Group (on fr-wp) - there may be some on your side too fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Requêtes/février 2022#Novares Group - 16 février. I blocked them all on fr-wp and protected the page to stop them. Best regards, --- Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 23:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bédévore. Thank you very much for this report. The article here has been subject to disruptive editing by six newly created accounts. I have semi-protected the article for a month. I do not see much value in blocking the accounts. They seem to be throwaway accounts used once or at most three times, and then abandoned. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Unblock appeal of JsfasdF252

Template:Closeme JsfasdF252 has a community imposed partial block from most of the project. As a courtesy I am copying their unblock appeal to this page. I make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• I knew what I did wrong on Wikipedia, such as creating hybrid templates, messing with red links, simulating article subpages, and creating confusing redirects, all in an attempt to reduce the wikicode size of articles. Even though I made these bad edits before being blocked, I also made plenty of good edits, and I submitted some successful edit requests while I was blocked. I have been editing other wikis during the block, including other Wikimedia wikis, and I think I know enough to avoid doing any of the things that led me to the block. Since the block, I have caught dozens, if not hundreds of errors on the English Wikipedia, but I haven't been able to fix them. I made some edit requests to address the issues, but it takes time for these edit requests to be fulfilled, and they only represent a slim minority of the mistakes I noticed. I also used to engage in Word Association before the block. The block has been active for 8 months now, and a lot has changed since I first received a block. JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'd support an unblock from article-space. This user was pretty disruptive in templates and other Wikipedia processes, and I don't see much benefit to them participating there for now given what they've listed in their unblock request, so I think limiting them to articles makes sense. If they can edit articles without disruption, then I'd support looking at the other blocks too, upon request. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Link of sanction: [13] This is really needed in an appeal, to provide background... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  I see a typo in my closing statement; "I will not" must be "I will now" (and this is what I have actually done).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Given Elli's familiarity with the case and excellent suggestion, I would agree. Everyone deserves a second chance, and this is likely the best way to go about it. Article space only, no Templates, no meta space except for normal exceptions (reporting or being reported at AN/ANI/AE/ARB). We can look at lifting everything in 6 months if all goes well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support modification of the partial block to allow editing of articles. The editor has acknowledged their errors quite frankly, and presumably now understands that their efforts "to reduce the wikicode size of articles" was disruptive and unwelcome. I encourage the editor to focus on improving article content for the benefit of our readers rather than editing articles to try to make the wikicode leaner. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support modification Was this restriction genuinely not enforced by the pban mechanism? If so, that's another tick in the column along with Elli's reasoning the appeal. I'd support Elli's proposed modification, with the user able to make additional appeals after six months. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  It was enforced, see above.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, thanks, although while it would have further supported the case, I still think ROPE applies sufficiently to go with the proposal Nosebagbear (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Preventing automatic archivation--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I've unarchived this discussion as still needing a proper close. Isabelle ^🔔 03:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support modification to allow mainspace edits. If problematic behaviour re-appears this can be easily reinstated, so it's worth giving a second chance of sorts. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• It looks like there's a strong consensus. Could an admin please close this? Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User:TCO/Improving Wikipedia's important articles a victim of very old bad editing?

(knowledge about history of Wikipedia:Million Award preferred) Dear admins, please have a look at User:TCO/Improving Wikipedia's important articles 's revision history. After former wikipedian TCO's last edit to his opinion piece (23:16, 7 July 2012), there were some activities with a non-constructive result: IP 38.107.128.2 did some deletions and minutes later reverted himself. But 3 hours later 12.133.26.2 reverted 38.107.128.2's self-revert, seemingly/apparently not understanding what happened before. Since then 38.107.128.2's deletions are in the opinion piece. I do not know how to notify an IP editor in en wiki. (The other latest edits were constructive, i think: Two wikipedians corrected spelling mistakes. And the bigger adds were (as i suppose) made by an awardee who was allowed to add content. I do not intend to talk about these 3 editors.)

I think the revert-revert should be revert-revert-reverted, even after such a long time. The page is not protected, so i am able to edit it. But this should not be the task of an en-2 (de-N) 400-edit-beginner in en wiki like me. I suppose, this opinion piece is of some relevance for en Wikipedia's history. Thanks in advance. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User interface consistency

Hello, administrators.

While coming upon some unregistered usernames, I saw some MediaWiki messages saying “(insert username here) is not registered on this wiki. Please check CentralAuth to see if the account is registered on other wikis”.

However, I’m specifically bothered by the inconsistency. Two messages on these unregistered accounts have the Central Auth linked to meta (links are below), but one links to our local CentralAuth.

Also, just under an hour ago (as of the time of writing), Xaosflux edited one interface message, specifying clarity.

So now, here is the question: Should we make all in one format, where it links to meta and has that clarity message (“the account” rather than “it”) or do we link the CentralAuth to our local CentralAuth? Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 15:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

(The links are below for courtesy.) MediaWiki:Userpage-userdoesnotexist - Links to meta, states “it” rather than “the account”.

MediaWiki:Userpage-userdoesnotexist-view — Links to meta, states “the account”.

MediaWiki:Contributions-userdoesnotexist — Links to our local CentralAuth, states “it” rather than the account”.

Note: This is not on the interface admins’ noticeboard, since these messages can be edited by all admins.

Since these are already all local customization I don't really care one way or another and will process edit requests for small verbiage changes if opened. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)