Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive354) (bot |
→Can another admin take over for me here please?: new section |
||
| Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
:This is not the right place to request that (nor did you send an email). Please use the article's talk page, [[Talk:Deccan Herald]]. Note that [[WP:FAIRUSE]], a very complicated policy, would apply. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 10:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
:This is not the right place to request that (nor did you send an email). Please use the article's talk page, [[Talk:Deccan Herald]]. Note that [[WP:FAIRUSE]], a very complicated policy, would apply. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 10:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
||
{{abot}} |
{{abot}} |
||
== Can another admin take over for me here please? == |
|||
I've been talking to {{noping|User:Global Salmon Initiative}} on their talk page. Obviously the username is an issue, but that appears to be heading for a resolution. As I've talked to them about COI I've realized that, while I do not have a direct COI myself here, as an Alaskan I have pretty strong feelings about farmed -vs- wild caught salmon. I feel like everything I've said to them so far was within reason but I don't want my judgement to be clouded by my personal feelings as I feel like I'm probably talking to a [[WP:BYENOW|PR person]] for Big Salmon. Thanks in advance. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:39, 1 August 2023
| Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 40 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 24 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 54 | 0 | 54 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
- 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 12 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 5 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 120 sockpuppet investigations
- 19 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 5 Fully protected edit requests
- 2 Candidates for history merging
- 34 requests for RD1 redaction
- 120 elapsed requested moves
- 4 Pages at move review
- 33 requested closures
- 121 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 16 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unban/unblock request of Shwcz
I am bringing the unban request of Shwcz/23prootie here. I make no endorsement in doing so. The request follows. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I would like to have the User:23prootie account to be unbanned and this account to be unblocked. I have learned my lesson and I agree with the sanctions against me. I promise not to use any sockpuppets anymore and I promise to use this account as my primary account. I forgot the password from the User:23prootie account and I do not have access to the email. I would like to start fresh and use this account for useful edits. I promise not to start and edit war or to move pages without consensus, reasons why I was banned in the first place. I have refrained from editing in the last few months and I do not know if enough time have passed for my sanctions to be lifted. I apologize to the community for the disruption I have caused and I promise not to do it again. Shwcz (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Shwcz → 23prootie
Status: In progress
- Current username: Shwcz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) (ping user)
- Target username: 23prootie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) (advise user)
- Previous renames: current user, target user, Queue: open req, closed req
- For renamer use: Email target username, usurp user, rename user
- Datestamp: 17:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Reason: Forgot the password. No access to email. Shwcz (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
331dot (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Comments on unban/unblock request
- As a global renamer, I'd certainly decline this multiple account usurption, especially with their existing blocking on tlwiki. No comment on the unblock/unban situation. — xaosflux Talk 21:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- This request looks very pro forma to me, and not very convincing, especially with a existing block on another language wiki. Is there any evidence of this editor contributing in a productive manner on other wikis? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Confirming oppose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- How long ago was the last time this user socked? I see the ban dates back almost 14 years ago.. If the user hasn't been disruptive in the past 5 or so, I'd support an unban, given the extensive period of time that has elapsed. To put into perspective, this ban was from when I was a Sophomore in high school... I'm now almost 30. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Looking into this a bit more... I'm skeptical, given that their most recent sock escapade was 6 months ago, and one of the things they did was messing with the Philippines article. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- How long since last socked? Who knows. But the most recent time they were caught was a few months ago, looking at the astonishing 23 cases documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/23prootie/Archive. Nfitz (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm going to oppose rescinding the ban, at this point. If the editor wants to be taken seriously, they need to prove they can avoid socking for at least a few years, at this point. Doing this for 14 years is a very bad look. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- 2 procedural things, without expressing any opinion at this time: First, I've temporarily undeleted User:Elockid/Long-term abuse/23prootie, which had been deleted as obsolete. Second, WayKurat, do you have any comments, as the blocking admin on tlwiki in December? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose 23prootie was a persistently disruptive editor and sockmaster, and the brief unblock request barely touches on the issues. It is extremely unlikely that this person would be a productive editor. I'd note that much of their disruptive editing was focused on articles covering the Phillipines which generally have low numbers of active watchers, so any further disruption is likely to cause a fair bit of damage before being detected and stopped. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Multiple socks and blatant vandalism ([1], [2]) at least as recently as December 2022, which is a full 13 years and 2 months after being indef blocked. It's going to take a lot more than a few months of quietness and a boilerplate request to convince me that an unblock would be a good idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- The proposed topic ban below doesn't change anything for me - you can't shit on Wikipedia for 14 years with nearly 50 socks and then expect to be welcomed back just like that. This is as close as it comes to "indefinite means forever" to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment from Shwcz:
Can you add in the UnBan request at the Administrators' noticeboard that a WP:Topic Ban for Philippines-related articles will be instated for me in exchange of an UnBanning/UnBlocking.
Nosebagbear (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Close requested at WP:ITNC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone please close the various discussions involving Sinéad O'Connor. The whole thing has turned in a giant cluster bleep. She has been posted to RD, which I probably would not have done, but I'm not going to make a federal case out of it. More seriously, someone has taken it on themselves to break up the discussion and create a separate one for a blurb, after that was correctly taken off the table in the previous undivided discussion. It was quite obvious that there was no chance of any consensus for a blurb forming. The entire discussion is now confused with overlapping votes all over the place, and realistically this is not fixable. The bottom line is that O'Connor has been posted on the main page under RD and there was/is no realistic chance of a consensus forming for a blurb. Dividing the discussion was, to be blunt, disruptive. It's time to lower the curtain on this mess and move on. FTR I am INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- This post is very blatant canvassing. Ad O, you oppose the blurb, it's highly inappropriate for you to ask fellow admins to shut down the discussion, especially since votes are still coming in (and especially since recent votes are tending to support a blurb). Even if you were going to request a close here, the close request should be neutrally worded. I'm rather surprised to see this. And fyi, the person who broke up the discussion is the same person who posted the RD. Levivich (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is no canvassing. I stated very clearly that I am involved and irrespective of who broke up the discussion, it was disruptive and seriously inappropriate. There are overlapping votes spread all over the place and there would have to be an avalanche of pro blurb votes with few or no opposes to alter the very clear reality that this is a no consensus. The discussion is a confusing train wreck and should be closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note It looks like the separate discussion headers have now been removed. Unfortunately I think we may still have editors who have effectively multiple votes. Ugg. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- You just voted oppose and now you posted a non-neutral message at AN asking fellow admins to close the discussion with your preferred outcome? Going so far as to accuse other editors who disagree with you of being disruptive? You're trying to win a content dispute by leveraging your status as an admin to ask other admins at the admin noticeboard to step in. Even if you weren't an admin, voting in an active discussion that is trending away from your vote preference, and then immediately requesting a close? That's not cool. And to accuse those who disagree with you of disruption is even more not cool. That you're an admin makes it even worse. You should know better, and I hope you don't do this again. Request closes at CR with neutrally worded requests. There's a section there for closes that need admins. I request you withdraw this and if you must, just go post a neutrally worded request at CR. Btw the separate discussion headers were useful to separate the discussion prior to RD posting from the discussion afterwards. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- It was disruptive and has resulted in considerable confusion. My position as an admin is neither here nor there as I am not using the tools. Any editor is within their right to request admin intervention to correct serious problems as long as they disclose any COI or involvement, which I did. You are of course free to disagree with my view, which clearly you do, and express your contrary opinion. At this point the separate headings have been removed and I would encourage an uninvolved admin to review the discussion for possible duplicate votes at a minimum. Any additional action I leave to their discretion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Closes are requested at WP:CR, not here at AN. That's what CR is for; why would you post here? And they need to be requested neutrally. You're not engaging with either of those two points.
- Let's also memorialize what happened here. 28 July 02:25, the RD was posted with a note that discussion can continue on the blurb. I posted a "support blurb" vote, and later at 05:33, I added this line:
Sinead O'Connor's death made it to the front page of major papers in England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark Australia, Brazil, Argentina, United Arab Emirates, China, Canada, and the USA.
BTW, that took me like an hour to collect. That's an hour of volunteer work just to write that sentence with those links. - After that, 12 new votes came in (one person changed from a "comment" to a vote). Of those 12, 9 supported a blurb, and 3 opposed a blurb. One of those three is Ad O, who posted an oppose vote at 14:18. Then at 15:14, posted this canvassing close request. In total, not yet 24 hours have passed.
- What you're doing, Ad O, is trying to engineer a shut down of a discussion that is polling 9/12 in favor of a blurb over the past 12 hours or so. And you're doing it with a non-neutral message at AN accusing others of disruption. Dude, just vote, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't try and pull extra levers or leverage your social capital or disparage other editors as disruptive, in order to engineer a result that you agree with. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- It was disruptive and has resulted in considerable confusion. My position as an admin is neither here nor there as I am not using the tools. Any editor is within their right to request admin intervention to correct serious problems as long as they disclose any COI or involvement, which I did. You are of course free to disagree with my view, which clearly you do, and express your contrary opinion. At this point the separate headings have been removed and I would encourage an uninvolved admin to review the discussion for possible duplicate votes at a minimum. Any additional action I leave to their discretion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not only was it disruptive, but I'd argue that anyone in the discussion who's trying to impose their own rules or criteria for putting something on the main page is engaging disruptively. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is no canvassing. I stated very clearly that I am involved and irrespective of who broke up the discussion, it was disruptive and seriously inappropriate. There are overlapping votes spread all over the place and there would have to be an avalanche of pro blurb votes with few or no opposes to alter the very clear reality that this is a no consensus. The discussion is a confusing train wreck and should be closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem:
The bottom line is that O'Connor has been posted on the main page under RD and there was/is no realistic chance of a consensus forming for a blurb.
- How, under any reasonable definition of the word, can this announcement of yours not be WP:CANVASSING? You don't excuse yourself by disclosing you are WP:INVOLVED either; there is no exemption process for WP:INAPPNOTE canvassing by doing so that I know of. We know that consensus at ITN regarding significance, especially for death blurbs, is highly subjective and it can sometimes be a very complicated process to determine whether to post or to not post. If anything, if you want a real chance at hashing out a consensus either to post or to not post, what needs to be done is this item needs to be displayed on WP:CENT in a neutral fashion. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Community ban proposal: Phanuruch8555
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Phanuruch8555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) abused Wikipedia for several years, it is specifically manifested in continuous attacks and harassment of specific administrators, as well as meaningless disruptive behavior. In addition, he has similar bad behaviors in many projects such as thwiki. I think a community ban for this user is warranted.
Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Fumikas Sagisavas: The user has been globally locked since October 2011. There is no reason to spend time on a community ban discussion of this user. -Niceguyedc (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- ... Why in the world would we do this? This user has been blocked for nearly 12 years now. They were blocked closer to the creation of Wikipedia than to today. How did you even find them? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Alt-medicine topic unban request Technophant
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I need some help formatting. The discussion is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Technophant/Archive_3. It was long ago and I’ve made numerous controversial edits. I'm dying from the consequences of undiagnosed Lyme disease and connections starting with my first EM rash in 1975, brief hospitalization for “juvenile arthritis” before Lyme was public in 1979 improved spontaneously but some symptoms never went away typical to post Lyme syndrome.
Then came camping on Memorial days at Weedstock in severe Lyme epidemic area central Wisconsin. Acquired also mycoplasma fermentans incognitus from gulf war vet first time there in 1991. Then got lost in state forest (pine farm) hiked all night 1992 had 8 tick bites on my chest in the morning. Pulled off with fingers. Mouthparts left in forming cherry angiomas. No rash but no testing either. Severe exhaustion and emotional damage at least. Mayo clinic infectious disease said I don't look infectious and refused to do Western Blot because screening was always negative. 2011 I paid for Igenex and was positive all around. Did unconventional treatment with oral doxycycline (doesn't work, bacterial static) to Zithromax once every other day for 6 month. Fevers stopped so declared cured but have since developed small fiber neuropathy for no identifiable reason and severe intractable pain leading to chest pain and heart failure. Currently forced to go to a methdobe clinic because I need 42mg of methadone day(200-250 mg MME) instead I could only get 30 so was kicked out pain management? It would be laughable if it weren't tragic.
My medical qualifications: informed by a “Soul Reader” that I was doctor/physician in four past lives and could’ve been one in this life but I was censured for unethical behavior (quackery false claims). As a child, I secretly read and understood my mom's medical textbooks and have self-educated mostly but did attempt to get a biotech option to my computer and electronics technician degree Chronic Lyme is proven in animal dark field microscope. Article was insulting to all living beings. Technophant (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's not clear what you are asking. Are you asking that your topic ban be lifted? I have to warn you, given your statements here there's exactly zero chance of that happening. --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear of your history of ill health (though I'm less sympathetic to your "past lives" claims - in reality, "Your medical qualifications: None"), but I also don't understand what this has to do with topic bans, or with Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- This appears to be the actual topic ban discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- I echo Boing's points above - I'm very sorry to read of your medical conditions, and I truly don't want to cause any offense, but I can't give any credence to anything about past lives, and I don't imagine anyone else here will. You also haven't given any indication about what sort of edits you want to make, allowing us to understand whether your editing in that topic area would benefit the project. Girth Summit (blether) 15:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- I do not think that it would be good for the encyclopedia to lift this topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think the kindest thing to do here is a WP:SNOW close. This is not an appeal in any meaningful way. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Remove my user rights
Due to personal issues, I do not appear to be active on Wikipedia this year as much as in previous years. So, could an administrator please remove all of my user rights except for extendedconfirmed? Also, please remove my username from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Done for the rights. Thanks for your diligence. Courcelles (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
My username is still listed at the AWB check page. Could some administrator please remove my username from the check page? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Paragraph restructuration
Hello, I would like the paragraph in the history section of the page to be restructured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicktoons_(European_TV_channel)
65.92.90.228 (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- how would yoy like it restructured? Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so please feel free to be bold and make the changes yourself! Or you can suggest changes on the article talk page. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Editaton with IP blocked now (resolved)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Admins, we wanted to start an editaton now and get the message that this IP is blocked: The IP address or range 213.55.224.0/22 has been blocked (disabled) by Drmies for the following reason(s): disruptive editing, including political vandalism This block will expire on 17:16, 12 August 2023.
Could you please end this block now? Thank you! --Hadi (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- That's Special:Contributions/213.55.224.0/22 blocked by Drmies. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- How long do you need it unblocked for (also note that the block is anon only, so editors with accounts should be fine)? Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Also, is it just one IP address (this is a rangeblock)? Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- We need an unblock until 6 August 2023. It's not only blocking the creation of new accounts, some participants also can not edit. Hadi (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- ...they can not edit within their user account. Hadi (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is why I'm asking. Registered accounts should be able to edit (the rangeblock is set to anon only), so there may be a different block affecting your particular IP address. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- If you email me your IP address (it should be on the block notice) via this method I can check. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is why I'm asking. Registered accounts should be able to edit (the rangeblock is set to anon only), so there may be a different block affecting your particular IP address. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- ...they can not edit within their user account. Hadi (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- We need an unblock until 6 August 2023. It's not only blocking the creation of new accounts, some participants also can not edit. Hadi (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Also, is it just one IP address (this is a rangeblock)? Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- How long do you need it unblocked for (also note that the block is anon only, so editors with accounts should be fine)? Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I have adjusted the block so it only affects the articles that were causing an issue with this range. You should be able to edit now. Note that you may be limited to the number of accounts you can create because of the account creation throttle. In that case, please follow the instructions on the page or visit WP:ACCP. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! One participant says its ok! I will come back. Hadi (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- yes, now also the last participant was able to create a user account! The other had their accounts before. Thank you again! Hadi (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Now everybody is editing and everythings seems ok. :) So this section can be archived. Thank you again @Black Kite. - Hadi (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- yes, now also the last participant was able to create a user account! The other had their accounts before. Thank you again! Hadi (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! One participant says its ok! I will come back. Hadi (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- zzuuzz, Black Kite, thanks. Drmies (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Mmd1193
- Mmd1193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Not sure how this noticeboard thing works quite yet, but can we please have a look at this user? He/She keeps removing sourced content from articles mainly List of United States wireless communications service providers and also the pages for AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile US. I have warned them multiple times now about removing or changing sourced content and they keep changing it, with outdated information. I am thinking they might be an employee or really big fan of one of the companies in relation to these articles. Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked by Materialscientist today for 24 hours for harassment. I think this should stay open, however, since harassment and a block that is about to expire do not address Completely Random Guy's concerns. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know. This case is complicated by the fact despite Completely Random Guy saying "I have warned them multiple times now about removing or changing sourced content and they keep changing it", this never actually happened. There have been no talk page posts related to this dispute either on Mmd1193's talk page or the article talk pages by Completely Random Guy related to these disputes. I'm not counting edit summaries which it's well accepted is a way to offer a brief explanation of your edits, but is not a way to talk to another editor. The first person to actually warn Mdm1193 was Untamed1910 after this thread had started [3], probably partly in response to this thread since Untamed1910 also gave them the compulsory notification that Completely Random Guy failed to give [4]. Of course Mdm1193's response to someone finally actually warning them was completely inappropriate [5] but they've been blocked for that. While the response also makes one wonder if they will actually change their behaviour, perhaps the block will be enough to convince them they need to change. Either way, I think this is an important reminder that edit summaries is not the way you warn or talk to another editor. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hey sorry for the delay in getting back, through edit summaries of my reverts I warned the user many times about removing unsourced content. I didn't realize it should be a talk page discussion rather than an edit summary. I apologize! Completely Random Guy (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know. This case is complicated by the fact despite Completely Random Guy saying "I have warned them multiple times now about removing or changing sourced content and they keep changing it", this never actually happened. There have been no talk page posts related to this dispute either on Mmd1193's talk page or the article talk pages by Completely Random Guy related to these disputes. I'm not counting edit summaries which it's well accepted is a way to offer a brief explanation of your edits, but is not a way to talk to another editor. The first person to actually warn Mdm1193 was Untamed1910 after this thread had started [3], probably partly in response to this thread since Untamed1910 also gave them the compulsory notification that Completely Random Guy failed to give [4]. Of course Mdm1193's response to someone finally actually warning them was completely inappropriate [5] but they've been blocked for that. While the response also makes one wonder if they will actually change their behaviour, perhaps the block will be enough to convince them they need to change. Either way, I think this is an important reminder that edit summaries is not the way you warn or talk to another editor. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've extended the block to indefinite. I don't think anyone who attempts to make an edit like this will be a productive contributor. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Odds of productivity after that is about zero. Courcelles (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
User is uninterested in collaboration and has frequent issues with editing
If you take a look at the edit history and talk page for HappyAppy10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you will see repeat problems with this user's edits and literally every time someone tries to bring up an issue, he responds, "get a life" and removes any feedback on his problematic behavior. This blank talk page hides how unwilling he is to collaborate and how frequent issues are with his editing and attitude. It's not clear to me that this rises to the level of WP:ANV or anything, but I can't help but think this attitude is only getting worse and will only result in future conflict that goes unresolved. It would be nice if an admin could step in to encourage collaborative behavior and try to figure out why this user is so hostile to cooperation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is a definite behavioral problem. It is not possible to formulate a consensus unless editors are prepared to WP:COMMUNICATE with one another. It's been going on for ten years. Betty Logan (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- And to be clear, he keeps on making the same kinds of errors/deliberately bad edits over and over again and is not interested in changing his behavior. This is in addition to making new kinds of bad edits as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyAppy10&oldid=prev&diff=1167999414 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
IP spamming suspicious link
124.168.45.118 has made a series of stats changes citing a website. The url leads just to a download I did not complete. Unsure what this is, but thought I'd raise here in case it should be revdelled. CMD (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment: It's just a mostly empty html file. It has php code in it, but I guess their server isn't setup correctly, so it's not working. Currently, it's not harmful, but could be if they fix it. Closhund/talk/ 06:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- I did find this page at the site, which is what I think the IP was trying to cite, although that page does not have any statistics by country. I was unable to locate any other pages at that site (none of the presumed links work). It appears to be a blog, and the comments on that page are eleven years old. Obviously not an RS. - Donald Albury 17:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Update the Cover Image of Deccan Herald Wikipedia page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Wikipedia Editors,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to request an update to the cover image of the Deccan Herald Wikipedia page. The current cover image does not accurately represent the latest developments and appearance of the publication. I kindly request that you consider replacing it with a more recent and relevant image to maintain the page's accuracy and appeal. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I can share with you the latest image for better understanding.
Best regards,
Ayesha Rahman Ayesha.r786 (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is not the right place to request that (nor did you send an email). Please use the article's talk page, Talk:Deccan Herald. Note that WP:FAIRUSE, a very complicated policy, would apply. --Yamla (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Can another admin take over for me here please?
I've been talking to User:Global Salmon Initiative on their talk page. Obviously the username is an issue, but that appears to be heading for a resolution. As I've talked to them about COI I've realized that, while I do not have a direct COI myself here, as an Alaskan I have pretty strong feelings about farmed -vs- wild caught salmon. I feel like everything I've said to them so far was within reason but I don't want my judgement to be clouded by my personal feelings as I feel like I'm probably talking to a PR person for Big Salmon. Thanks in advance. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)