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	14	33
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	2	4	6
RfD	0	0	22	48	70
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

• 8 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 8 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 14 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 10 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 142 sockpuppet investigations
• 19 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 23 requests for RD1 redaction
• 59 elapsed requested moves
• 6 Pages at move review
• 26 requested closures
• 122 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 16 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (26 out of 7750 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Talk:Nagyal 2024-05-16 04:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz 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 Template:FAQ/FAQ 2024-05-12 10:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers User:Arjayay/Rang HD 2024-05-12 10:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rang HD -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Rangiya 2024-05-12 09:27 2024-10-16 06:56 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: confirmed socks edit the article Ymblanter Vaush 2024-05-12 07:35 indefinite edit,move per WP:CT/BLP Primefac

IP submission of my WP:AFC draft

At, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 20#21:21:37, 20 January 2023 review of draft by TonyTheTiger, I noted that my WP:AFC draft article had been submitted by an uninvolved IP, while I still had a {{underconstruction}} on the article. No one responded before it was archived. I was requesting the submission be undone since it is highly unusual for an uninvolved IP to nominate an article underconstruction at AFC.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What sort of violation is alledged? Near as I can tell that's perfectly legitimate if unusual. WP:DRAFT states that Editors may also optionally submit drafts for review via the articles for creation process by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft page. An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft. WP:OWN applies to drafts just as much as they apply to articles. (loopback) ping/whereis 13:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I heartily disagree, especially as the rogue IP user had not contributed to the draft previously. It is a bit of a dick move to just randomly pop in and submit an in-progress draft with nothing but a flip "seems ready") edit summary. ValarianB (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's not a nice thing to do, but is there policy somewhere that doesn't allow it? Otherwise I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with. If its the section highlighted in DRAFT that's a community consensus discussion and not just us saying we disagree. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence at WP:AFC says "The Articles for creation (AfC) process is designed to assist any editor in creating a new page as a draft article, which they can work on and submit for review and feedback when ready." It seems that it is a space where an editor can create a new page and get review and feedback when ready. It seems to be a substitute for a private sandbox. It does not seem to be a space intended for community editing. The first sentence seems to suggest that the creating editor is suppose to work on the draft and the creating editor is suppose to submit it. The they in that sentence grammatically seems to refer to the editor creating the page. That person is suppose to work on the page and that person is suppose to submit it for review. The 2nd paragraph also suggests that those not "required to use the AfC process" should not submit articles for review. The IP was not required to use the process and should not have submitted the article. Furthermore, the sentence at WP:DRAFT that says "any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion" does not say any other editor may submit the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

IP's are actually required to use AfC, because they typically can't create new pages. Footnoote 4 on WP:DRAFT states Wikipedia's editing policy applies to all pages, including drafts. The editing policy is, as the name suggests, policy. WP:AfC, and especially inferences made and not stated can't really override it. That said, why is the decline a big deal? You can keep working on it and resubmit. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

First, in terms of those not "required to use the AfC process" as it applies here, an IP is not required to use draft space to edit my sister's new article, but I am. If it were in article space, they could drop in and edit without any policy implications. Since I created the page, whether an IP would need to use AfC to create the page is irrelevant. By policy, since an IP is not required to use AfC to edit my sister's article, they should not submit articles for review, per WP:AFC. WP:DRAFT which enumerates a variety of permissible actions (edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek) clearly omits permission for anyone to submit. So per both WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT the uninvolved IP should not submit. You ask why is the decline a big deal?. It sort of changes the burden of my editorial involvement.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with, I'm disagreeing with the entirety of your response. Whether there's a policy or not is not pertinent, in a collaborative editing environment it is just extremely disrespectful to muck about with a draft others are working on, when they contributed nothing beforehand. ValarianB (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

We make decisions and evaluate editor behavior based on our policies and the community consensus behind those policies. Arguing that policy is not pertinent is rather nonsensical and it leaves us without a common touchstone to guide our decisions as editors. When I returned after 10 years away from the project I had to do an enormous amount of reading to try and comprehend what's changed policywise since I last was active. I'm a little bit aghast to think none of that mattered and I could have just started plunking away based on what feels right. --(loopback) ping/whereis 15:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I agree. If editors aren't interested in collobrating then Wikipedia is not the place for them. So yes, this means if they expect that draft space is somewhere they get to place content and then only they get to decide what happens to it, they're wrong and should learn so, quickly. Note in this particular case, I don't think the IP's actions were helpful. Even assuming they made a careful assessment of the article and were sufficiently experienced to make such an assessment, the rejection means they were wrong. But just as importantly, the article was edited recently, tagged as under construction and was not of a timely subject. However if we imagine a different case, where an editor comes across a draft which hasn't been edited in months, finds the editor disappeared too and based on their experience is certain it's ready and submits it, and it's accepted and we now have an article we didn't have before, well that's for the benefit of Wikipedia so is a good thing. Even if it annoys the editor who hasn't edited Wikipedia or the article in months, sorry not sorry. Some editors may feel it better to ask the editor who hasn't edited in months anyway, that's fine; but it's also fine if they don't do so. Again if the original editor wanted to developed stuff without collaboration, they needed to do so somewhere else e.g. on their on computer of the plenty of cloud services that would allow it. I mentioned timely earlier which highlights another important point. If it's something timely, even where it has not been months it's IMO still fine for another editor to submit it for review, especially when they have the competence to properly assess it and feel it's ready for main space themselves. I see no reason why the editor needs to do any work if it's already good enough for main space. If they come across an article which is sufficient and is the sort of thing they would have written if the article didn't already exist as a draft then most would agree it's actually harmful if they ignore the draft and completely independently write a similar article just because the draft writer may want to 'own it' and get to decide when to submit. Nor should they need to get the article into a better state then is needed or they feel is worth the effort just because someone else already made the effort to get it into a level they feel is needed. That said in a case like that where it hasn't been months, while I still don't think asking first is necessary albeit may be polite, I do think they definitely should inform the original editor of what they did and why. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne you have me pretty lost with your counterfactual if thens and such. Are you saying that I interpretted WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT wrong or are you saying you disagree with the current policies at WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Point in fact neither WP:DRAFT nor WP:AFC is a policy one is an explanatory essay, the other a process description. Personally I don't consider that to be the be all end all, however it's probably best to avoid confusing the discussion (see both WP:PGE and WP:DCE). The more salient issue is that the consensus behind WP:DRAFT in particular is highly questionable review some of the recent noticeboard archives regarding WP:DRAFTOBJECT for just a snapshot, and so citing it is unlikely to add much weight to your arguments.

Now, and please don't take this personally because I'm confident your acting in good-faith and understandably frustrated with the situation, but even excepting that on the merits your interpretation would be flawed. We've never run on everything not expressly permitted is forbidden, rather the opposite actually, so trying to apply that framework to win an (and don't take this the wrong way) ultimately trivial dispute does not come across well. Further asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express is rarely going to persuade others. It's likely for that reason you've seen people discussing the principles underpinning draftspace.

Finally, it's unclear what sysop action you are requesting (if any). Why is this thread here and not at the village pump or other more appropriate venue? Removing (or adding) declines is not a sysop action and neither page protection nor a block would be appropriate at this time, what exactly is it you want a sysop to do?

So I'm happy to keep discussing this with you and trying to understand your perspective if that's what you want so long as I have your patience, but that should probably happen elsewhere, could even be on user talk if that's what you prefer, but I don't see any sysop action coming out of this. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I have stated a couple of times, that I don't think the uninvolved IP submission was a valid action and that I wanted it reversed. I.e., return the article to the status it was prior to the invalid submission.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not a sysop action.

Moreover it's not an action that makes sense for anyone to do at all. Contrary to your assumption that It sort of changes the burden of my editorial involvement, it in fact changes nothing. Every draft is evaluated on it's merits at the time of review and a previous decline is of no consequence following non-trivial improvement. Repeated resubmission without improvement is an issue, but presumably you don't plan to do that. Just continue working on the draft as though nothing had happened and try to calmly work through any issues that are noticed with your reviewers. If you want further input I suggest you inquire at WT:AFC, but I expect you'll receive the same answer.

Otherwise I'm a bit busy this week but if you drop a note on my talk I'll try to follow up in a few days or whenever I get chance. I know this was probably a frustrating experience for you so forgive me if I've been overly blunt. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

As the IP has said, I don't know why you TTT keep saying it changes anything. It doesn't except your ability to submit it for review without making substantial changes. If you had intended to submit it without making any changes then I don't get why you care who submitted it. If you intended to make minor changes then submit it this might be an issue although frankly I'm doubtful you'd get in trouble for resubmitting it with minor changes in these circumstances although it is likely to be a foolish decision since I strongly suspect it will be decline as it would have if the IP had never gotten involved. I'd also go back to my earlier point. You keep saying the IP's submission was inappropriate because they were uninvolved but that's simply nonsense. If you want to keep it in draft space then you need to accept it belongs to the community including uninvolved editors. The primary reason the IP's actions might be considered inappropriate has nothing to do with them being uninvolved, it has to do with them very likely making a submission when they lacked the competence to actualy evaluate the article and probably didn't really do a significant review we should expect from someone who is making such submissions. (Since if the IP is going to do be doing something like this they need to be doing something sufficiently productive. Reviewing an article and submitting it based on your extensive experience is productive. Randomly submitting an article after a cursory glance, especially in circumstances like this, not so much.) Ultimately as I mentioned in my first reply if you don't accept that anything you write on Wikipedia belongs to the community then don't post it on draft space. Even user space isn't ideal although we generally accept despite all content even in user space also belonging to the community, other editors should only edit them in minimal ways. Also the suggestion is just plain flawed anyway. Let's say the IP had been right and it had been ready for main space. Would we be returning it to draft space because the original creator isn't happy about it being moved to main space? The answer is almost definitely no, since it belongs to the community. Again, if you don't accept this then all I can say is don't post stuff publicly on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I should clarify my user space comment. While we generally accept editors should not fool around with userspace drafts directly unless they have permission, remember that by posting it here you've already released it under the appropriate licences. An editor is free to recreate the draft somewhere else using your text with appropriate attribution. And if the editor talks to you first and you say it's not ready but the editor disagrees we don't have any clear policy or guideline nor do I think we should, that the editor is forbidden from simply creating a copy somewhere else either directly on main space or as a draft. (I'm fairly something related happened before and after a long discussion there was no consensus that this sort of thing should be automatically forbidden.) Again if you don't want this to happen your only choice is to work on something privately since once you've posted it here you've given up on the right to decide what happens with it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As it stands now the OP can just resubmit after they have completed work on the draft, it has been declined not rejected. So is there anything that actually needs to be done? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I am here because by both WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT (as I stated above at 15:48, 28 January 2023 following my 14:47, 27 January 2023 post) an uninvolved IP should not submit AFC works. Having an article declined shifts the editorial burden. In terms of whether there is anything that actually needs to be done, all I ask is that you undo that which should not have been done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That's more or less my view as well. Drafts are declined and subsequently accepted after being improved quite routinely. Submitting a draft you haven't made significant contributions is usually rude; however, I don't believe we would want to prohibit it absolutely since there are cases where it's appropriate. If I saw an eligible for G13 soon draft that looked mainspace worthy where the creator had apparently forgotten about it I would have no problems submitting it for them.

In point of fact, the premise behind draftspace is that, in contrast to userspace drafts, everyone is encouraged to edit there to promote collaboration the evidence suggest that premise is flawed but that's a discussion for another time so any restrictions on who can edit them are going to be suspect.

Bottom line, this is a rare phenomena so any additions to policy addressing it specifically are questionable WP:BLOAT. If someone, registered or unregistered, makes a single drive-by submission ignore it. The draft will be declined; it takes a bit of editor time, but far less then discussions like this one. If someone repeatedly makes drive-by submissions then revert their edits and p-block them from draftspace for disruption. Quite straightforward really. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow! we have an opinion from an IP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There's actually still quite a few of us that are active in projectspace Though my own activity level has long been too low for me to truly count. But it is to your credit that you avoid the noticeboards enough to find this surprising. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I missed the IP's comments earlier. The one nitpick I'd have with the IPs suggestion goes back to my other comments. I don't think we should or even would automatically p-block or topic ban an UP for making "drive-by submission"s. The proof is in the pudding as they say so we'd look at several things. Number one, does the editor involved discuss and explain their actions satisfactorily? This is a cornerstone of all editing here and while it can be difficult for IPs, ultimately if they're repeatedly doing something they need to find a way. And if they did discuss, this significantly lessens concerns. Two is and this is where the "proof" comes, what was the result of their actions? The important thing is whether the IP is doing anything productive. If the IP is going through draftspace, and with a high degree of competence picking out those which are ready for main space and submitting them then they're doing something productive. It doesn't matter that they're "uninvolved" or that these are "drive-by submissions". I think for good cause we'd tend to evaluate such actions harshly so maybe even demand a 80% success rate, perhaps even 85-90%. But I find it unlikely the community would support partial blocking or topic banning an editor who is clearly being useful e.g. with 95% success submitting articles for AFC no matter that it may annoy certain creators or whatever. I do think the success demands would probably go down the less their actions are "drive-by". Since such actions require some degree as review, probably not a full AFC review since it's fair for them to just stop once they see the article isn't ready, still it would generally be useful for them to explain somewhere why they feel the article isn't ready for main space rather than just submit articles which are ready and ignore those which aren't and discuss when queried. (Especially in cases where the article isn't so terrible that virtually in editor with experience will instantly dismiss it.) In such a case, I could imagine even 50% would be acceptable especially if the editor also engages a lot with creators where it's asked and generally avoids drafts with recent edits. (Although even there, I also feel the community will largely embrace the proof is in the pudding principle and if e.g. the IP has 95% success rates and this is based on the original article when they submitted not based on a later version the creator may have made which they rushed through because an IP submitted it before it was ready, the community is going to be reluctant to sanction them if as I said at the beginning they also discussed and explained their actions where needed.) Ideally the editor would just become a reviewer themselves but there are various reasons why an editor may not with to register an account or otherwise become a reviewer but may be interested in sorting through unsubmitted drafts. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this, I wrote in haste earlier lacking nuance. In fact we could actually use more people patrolling G13 soon eligible drafts and submitting those that appear mainspace worthy, and it doesn't matter if you make dozens of submissions in a day so long as the submissions are meritorious; even for edge cases we should first try to educate before moving on to sanctions. What we don't want is people blindly submitting drafts in a bot-like fashion or attempting to harass a specific user by repeatedly resubmitting a draft that user started, both of these are already prohibited under existing policy.

P.S. you can just refer to me as 74 since there's no other IP with similar numbers related to this thread. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion and the actions which started it have convinced me to write all my drafts in my sandbox from now on. Last time I used draft space, some rando (non-IP) user came along and accused me of vandalising a draft article to which I was the sole contributor.  Tewdar  17:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I always advise people to use sandboxes and user subpages for their articles instead of drafts. There are all upsides and no downsides. Especially since user subpages aren't automatically subject to the 6 month no edits speedy deletion criteria. Best just to avoid that nonsense entirely. Silverseren^C 18:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUD is also good-reading. Granted I've used draftspace to create articles before, even going back to when they were all in project talkspace, but there are a lot of downsides to familiarize yourself with before making the decision to use it. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That's quite a good essay. Userspace drafts are my default when I'm working through something. Once it's ready for more eyes I can link the userspace draft on wikiproject talkpages asking for input and making it clear that others are welcome to edit it, and once I'm satisfied I can push it to mainspace. Thats beat for beat the exact workflow I used to write Del Riley (clerk). --(loopback) ping/whereis 07:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You can also tag your userspace drafts with {{editable user page}} to further remove ambiguity so other people are more comfortable editing them. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oddly, it seems that instead of reverting the inappropriate uninvolved IP submission, I am being offered a course of moving the page to a userspace sandbox draft. It seems to me that this is a subversive action. I am asking you as administrators to endorse the claim that the IP submission was inappropriate and to revert the article status to that prior to the submission. By moving the page to a userspace draft, it undermines the reasoned review which categorized the article with a declined status requiring certain procedural actions to pursue mainspace. The move never "undoes" the review by making it the result of an inappropriate procedure. It just circumvents it. Furthermore, as a WP:COI editor, I don't even understand what would follow moving to userspace sandbox draft. What is the procedure for a COI editor to move a page from userspace draft to article space?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • P.S. I do want to be clear that User:Scope creep, certainly gave a respectful and procedurally correct review. I do respect his opinion in that regard. I don't necessarily believe that 10 out of 10 AFC reviewers would decline my sister's bio in its current state, but his review is reasoned. I believe that in its current state my sister's article would have a better than 50% chance to survive at WP:AFD, and that WP:AFC may have a higher bar for source evaluation than AFD. I am here to assert that the review should never have happened because a submission by an uninvolved IP of a draft with a {{underconstruction}} tag should be regarded as inappropriate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

    If you truly believe there should be additional restrictions on who can submit drafts and when, and I can't see why we would want to add anything to the PAGs covering this kind of rare specific and trivial case (again WP:CREEP), or otherwise seek broader reforms of AFC due to perceived issues. Then the place to propose that or seek clarity on the community's current interpretation on existing PAGs would be at the village pump. Hopefully this succinctly clears things up.

    I'm not trying to be overly bureaucratic here, but AN in general is a poor forum for altering or reforming long-standing community processes. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

    I am not trying to propose the any reforms. I just think that based on the current set of PAGs, an uninvolved IP would be considered an ineligible/inappropriate AFC nominator.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

    And several people have told you that interpretation is incorrect, and in fact directly at odds with long-standing policy. If you don't want other people to edit your drafts than make them in userspace. If you think the procedure in a community process may not have been properly adhered to, the best place to initiate an inquiry is usually on the discussion page for that process. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

    I've heard a lot of people say that AFC is harsher than AFD and often rejects stuff which will easily pass AFD. I don't have enough experience to personally comment, but I suspect it's probably correct. I'd also note that I'm doubtful the community wants any AFC reviewer passing something that only has 50% of surviving AFD. But in addition to this, for good reason we tend to evaluate content written by editors with a COI even a disclosed COI more harshly even at AFD. Also, while this is more aspirational than something I can say plays out in practice, for good reason articles on living persons should really should be evaluated at both AFD and AFC much more harshly than articles on companies and the like. While we don't want spammy articles on companies, articles on living persons can easily go very very wrong when the person does or is otherwise involved in anything which receives any real degree of controversy. So such article are far more of a problem for Wikipedia and for the people involved. It's very common on BLPN to see such disasters, often by the history written by someone who almost definitely had an undisclosed COI probably a paid one, which I suspect the subject was happy with until something like that happened enough that I think most BLPN regulars are very happy with harsh notability standards for articles on living persons. Maybe most importantly though is any editor with a COI needs to recognise no matter how much experience they have and no matter how much they may try to avoid this, any assessment they make of a situation where they have a COI is highly suspect. They should welcome any feedback from editors without a COI and consider it very likely holds far more weight than their own attempt to evaluate. (Or in other words, if an editor with a COI makes an evalution X and an experience editor makes an evaluation and comes to conclusion Y, it's very likely Y is far close to how the community as a while will see situation and so the editor with the COI should say okay I'm very likely wrong it's actually Y.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• I had the feeling it was women herself that submitted it for review,or more likely somebody from the company. Who ever did it, seemed to be overly optimistic in their assumption it would pass review, perhaps feeling it was finished when it clearly wasn't. It wasn't ready in any manner I think. But the Afc process has own state machine. It was submitted and I reviewed it. Not much else you can say about it. If it went to mainspace I would have to try and delete it. It has six month minus 2 weeks to be updated with some real secondary sourcing, to improve it. Plenty of time. I'm sure it will be in mainspace eventually. scope_creep^Talk 21:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  If you help updating it, or help finding relevant references, WP:WIR is a good place to request help. scope_creep^Talk 21:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  User:scope_creep, I imagine that an IP confers some sort of geolocation information. I doubt my sister or her family did the nomination, but felt that the type of IP that would nominate such an article would be one of two types. I too assumed one of those types was an associate from her company. The other type of IP was someone associated with a reviewer with one of them having an axe to grind. However, the more I thought about the review and the role of AFC, I started to feel that AFC has a vastly different perspective than I am familiar with. Where as my content contributions have been through dozens if not a hundred plus AFDs, I have no familiarity with AFC. I feel AFD has a more binary RS evaluation, where as this experience with AFC makes me feel that AFC has a RS classification evaluation. AFC looks at RSes and says this is a high-class, medium-class or low-class RSes and without any really high-class RSes we can't support this. I feel that many of the things classified by AFC as WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SPS are things that AFD would probably allow as RS. Of course, I have never had the type of WP:COI role that I have and it is impossible for me to assess how much my own vision is clouded. My belief is that AFD just looks at whether there are RS and then evaluates whether notability is permanent or temporary (1 event) and that many of these sources would be viewed as RS at AFD. That being said, I do hope to get this page to a point where it can enter mainspace and be considered for and by an AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• I am also now understanding that the talk by User:Tewdar, User:Silver seren, Special:Contributions/74.73.224.126, and Del Riley (clerk) about the alternative course of User sandbox space is no longer an option here. At first, I thought they were telling me to move the article to that space.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think you (or someone else) can just move the draft page to your userspace, no? If not, just make a new page in your userspace and copy n' paste your draft there. I'm sure it's very irritating having some rando submit your draft when it's not ready, even if it doesn't violate policy... yet another reason to avoid draft space.  Tewdar  08:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  User:Tewdar suppose I move this to a sandbox in my user space. How do I later approach moving it to Main/Article space as a COI editor?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not that I'm really the right person to be answering your questions, but I'd say, when you're done in user space, move it back to draft space then submit it immediately through AfC? I'd wait for someone who knows what they're talking about, though. 😁  Tewdar  20:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know how Kosher that is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Anyone who is following this discussion about my trials and tribulations about creating a page for my sister which has been reviewed at WP:AFC by User:scope_creep, may be interested seeing her launch Black History Month @Honest social medias such as Instagram, LinkedIn or Facebook today. I know none of this makes her any more notable, but you can get to know her this month on their socials starting about 2 hours ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Break

TonyTheTiger is trying write his sister's BLP article according to Wikipedia rules. I'm uncertain how he should proceed. I am not suggesting a change in the rules! I'm requesting clarity on procedure under existing rules. I am familiar with AfC but not with AfD.

1. Put aside the drive-by IP article submission. An editor loves and is proud of a relative, and wants to create a valid BLP article for that relative. This is challenging because of WP:COI. It was suggested that Tony move the article content (not the page itself) of the declined but not rejected draft to his user space sandbox. Let's say that Tony does this and improves the article until he feels it's ready for mainspace. What should he do next? I.e. what is the procedure for a COI editor to move a page from user space draft to article space? Resubmit to AfC? Create a new page in main space and COI template the talk page? I know process for COI editors requesting changes to existing articles. I don't recall what a COI editor should do to create a new article especially a BLP.

2. Tony chose AfC because of his COI, to ensure review by uninvolved editors. Put aside Tony's COI. The draft space BLP was marked with {{underconstruction}} and had been edited within the prior few hours or days by Tony. Is the following correct? It is acceptable for a drive by editor to make ZERO contributions to a recently edited and tagged draft space article yet submit it to AfC.--FeralOink (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Non-essay length version

1. Userspace drafts can be submitted and reviewed in the same manner as draftspace drafts; if it is accepted use the {{request edit}} for all subsequent desired changes when in mainspace. Since that draft has non-trivial edits by others the procedure for WP:CWW must be followed. Subsequently if accepted they may be histmerged if feasible, or the draft may just be redirected to the page to preserve history. While allowed, such copying can be controversial since it's sometimes done to evade scrutiny so I would probably drop a note at WT:AFC to see if there were any concerns first.
2. Yes. This is core to how Wikipedia works (see WP:OWN). The whole someone else edited a page I was working on while it had {{in use}} or {{under construction}} on it has come up on the noticeboards a few times and the only discernible consensus that has emerged from those discussions is that it is rude, but not sanctionable unless done in an effort to harass.

These kind of questions are probably better suited to the appropriate discussion pages for AFC, or the general help desk if for some reason you feel the former are too insider run.

The simplest and most straightforward thing to do is just keep working on the draft as though nothing had happened. Either there are now trivial improvements to be made with available sources, in which case the previous decline is irrelevant, or no non-trivial improvement is feasible while adhering to policy in which case who submitted the draft in its culminating state is immaterial. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the non-essay length reply, IP user 74. You said we could call you that earlier. I apologize for clogging things up here at AN. I have offered to assist TTT on his talk page in revising his sister's BLP as I am an uninvolved editor. I will cease and desist from further clogging about this matter.-- FeralOink (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with IP 74. I suggest it might be time to put this to bed, and this be closed with:

• The IP (not 74) who submitted TTT's article in draft space was kind of a jerk, but it's not really sanctionable unless done to harass. I don't think it qualifies as "against policy".
• The AFC review has been done, and we aren't going to try to send that down the memory hole. We aren't going to "undo" Scope Creep's AFC review.
• TTT, as pretty much the only content editor, is free to move the draft article to his user space. This is not a subversive action. I'm not sure it's necessary, though, as this seems like kind of a fluke occurrence. I would certainly view someone besides TTT resubmitting this article to AFC as harassment.
• If TTT does move it to his user space, TTT can either move it back to draft space and submit to AFC, or (I think, not 110% sure) submit to AFC while it's in his user space. However, it isn't kosher for TTT to remove Scope Creep's review before resubmitting.
• In general, this is probably not 100% to TTT's liking, but sometimes imperfect solutions happen.
• In the future, TTT might want to start his articles in his user space.

OK? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• User:Floquenbeam, I recently got involved in another article that was stuck in draft space. I have since had Jett Howard moved directly to article space from draft space (by request at WP:RM since I wanted to move it over a redirect). By doing this I think the venue for challenging the notability of that subject became WP:AFD if a challenger is interested. If I do move my sister's article to user space, is it possible to move the article directly to article space so that the venue for a challenge would be WP:AFD, which would be my preferred venue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @TonyTheTiger: If you chose AFC because of your COI (as recommended at WP:COIEDIT), how would that change if you move it to user space? I would say you should not move your article from user space to article space when you're ready, but instead go thru the AFC process because of your COI. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  more: The reason this worked for Jett Howard is because you didn't have a COI (right?), so there was nothing requiring it go thru AFC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) You should not move a page to mainspace or create one there directly when you have a COI. You can submit userspace drafts for AFC review just as you would with draftspace drafts, there's even a specific category to track them, in theory if it is properly formatted and has at least a 50% chance of surviving AFD it should be accepted.

  While the category page recommends moving pages to draftspace if declined, this is because the typical occurrence is a user who registers an account and makes a handful of edits in their userspace to create and submit a draft before disappearing forever. When such submissions are declined months later the only (extremely slim) chance of future mainspacing is movement to draftspace for potential rescue by someone else since G13 applies to userspace drafts as well once tagged for AFC. Since this case is far from typical that general advice does not apply.

  Aside from that Floq's suggestion sounds good to me. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, Floq. Thank you!--FeralOink (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Digression resulting from a good-faith misunderstanding 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

<inappropriate rant self-redacted, TLDR is that COI editors are not forbidden from moving their pages to article space, which is not what Floq or the IP were saying. Original at Special:Diff/1138054955> Primefac (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC) struck 20:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC) That's why I said should and not must (the specifics are at WP:COIEDIT). There are many things that while allowed are not advisable. If the article were mainspaced as is the chances of surviving AFD are pretty slim, and there's a non-zero chance of sanctions being implemented if this is pushed to hard. Your best odds in situation like this are to get the AFC stamp of approval; given some of the comments on the draft talk page there's decent odds it gets sent to AFD anyway, but the community view will be kinder in that case than if directly moved. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC) (e/c) WP:COIEDIT does say "should" instead of "must", but it's still recommended, and certainly not nonsense. BTW, just saying "</rant>" doesn't let you off the hook for being a jerk. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC) My apologies, this was not necessarily directed at you or the IP (as I do recognise that neither of you said "must"), it's an argument that gets raised at AFC a lot and here a lot and AFD a lot and this apparently was the metaphorical straw on the matter for me. It was a dick move of me and I will strike my reply. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Two things. First, no experienced editor should use draftspace. Its only real function these days is a trap for spam. Second, for years I had an IP that would go around to drafts in my userspace and submit obviously incomplete pages to AfC with snarky edit summaries (or silliness like this). Given when it started, I figured it had something to do with my defending userspace drafts in a few RfCs back then. Anyway, it was obnoxious and I wouldn't be surprised if it started up again. Here are the places where I brought it up at that point: RfC talk page, ANI, and I'm pretty sure there was something a little more recent but meh. My takeaway from those, and other discussions is that you shouldn't be submitting active editors' drafts to AfC without their permission, and should only do so with inactive editors' drafts if you believe they're ready for mainspace. And, of course, if someone does this to you, regardless of whether or not a review was completed, just remove it. I'm not sure the extent to which what I'm saying only applies to userspace rather than draftspace, but again, there's no reason to use draftspace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

In theory draftspace exists to promote collaboration, while the evidence does not bear this out in general, there are some experienced editors who've managed to make it work and in fact prefer it.

For userspace drafts that is correct, unless specifically invited don't edit in someone's userspace except to enforce PAGs. Also note: Reverting edits in your own userspace is a listed exception to 3RR as long as you comply with WP:UP and rollback may be freely used.

As always with LTAs RBI applies and the default should be to restore to the state prior to disruption absent a good reason otherwise. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Unban or modify a CIDR range ban

A friend informed me that you have banned the entire IP range of 109.178.128.0/17. That's 32,768 IP addresses from the most popular ISP of Greece (Cosmote). As a result, new users from Cosmote's network cannot register an account or edit articles. I believe that this is too severe a measure as it pretty much hinders an extremely large portion of Greek users from contributing to Wikipedia. TritonXVIII (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that the block is anon-only. Anyone with an account can contribute without problems, anyone without can get an account via WP:ACC. The blocking admin in this case is Widr. TritonXVIII, you are required to notify them. --Yamla (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Without actually looking at the edits from this range, I can say that the real question is the damage caused by anonymous users on this range vs. the damage from innocent anonymous users not being able to edit. A few considerations here:

1. This is not the first block. This is the fourth. Any innocent users would have had some time between blocks to create an account. And the block expiry is public information.
2. Each block was done by judgement on the edits since the previous. Each block was done because the disruption started up again after the previous block expired. Note also that while the first two were done by the same administrator, the last two were done by 2 different administrators - that's 3 seperate administrators who each decided that a block was necessary, based on a seperate set of edits.
3. Any user who has access to a different ISP - even if it's for a limited amount of time - can create an account there and use this account on the blocked range. Anyone who doesn't even have that option can request an account, as stated above. Asking a friend to create an account is also an option (did you create one for this friend?).

Animal lover |666| 13:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@TritonXVIII: I have two comments to make about this.

1. The vandalism was so extensive that there was no reasonable option other than blocking the IP range. The only alternative would have been to allow massive amounts of vandalism to continue indefinitely. Several times shorter blocks had been tried, and each time the problem returned when the block expired. Under the circumstances blocking for a year was minimal.
2. Obviously IP blocks which may affect innocent users are highly undesirable, and I don’t suppose any administrator does so happily. I am well aware of how it feels to find one can't edit because of a block made necessary by vandalism from other people, because many years ago it happened to me. It was annoying, to put it mildly, but I accepted that it was, unfortunately, necessary, and got myself an account. That meant that there was a delay, until I got an account, but a delay of a few days was fairly short in proportion to the 16 years since then when having an account has meant that I have always been able to edit, never again being affected by IP blocks. JBW (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis

Above mentioned user keeps pushing disruptive and biased edits. See diff1, diff2 and diff3. As you can see in the RM discussion here Talk:Russian-occupied_territories_in_Georgia#Requested_move_23_January_2023 article about russian-occupied territories in Georgia previously had misleading name, so 100% of participating users agreed to rename it. After that change it was necessary to fix the naming in other articles as well, that is what I did diff1 and diff2, and this change is per Wiki Rule as well because it's better when link and article title coincide. Please help to settle this issue, I am not willing to start "word-wars" with the user, considering that similar attempts in the past had close to zero effect. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 08:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Not 100%. I opposed, and I am disappointed that the closer completely ignored my argument, though it was policy based, and the supporters did not base their arguments on policy. Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I was counting support and oppose tags. There was 4 'agrees' and 0 'disagrees', anyway it isn't main point here. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 11:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to make it even clear how nonsense user's argument was: the user said "[your edit] implies other territories are occupied", but at the moment the user keeps article link linked to the redirect title with the link name impling other territories are occupied:

• This is what the user pushes ► [[occupied territories of Georgia|occupied territories]] 
• This is what I edited ► [[Russian-occupied territories in Georgia]]

Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the infobox has to include the longer phrase? The piped link seems like a good way tighten up the language. We don't need the "...in Georgia" part of that sentence, it's just extra verbiage. Chipmunkdavis seems to be doing nothing more than removing that excess verbiage. Why is that disruptive or against consensus? --Jayron32 15:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Jayron32 it's not about "longer phrase" vs "shorter phrase", user's argument was "[your edit] implies other territories are occupied" which is false claim. My change made a direct link to the article's title to make it obvious that when we talk about "occupied territories," we're talking about the territories of Georgia, which are actually occupied by Russia and not by Somalia, Kiribati or any other state. Pushing previous edit vs my change is disruptive because it keeps misleading wording. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 22:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

And according to what you said, if We don't need the "...in Georgia" part of that sentence, then the sentence must look like "Including/Not including Russian-occupied territories" not just "occupied territories" somewhere over the rainbow. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 22:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not a false claim. It's reasonable to oppose saying "Not including Russian-occupied territories" on the basis that it can make it seem like the data does include territories occupied by someone other than Russia. It's reasonable to think that opposition is wrong. It's not a good idea to bring that content dispute here. The worst part of CMD's edit is insisting that the part of the link before the pipe should stay the redirect, but it's something that barely matters at all. While we're here, the worst part of your edits, Giorgi Balakhadze, is reverting without explanation. Please use edit summaries, especially when reverting good-faith edits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers ok, so the term "occupied territories" makes it super clear? "occupied territories" of whom?, "occupied territories" where? "occupied territories" by who? Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

All four of those excellent questions would fit in great at Talk:Georgia (country). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Procedurally, I wouldn't consider a RM with 4 total !votes 'counted' by the closer as establishing a clear precedent for what to do in other articles, especially when the other article are not simply linking to the other article title and the RM was not advertised in these other articles it's claimed to affect. In other words, if you tried to make a change based on the RM in other articles and have resistance, then you need to discuss the proposed changes and rather than just claiming there's already clear consensus. And if you aren't willing to discuss because of "zero effect" than you'll just have to accept your argument has failed to achieve consensus and move on. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Nil Einne there are linkage wiki rules MOS:LINKCLARITY MOS:EASTEREGG and it not just my "tried to make a change based on the RM". And "hav[ing] resistance" from Chipmunkdavis regarding anything about Georgia is a tradition, feel free to check user's reverts in the article of Georgia.Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant unless you can provide sufficient evidence for a topic ban of Chipmunkdavis which you clearly haven't done yet. Again, unless you're willing to discuss and establish consensus for your interpretation of policy, then you will have to stop editing the article. Discussion and collaboration are not optional on Wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Таллархо

Makes unconstructive edits and vandalises here: here here. Note that there's a pattern in his edits, he removes Ingush from the articles and the cited sources.

Таллархо looks like he has grievances and hate against Ingush people because how can this be explained?: here here here

It also looks like he's using different accounts (Sockpuppetry) to vandalise Battle of the Valerik River: here.

I hope that the admins will resolve this situation. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• • I am patrolling the Wikipedia section in Russian 1, who is well aware of the history of wars in the Caucasus. My opponent is from the small republic of Ingushetia, whose inhabitants never fought against Russia, but voluntarily joined Russia and helped Russia occupy the Caucasus. However, in our time, false writers from this republic, referring to unauthoritative sources, write that they fought the most and took part in all the battles. In the Russian Wikipedia, their false data is immediately deleted by the administrators, so they switched to the English-language Wikipedia and vandalize articles about the wars in the Caucasus. For this reason, I removed the false information he added. Таллархо (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• • Please block WikiEditor1234567123 for adding false data about the battles of Chechens in Chechnya against Russians and Cossacks. Таллархо (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin) Something seemed strange about this, so I looked into it. It seems that there are some WP:SPAs engaging in WP:NATIONALIST editing related to Chechnya and related ethnic groups at Talk:Nazran conflict and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazran conflict (2nd nomination), among other places. It looks like there might be a spillover from a dispute on Wikipedias of other languages, and I suspect that this situation is only going to spread to other articles unless some form of intervention takes place. Personally, I would say that this comment about an ethnic group as pointed out above warrants an indef. In the meantime, I've alerted participating users with a contentious topics alert where applicable (Callanecc seems to have notified most of them last month). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Таллархо indef for tendentious editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123 You are doing hoax in a project. Ingush participants often bypass the blocking.94.198.131.186 — Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi/Archive

It’s immediately clear how you work here.WikiEditor1234567123 Dear participants, I would check his articles, he clearly writes against the Chechens Товболатов (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Товболатов I would appreciate if you would refrain from making such accusations as you usually do. You are proven to hate Ingush people as can be seen here in Russian Wikipedia:[1][2][3], yet you accuse me of hating Chechen people. I don't hate Chechens, I love Chechens and they are my brothers. I suggest that you and your colleagues stop distorting and vandalising Ingush articles. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Now tell everyone why you were blocked in the Russian Wikipedia. WikiEditor1234567123 Please stop vandalizing by deleting authoritative sources.--Товболатов (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You, with several accounts, staged wars in satyas of Ossetians, Kabardians and Chechens. You were given requests by other participants, so you were blocked why you do not tell. After the blocking, you came here and wrote this against the Chechens, Ossetians and Kabardians Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazran conflict (2nd nomination)--Товболатов (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You are used to writing what you like, you need to tell the truth and not violate the rules of the project. Why were you blocked in Russian, and not other participants. You broke the rules, that's why.--Товболатов (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

When I began to introduce authoritative sources refuting yours, you staged a war of edits, they said this is my satya, I do what I want. Here is the administrator here Callanecc who warned you not to do this. But you continued the wars in another Ingushi article. Here, Here, Vyappiy Here, Here, Here, Here, Here In this article, the same thing you staged a war. Why do you fight constantly despite the warning?? Do not write articles that offend the feelings of other participants or write neutrally, because this is written in the rules of the project --Товболатов (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry but I can't help but tell the truth why both weren't banned. In violation of the edit war, both are usually blocked. I noticed here he participates the most in the edit wars, but they do not touch him, only other participants are blocked. I don't think this is fair. Now block me too, but I had to say this.--Товболатов (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• N.b. a related discussion titled Reiner Gavriel has been opened below. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Requesting snow close of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 February 4#Template:Distinguish

I am requesting an early snow close of this deletion discussion because it will almost certainly end in a "keep" result and it is very irritating to see the message "see TFD" on approximately 90k pages. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The notice can be amended. There's no reason to remove the discussion so early. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

There absolutely is a reason to close the discussion early if the outcome is almost certain (see Wikipedia:Snowball clause). Partofthemachine (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Closed by Hog Farm here at 21:16 UTC. — Trey Maturin™ 21:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

AIV backlog

8 user reports and 1 bot report as of writing. Need some eyes over there. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Simon Ekpa

Could someone take a look at Talk:Simon Ekpa? I've protected the article to prevent disruption, but now the talk page is getting bombarded with comments every few hours. I considered protecting that page too, but this could just be a massive sockfarm/canvassing exercise (blocked one account already). Perhaps someone here is more familiar with the topic? Anarchyte (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Incited on Twitter by Ekpa: The Nigeria & British agents, They’ve created fake Simon Ekpa Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Ekpa with lies & slanders about me but I am not moved. 29days to Biafra Exit — Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Joussymean

I'm mentioning this user here having observed a curious pattern to their editing. This newly-registered editor made a large number of edits in the space of 2 1/2 hours last night. Some were constructive small edits such as converting multiple spaces to a single space, many were harmless such as adding an "Oxford comma", some were changing the case of words in section headings to go against WP:MOS, some were adding punctuation after list items, many, perhaps the majority, were adding a space before the first reference in an article. Not all the references, just the one.

It seems a pattern of editing which might be used by someone wanting to clock up a high edit count for some reason, without doing anything very controversial. Most of the edits might not be noticed, and editors with the articles on their watchlists might not bother to revert, or to follow them up. The first I noticed was this because I created the Wieler surname page so it is on my watchlist.

I bring this here in case any admins recognise this pattern of editing and want to take it further. I put a couple of notes on their talk page, but the addition of spaces before refs continued thereafter, suggesting that they weren't reading their talk page, and stretching my AGF. I've gone through and undone all the positively-wrong edits I could spot on a quick scan of their contributions list. PamD 10:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain behaviorally and timing-wise that Joussymean is a sock of UniqqMool, and have blocked them both. Although it's arguably moot now, you should have notified Joussymean of this complaint, PamD.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

If it were EC gaming, they wouldn't be doing a good job, but I checked to make sure there isn't a stable full of aged accounts. They're actually on different continents. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Do you think I should undo any of my actions? Regardless of the socking issue, their conduct was sufficiently disruptive to merit blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yes, sorry : I forgot I hadn't got here with Twinkle to do the notifying for me! PamD 18:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're on proxy. CUs can find some notes at [4], [5] may also be of interest. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It's possible they're spammers. UniqqMool is on the same IP range as someone who was eventually blocked for spamming after doing a bunch of semi-incompetent copy edits. I prefer stronger evidence of disruption before blocking, but I can be quite harsh when I've seen enough evidence. As far as residential proxies go, it's always possible, but lots of people randomly wander into IP ranges that have been tagged as having residential proxies. VPNs are becoming increasingly popular. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Vandal/LTA rangeblock requested

Please block the IPv6 range beginning with the string "2600:1008:B075:EF5" for vandalism / long-term abuse. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:1008:B075:EF5:0:0:0:0/64 blocked 31 hours for vandalism. I'm not seeing long-term abuse or anything other than silly vandalism from today but I've only looked at that /64. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It definitely is an LTA, because I remember a different IPv6 range adding that exact string to a different article a while back. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That's an WP:EDITFILTER problem. File a request to have that looked at. Regex-type disruption is an easy thing for the editfilter to deal with. --Jayron32 16:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Please remove page mover from me

Please remove my page mover userright. Like the massmessage userright I used to have, this was only for publishing Signpost and I haven't been needed for that, so page mover isn't a flag I'd be using anymore. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Done. Bishonen | tålk 20:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC).

Periodic 2FA reminder

I just saw a thread go by on IRC, the gist of which was "How do I recover my wiki account if I lost my 2FA device and don't have backup codes?" I'll avoid the whole "should I use 2FA?" minefield, but I will remind people that if you are using 2FA, make sure you've got backup codes set up, you remember where you've stored them, and know how to use them.

It might be a good idea to burn one code practicing the procedure, so you're sure you know how it works. I just did exactly that. When your phone with your 2FA generator gets run over by a bus is not the time to discover you don't have a backup strategy. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I tried that but the entire house caught fire, and it was only thanks to Hurricane Tufa that the conflagration was doused before my entire Tufanese doll collection was destroyed. Thank you HT! --Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd quite like 2FA on my Wikipedia account, mainly because I've got it on everything else important (and being an established editor at Wikipedia is important). But last time I read the policy, 2FA was something administrators (I'm not one and will never be one, it looks like hell on earth) could apply for, giving reasons for wanting it (my reason: I want it). Wikipedia would seem to be an outlier here for the modern web. Can anyone point me at any discussions in the Wikimedia universe about implementing 2FA here? — Trey Maturin™ 17:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin: You can ask to be added to a global group that enables 2FA. No prerequisites besides reading and understanding the implications of turning it on. Head over to m:SRGP#Requests for 2 Factor Auth tester permissions.

I do think it should be on by default... WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

fraud

(Llywelynll) is literally altering history , his only providable claim is his alteration. he can change 500 year old truths in a day , please provide proof. 174.247.209.198 (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You have already been instructed to discuss your objections to their changes on the relevant talk page, Talk:Treaty of Tordesillas. Blindly reverting their changes, falsely calling them vandalism or otherwise failing to WP:AGF will result in escalating blocks for you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here: where the IP was already sanctioned. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Their response following the block, combined with this post here, leads me to believe that we're cruising towards a NOTHERE/CIR block if disruption continues. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Superastig non-admin AfD closes

Superastig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a non-admin who closes WP:Articles for deletion discussions. Since January 2022, eight of their closes have been challenged at WP:Deletion review, with only one being endorsed. WP:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions (guideline, shortcut WP:NACD) states: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins.

WP:Non-admin closure (essay, shortcut WP:NAC) has more guidance:

While rare mistakes can happen in closes, editors whose closes are being overturned at decision reviews, and/or directly reverted by administrators, should pause closing until they have discussed these closes with an administrator, and that administrator gained comfort that the closer understands their mistakes, and will not repeat them.
— WP:Non-admin closure#Who should close discussions, emphasis in original

A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations:
...
2. The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.
— WP:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures, shortcut WP:BADNAC

There were eight DRVs opened from January 2022 through January 2023, and two more in 2021:

DRV date	Original AfD result	Notification	Result	Closing statement excerpt
2023-01-25	No consensus	Special:Diff/1135512002	Reclosed as redirect	User:Sandstein: A majority here, even if maybe not amounting to a consensus to overturn, agrees that this was a mistaken and inappropriate non-admin closure.
2023-01-19	Merge	Special:Diff/1134641042	Vacate/relist
2022-11-18	Keep	Special:Diff/1122578945	Overturn to no consensus	User:Sandstein: I advise Superastig not to close any more AfDs whose outcome is not obvious.
2022-08-13	Redirect	Special:Diff/1104261998	Relist as new AfD
2022-06-20	Redirect	Special:Diff/1094105741	Overturn to relist	User:King of Hearts: Overturn to relist as WP:BADNAC.
2022-03-10	Keep	Special:Diff/1076316147	No consensus, relist	User:Sandstein: Opinions are divided, which illustrates that this was probably not a good AfD for a non-admin to close. As is possible in a no consensus DRV, and also per WP:NACD/WP:BADNAC, which allow the reopening of non-admin closures by admins, I'm relisting the AfD to try to get to a clearer consensus.
2022-02-13	Keep	Special:Diff/1071676119	Endorse
2022-01-28	Redirect	Special:Diff/1068521194	No consensus	User:Sjakkalle: no consensus and I will default this to letting the redirect stand. Making a close like this as a non-admin was probably an overly bold move, and probably out-of-process.
2021-11-03	Keep	Special:Diff/1053393810	Endorse	User:Scottywong: Some users want to trout User:Superastig for performing a non-admin closure on this AfD. While the outcome of this AfD was obviously not controversial, I can think of very few topic areas less controversial than US politics and US presidential elections, and therefore it probably would've been better to wait for an admin to close it, to avoid any potential drama (e.g., this DRV).
2021-06-24	Keep	Special:Diff/1030232459	Relist	User:RoySmith: I can't begin to cogently summarize everything that was said here, but there's clear consensus that this was a WP:BADNAC. I'm going to back out the close and relist it. @Superastig: If you want to wade into closing the more controversial discussions, WP:RfA is always looking for new candidates, but if you don't want to go that route, I would encourage you to be more conservative with WP:NAC.

Superastig's DRV count is egregious. It clearly does not meet the standards of WP:NAC (albeit an essay). Also, there may be other questionable closes. Daniel noted two recent ones at the last DRV. Randykitty reopened and relisted one (notification) in the last 24 hours. From January 2022 to January 2023, Superastig closed 276 AfDs and relisted 57 (Special:Contributions range, Ctrl-F Closed as or Relisting discussion). The close count reduces the error rate (7 / 276 = 2.5%), but it should be practically zero, as non-admins are expected to avoid closing discussions where errors are possible.

Superastig's closes can be replaced easily. 276 closes (even when adding the 57 relists) are less than one per day on average over the 13 month range. Since proper NACs are obvious, each should take a few minutes or less, especially when using a tool like WP:XFDcloser.

Feedback has not corrected Superastig's closing behavior. In addition to pre-DRV talk page queries and the DRVs themselves, seven of the DRV closing statements (excerpted in the table above) called out the NAC and/or Superastig specifically. Two should be noted:

• The June/July 2021 close included a ping to notify Superastig of its advice. That occurred around 19 months ago.
• After the November 2022 close, Superastig copied it to their user page – attributed to author=Boasty – on 2023-01-01 and followed it with two DRV-challenged closes within a few weeks.

Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Notification diff. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Why does this discussion have so many sections and so much formatting? I picked one of the recent discussions at random. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi is a bit confusing. Why was that closed as "redirect"? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Superastig is topic banned from closing AfDs

• Oppose. ...the error rate (7 / 276 = 2.5%)... - if someone closes correctly 97.5% of the time, I do not think we should TBAN them from closing. Instead, I'd say thanks for closing/relisting almost 1 AfD per day for the last year. Levivich (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I was planning on bringing this here myself, for largely the same reasons as Flatscan. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that Superastig has had more AfD non-admin closes overturned at DRV in the last year or two than any other editor (by quite a wide margin). That's a problem because of WP:NACD, but it's also a problem because each of these contentious closures wastes a week's worth of editors' time at DRV and unnecessarily prolongs the deletion process. Just as concerning is the failure to listen to consensus: Superastig was told nearly two years ago to be more conservative with WP:NAC, but instead the out-of-process closures have continued apace (and indeed advice has been mocked, as noted above). As for the idea that this is an acceptable error rate, non-admin AfD closers should hold themselves to a very high standard of uncontroversialness (back when I did AfD NACs, not a single one of my 393 closures was ever even taken to DRV, much less overturned), and at any rate the 2.5% figure excludes the bad closures that were never taken to DRV. That said, if editors don't feel a full TBAN is warranted, we could also consider a lesser editing restriction, e.g. "if someone makes a good-faith challenge of one of your closures on your talk page, you must re-open the AfD". But in my view, someone who keeps doing the same thing that consensus rejects shouldn't be closing AfDs at all. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Firstly, the fact that none of your closures were brought to DRV as opposed to 8 of his is irrelevant; there are no minimum requirements to bring them there, and the losing side (the nominator of a failed discussion, or the author of a page deleted per a successful one) could do it with little cause; and a bad closure of a page in an unpopular topic may never be examined. And secondly, there is no way to know, without someone taking a reasonable-sized sample, to rule that any closure he did was wrong without a major case-by-case review - which we only have for 8 closures. Animal lover |666| 08:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't really disagree with any of that, and perhaps I phrased my comment poorly. The main issue for me is that 1) Superastig made controversial and incorrect closures, 2) he was told by numerous editors at DRV to stop doing that, and 3) he hasn't heeded that consensus and keeps doing the same thing. This is a longstanding problem that's consumed countless hours of editors' time, and the problem doesn't go away just because Superastig has also made uncontroversial closures. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. As long as the other 268 closures went unchallenged, they are to be assumed to be correct. Having roughly 1 mistake in 40 does not look so bad. Animal lover |666| 06:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  One more remark, related to below: If an AFD is closed as delete, then any user may create a redirect at the same title; if the closer thinks it's appropriate, is there any reason not to do it immediately in stead of having the page deleted first? And is there any reason not to state this in the closing statement? And, that having been said, would a case with no clear result between delete and redirect, but with those 2 clearly far ahead of keep, be best closed as redirect? Animal lover |666| 17:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Levivich. Apparently, a vast majority of his closes are good. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - If you're a non-admin and you're going to get yourself involved in an area of Wikipedia that already gets quite hot due to the implications involved, then you better get it right all the time. Serious errors which result in DRVs waste everybody's time, and combining this with obstinate behavior is hardly a desired temperament for someone making NACs.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support based on the most recent 15 closures listed below. If you're going to do NACs, they should only be done on very uncontroversial closures and you really need to get them right. My first preference would be for this thread to be closed with a Warning, but based on some of the diffs presented this user doesn't seem very receptive so stronger measures may be necessary. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support The community has indicated that it prefers admins to make close calls and controversial decisions and, less formally, also recognizes that WP:RELISTBIAS exists. If this editor isn't able to make those distinctions - and the analysis below suggests that there's not - there's plenty of ways for them to help out without closing discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. As a regular DRV closer, whenever I see Superastig in a DRV it is because they mistakenly closed an AfD. We do not expect perfection from closers, but an ability to learn and communicate, both of which I see no evidence of here. Sandstein 22:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Editors undertaking admin-level tasks should be expected to display admin-level behavior regarding those tasks, and that is definitely not occurring here. Superastig has a poor response rate to problems raised re: his AfD participation, and when he does respond it's often dismissive and incomplete. It also is apparent that he has not listened to the recommendations by several admins that he desist closing marginal AfDs. This is especially an issue given his dismal DRV stats, the numerous issues identified with the closures that aren't taken to DRV, and the quite poor AfD !vote match rate. This is all under circumstances where BADNACs should be extremely rare.

Superastig's seeming agenda of purposely closing discussions leaning delete as redirects or NC, often based on single !votes and against consensus, just to prevent deletion, is completely at odds with deletion policy and NACD. Nowhere does DEL "require" an ATD be considered, much less implemented against a consensus to delete. DEL says A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate.. That's "can", not "must" or even "should". In fact, the only place on DEL that uses any sort of binding language regarding an ATD is in the WP:ATD section WP:ATD-E, which states If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. "Editing" in this section strictly refers to disputes, vandalism, and stubbification, and obviously not any of the other ATDs, which have their own sections. This distinction is also referenced in DELREASON: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page). So his overriding consensus delete discussions with useless redirects has no policy support. In fact, Rosguill's assessment understates the degree some of the closes go against consensus:

...Radha Jayalakshmi (closed 7 Feb) was 5d:1r:2k, with the first keep being blocked for sockpuppetry on 5 Feb and the second blocked and struck at the same time as their sock. Neither keep made any P&G-based argument anyway and so should have been totally discounted even if they hadn't been blocked.

...S. C. Krishnan (closed 7 Feb) and ...T. R. Mahalingam (closed 6 Feb) were both 3d:1r:1k, with the keep !voter the same as above (blocked 5 Feb)

...Runa Laila (closed 6 Feb) was 2d:1r

...Kanak Chapa (closed 5 Feb 15:00) was 2d:1r:1k, with the keep from the sock (blocked two hours after the close, but their !vote should've been ignored anyway as it's just Legendary singer and well rererenced discography)

Fire Eshona (closed 17 Jan) was 2d:1m, but the nom notes that there is nothing reliably sourced and encyclopedic to merge. Superastig didn't even perform the merge, either.

Fatih Mehmet Gul (closed 15 Jan) was 3d:3k, but none of the keeps had valid arguments and so should have been ignored even before two of them were struck as socks.

Closers need to assess not only the argument weights, but also the users behind the !votes, so it is inexcusable for Superastig to have "missed" the glaring blocked socks and suspicious IPs, and even worse that he apparently lacks the competence to recognize invalid !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved from the bottom of the "discussion" subsection below. ansh.666 03:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. If the issue here is that about 1-in-25 closes made by the user are incorrect, and less-restrictive-than-TBAN corrective actions have not yet been attempted, then I think a general TBAN from the topic is premature. Rather than TBANNING them, I think assigning the user a mentor to help their ability to discern when a case is going to be contentious would be wiser. The user seems to have become a little more bold lately, and a warning to the user to slow down on that might be warranted, but an indefinite TBAN seems excessive when there are ways to address this that are not nearly as restrictive. Allowing the user to take on some of the bureaucratic work while under guidance from an admin will improve the user's competency here while also allowing them to perform good work for the project. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  The community has indicated, unlike RMs, RfCs, and even TfDs, that it prefers admins handle AfDs. Assigning someone a mentor to something that is already a marginally endorsed activity feels like a poor use of everyone's time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that the community prefer admins handle contentious AfDs, particularly so given how much community time poor closes take up. That being said, the community also acknowledges that there is a role for NACs at AfD to help clear out more of the simple closes, thereby allowing admins to spend more their AfD-closing admin-hours analyzing the tougher calls. A mentor would be there as someone to bounce off "is this something I should leave to admins" and to offer advice in responding to challenges of AfD closures. This doesn't seem like a waste of community time; something informal that could offer fraternal correction seems to be utterly reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Is Superastig actually interested in receiving mentorship? Usually mentorship is offered when an editor is facing a sanction and clamoring to avoid it, but Superastig has essentially ignored all discussions regarding their closures not posted on their talk page (and even then, the responses have uniformly been to demur concerns) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, Superastig's lack of response here is making me reconsider my !vote. As is the apparent fact that they've never self-reverted a close? I wouldn't TBAN on "failure rate", but on lack of engagement? Absolutely. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is very much my concern (the responses, that is) - but to clarify, it's not lack of engagement, since there's evidence of interaction, there's just complete refusal change their position in the face of clear evidence they've made mistakes. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Levivich, apparently he did revert himself once, in the talk page discussion linked by Sergecross below, with the comment (after being threatened with DRV) fine! I already reverted the closure, but I'm doing it just because I'm pressured with your hissy fits. His comments in that thread suggest he at least at that time had an egregiously deficient understanding of what "weighing consensus" means. After Sergecross explained that a keep !vote that simply stated an album got 3 stars from Allmusic was not policy-based and should not have been weighed equal to policy-backed redirect and delete arguments, Superastig's response was I've seen a few discussions like this, where each of them has only 1 "keep" vote and 1 "delete" vote. Either of them is weaker than the other. But after two relists, it was closed as "no consensus". The same case as this discussion. The "keep" vote is weaker than the "redirect" vote since the voter only mentioned nothing else but AllMusic. But, whether it is rebutted or not, it is still valid like the "redirect" argument no matter what. It doesn't sound fair to say that it's not valid. For the nth time, there was really nothing wrong with the closure I did. I did what I could to make the closure fair and square, though I could've added an explanation to back up the closure in the first place. Therefore, even if you throw hissy fits all day long, I really did a good job in giving proper weight to the given arguments. And there's nothing you can do about it because I am telling the truth. This conversation is now over. I'm not gonna waste my time responding to this again. JoelleJay (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah they definitely lost their cool on that one, but that was 19 months and probably like 300+ closes ago; I don't think isolated incidents that old are worth considering. I think the tone of their recent discussions (the last month) were fine. But just as I don't think 7/276 is too many DRVs, it's also not too many times to self-revert, so it cuts both ways. Levivich (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  I see that disagreement as part of a pattern of dismissive behavior, but I acknowledge that Superastig's tone has improved for the last several months. Superastig was fond of telling enquirers to [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]]: June 2021, November 2021, January 2022 talk page header (removed within a few weeks, after a request), and August 2022. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  In my opinion it's a problem that he has continuously characterized all opposition to his closes as "hissy fits" and has ignored the advice of a very large number of people over a very long period recommending he desist in closing AfDs, including pretty strong warnings from admins at DRV. And that only 8 of his articles have been taken to DRV does not mean his other closes were acceptable or went unchallenged after being discouraged by the notice at the top of his talk page, which until recently said If you're here to throw hissy fits over the closures of any deletion discussion, either drop the stick and accept the consensus or take them to the deletion review. The closures I've done are well-thought and therefore final, whether you like it or not. So, ain't nobody got time to argue with anyone over this matter. And it is certainly not acceptable that he purposely prevents deletions with preemptive redirect/NC/merge closures even when there is no consensus for those outcomes and/or they make no sense. His failure to recognize poor !vote arguments and obvious socks (and even socks that have been blocked and their !votes struck) is also concerning. JoelleJay (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  That talk page header was ridiculous, but that was a year ago, and I don't see it as "continuously" being uncivil. The Aug 2022 link Flatscan posted above doesn't read as problematic to me, except maybe the link to "stick" was not necessary. So if there haven't been communication problems in 8-12 months, I just don't see it as relevant; it's been fixed. There are, of course, more recent concerns raised in this thread, and I don't think those can really be addressed by anyone other than Astig. Levivich (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  That one, Danko Jones (EP), is the only self-revert of a close I found when skimming (Ctrl-F doesn't work well in this case) Superastig's contributions (2 pages) since they started closing AfDs in March 2021. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support While I agree the errors are an issue, by themselves alone I might not be on this side of the argument. However, it is not the overall error rate which puts me here, it is the repeated refusal to reconsider their closes when requested. That appears to be an 80-90% error rate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only 8 out of 276 closes went to DRV? That's a much better rate than I have! I'd probably encourage them to voluntarily back off a little or limit themselves to the REALLY obvious closes, but a topic ban goes way too far. WaggersTALK 13:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support. It is not a question of the numerical percentage of a deletion review in regards to unchallenged moves, but the overall frequency of it occurring. I remember my struggles when I was first getting in to RM closing, and some utter cluelessness on my part encouraged me to rightfully back off and simply watch and learn until I could better weigh arguments. Having more than two NACs vacated/overturned within a month is more than enough of a warning to stop closing until you can either (a) understand the weight of policy to avoid poor closures (b) realize that you're clueless and should stop for good to avoid SUPERVOTEing. I encourage Superastig to pick one of the two, and in the case of a, suggest that they find a mentor of some kind to help. If possible, I'd support a six-month topic ban at the minimum to help them slow down and learn. The Night Watch (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support as per Sandstein. My name is mentioned above as offering commentary in the most recent DRV, and I do have concerns about this editor's ability to consistently close AfD's within the parameters set by the NAC guidelines. If this was a one-off or even a small number, you live with it (heck, one of my closes is at DRV currently), but there is a long pattern here with no real engagement by Superastig on the issues. Daniel (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments of Levivich and Red-tailed Hawk. I suggest he should slow down in closing AfDs coz I feel that sometimes he acts like an admin-level closer when it comes to closing them and he should focus on the ones with easier outcomes. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with most of his closures IMV, I'd question only a couple of them in fact. 268 of his other closures are correct. So it'll be unfair if he'll be TBANned indefinitely (or temporarily) just because of the 7 challenged closures that are overturned/relisted. Especially that he sometimes votes in AfDs. SBKSPP (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Please move your recommendation to the Involved subsection below. You are clearly acquainted with Superastig. Most of your 24 edits to their talk page relate to their AfD closes and/or DRVs, including your comment shortly before participating here. You also supported endorse at all ten of the DRVs listed in the table. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Oh. Didn't know where to vote. Thx anyways. SBKSPP (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Moved below. SBKSPP (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Involved

• Support indefinite topic ban as proposer. I participated in two of the DRVs (January 2022 and June 2022, recommending overturn for both) and commented on the June AfD after it was relisted. I also approached Superastig about closes I found questionable at User talk:Superastig/Archive 6#AfD intersection with SBKSPP (June 2022, permalink), disengaging after three comments. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per my analysis below. Even when just looking at closes made in the past month, there's a clear pattern of supervoting and other questionable closes, combined with unsatisfactory engagement with concerns raised by other editors when brought to DRV. Given the high proportion of problematic closes in the last month, my guess is that a significant chunk of their yet-unchallenged closes leave something to be desired as well. I don't think that the oppose argument that Superastig is right 39/40 times holds water; my assessment of their last month in closes is that out of 15, 5 were clearly wrong, 6 were defensible outcomes but did not reflect the balance of the discussion, and the remaining 4 were trivial, unanimous cases. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments of Levivich and Red-tailed Hawk. As an editor who occasionally asks advice from him after warning me once, I suggest he should slow down in closing AfDs coz I feel that sometimes he acts like an admin-level closer when it comes to closing them and he should focus on the ones with easier outcomes. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with most of his closures IMV, I'd question only a couple of them in fact. 268 of his other closures are correct. So it'll be unfair if he'll be TBANned indefinitely (or temporarily) just because of the 7 challenged closures that are overturned/relisted. Especially that he sometimes votes in AfDs. SBKSPP (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• While I've contested Superastig's closes and think that a tban is a plausible outcome here, especially since there's the ignoring of consensus-backed advice, but don't we need to do a bit more digging through the discussions that haven't been challenged before calling for a tban? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, so looking through their most recent closes (list goes back to mid-January 2023), I do think we have a problem here, with a lot of dubious borderline closes that read like WP:SUPERVOTEs.

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi - In a discussion with 4 delete !votes, 1 redirect !vote, and 2 struck sock !votes for keep, closed as redirect.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by S. C. Krishnan, 2 delete, 1 keep, 1 struck sock for keep, closed as redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by T. R. Mahalingam, 1 delete, 1 keep, previously soft deleted at AfD, closed as redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Belfield (4th nomination) close vacated and relisted by Oaktree b
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Urdu songs recorded by Runa Laila, 1 delete, 1 redirect, closed as redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Kanak Chapa, 1 delete, 1 redirect, 1 discounted struck sock, closed as redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badnaseeb (2nd nomination) overturned following DRV
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21 High Street Doha overturned following DRV
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William (footballer, born 1982) unanimous keep, nom blocked as sock, no support for deletion.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big, Blonde and Beautiful , unanimous redirect
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Home Entertainment, unanimous keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire Eshona, 2 delete, 1 merge, closed as merge
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NER Class Z unanimous keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatih Mehmet Gul, 2 delete, 3 keep, but keep !voters did not engage with counterarguments and 2 were later blocked for sockpuppetry, closed as no consensus should probably be taken to DRV and reopened.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Morro, 2 delete, 1 delete-or-redirect, 1 redirect, closed as redirect

  This is not a good track record, there's a clear tendency to close as redirect over delete even when numerically deletion is favored, without clear justification based on the weight of arguments. Both the empirical record above, and Superastig's own comments at User_talk:Superastig/Archive_6#AfD_intersection_with_SBKSPP, suggest that Superastig is disproportionately weighting !votes made by SBKSPP. There's also several examples of inappropriately closing discussions as keep or no consensus when the balance of arguments (and evidence of socking) should have given them pause. Their AfD match rate when voting is also relatively weak (66.7%, with no mitigating circumstances that I'm aware of). If this was the first time that issues were being raised I'd consider arguing that a warning to stick to the unanimous calls would be sufficient, but given that this behavior is taking place after being repeatedly told at DRV to back off from close-call or contentious closures, and is coupled with an unwillingness to engage constructively with discussions about their closes, I think a tban from closing discussions is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosguill: What are your thoughts about this argument Astig makes in that SBKSPP discussion from last summer you linked to: It's not much of a big deal if the outcome of a certain discussion was redirect after only one redirect vote over a handful of delete votes since the consensus is clearly against having an article and a redirect is their typical ATD ... I don't like the idea of getting them closed as delete and redirect because no one can add some content from their history in which they believe are useful to the respective target articles. I follow ATD and PRESERVE, which are both policies, before closing their respective discussions as redirect? Or to put it more broadly: what's wrong with weighing votes against ATD/PRESERVE? (I have not yet looked at the more-recent AFDs you linked to, but will do so.) Levivich (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Levivich, assuming I'm correctly interpreting your broad question as "what's wrong with weighting votes in favor of ATD" I think that the it's a clear case of a type of close that a non-admin should stay away from because their decision will be biased by not having access to the delete button. From the set above, while some of the "List of songs..." examples are cases where ATD is arguably the policy-correct outcome (if not the actual balance of discussion), others, like List of Urdu songs recorded by Runa Laila, are not--no such list exists at the target, and the ensuing redirect is unhelpful (not to mention circular). If Superastig was including thoughtful closes and engaging with discussion when challenged, or if the problem closes were exclusively limited to "closing 'redirect' when the discussion says 'delete' but the redirect is helpful", I'd be more amenable to their continued activity in the area, but given that they have essentially been unacountable to the community's concerns at DRV thus far, and that issues seem to extend to improperly assessing no consensus outcomes I don't see the benefit in their continuing to close discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  The benefit I see in their continuing to close discussions is the 300+ good closures/relists per year we get. I'm perfectly willing to "sacrifice" 7 DRVs to get 300 good closes. In other words, if the cost of 300 closures is the time spent on 7 DRVs, that's worth it. (And I don't agree that there were, in fact, 7 bad closes among the DRVs listed in the OP.)

  I've looked at the list of recent closures, and here is my take on them (out of order):

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by S. C. Krishnan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by T. R. Mahalingam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Urdu songs recorded by Runa Laila, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Kanak Chapa - In my view, it's inherently silly to redirect as "List of songs recorder by X" to the article "X". As you say, it's kind of circular and unnecessary. But not wrong, not against policy, and not against the consensus displayed in those discussions. If you have 1 keep, 1 redirect, and 1 delete, closing as redirect is reasonable; it's reasonable to apply ATD and PRESERVE and weigh both the keep and delete vote less than one weighs the redirect vote. In the case of list of songs redirected to the artist, I wouldn't do that, but I do not see these closes as closed "wrong" or disruptively; this is minor in my view.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Belfield (4th nomination) - the keep close was correct and I don't think it needed to be relisted; I just !voted keep. This is an obvious keep IMO, almost snow-worthy.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badnaseeb (2nd nomination) - The NAC of "no consensus" seems correct to me. It's the re-close as "redirect" that seems like... wait for it... applying ATD and PRESERVE :-) I mean, Sandstein did what Astig used to do, which is weigh the votes towards ATD. Given that Astig was given feedback about not doing that, I can see why Astig closed this as a "no consensus" instead of a "redirect". But really, the take-away I'm getting is that weighing votes is something an admin can do but a non-admin closer cannot? I disagree.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21 High Street Doha - NACed as "merge", taken to DRV, relisted, closed by an admin as "redirect". The original close was correct, what a waste of time!
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatih Mehmet Gul - after two relists, with most of the participants being LTAs, this looks like a proper "no consensus" close
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Morro - proper application of an obvious ATD
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William (footballer, born 1982), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big, Blonde and Beautiful, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Home Entertainment, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NER Class Z. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire Eshona were obviously closed correctly, being unanimous or near unanimous

  I'm not seeing a problem here. 15 closes and the only problem I have is the five "list of songs..." didn't need to be redirected, but it's not worth having them stop. Having them stop closing would be a significant net loss to the project, because we'd lose the good closes. Levivich (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think your reading of Badnaseeb and its DRV is rather odd. The issue there was that keep votes were not properly discounted--i.e. that they should have weighted differently there. There's a similar issue at Fatih Mehmet Gul, where keep !votes should have been discounted due to LTA status and non-engagement with discussion, but were not. Finally, regarding 21 High Street Doha, I think that the balance of discussion at the time of their original close was significantly different from the final close (compare: Original close, final close). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  On Fatih Mehmet Gul, correct me if I'm misreading it, but those accounts weren't blocked until after the AFD closed (closure 1/15, blocks 1/17 and 1/19). Discounting votes due to non-engagement in discussion? Show me an AFD where that happened :-P

  On 21 High Street Doha, the numerical !vote count changed, but the balance of arguments are the same, as is the applicability of ATD to that entry. I mean, the fact that after more attention, more people voted "redirect" confirms that "redirect" was the proper application of global consensus to this title. (I do not consider "merge" and "redirect" as being qualitatively different.)

  On Badnaseeb, I agree with you that Astig should have discounted votes instead of going the "no consensus" route and closed it as a "redirect", as it was ultimately closed by an admin... but I can forgive Astig for not doing that, given that this close was made on the heels of the 21 High Street Doha DRV. I don't agree with TBANing him for making this mistake. When I count the closes that I actually think are in error, I'm looking at 3 or 4 over the course of a year (including Badnaseeb)... a 98% or 99% match rate is really, really good for NACing AFDs, IMO. Levivich (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  For 21 High Street Doha, the correct call at the time of Superastig's close was to relist. There had been no prior relists and consensus was unclear. If the balance of discussion had been the same after 2, or even 1 relist, Superastig's close would have been defensible. For Fatih Mehmet Gul, the correct call would have been to recognize that this is a close and convoluted discussion with SPAs involved and to not NAC it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would not relist this AFD. It was unanimous that we should not have an article at that title; the only question was whether to delete outright or redirect; WP:ATD says redirect (as a matter of policy!). I mean it's the same situation as Badnaseeb; in both cases, redirect is the right close per ATD. I mostly disagree with the notion that when Astig correctly weighed votes at 21 High Street, that was overturned, and then when he didn't weigh votes at Badnaseeb, that was also overturned, and we're going to TBAN him for this. My view is that 21 High St should not have been overturned, and if it wasn't, Astig would have weighed Badnaseeb correctly, and that wouldn't be overturned, either. Levivich (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Finally, regarding the calculus of I'm perfectly willing to "sacrifice" 7 DRVs to get 300 good closes--I think that misrepresents the content and quality of the good closes. A good NAC close is an obvious close, which by definition do not take long to perform. Even with an overabundance of caution, closing such a discussion should take no more than 2 minutes. A DRV, meanwhile, is going to take 5-30 minutes of time for each participant in the discussion, plus additional time in closing. So, my math is that on the good side we've saved 10 hours of work, whereas on the bad side we've cost the community 17.5 hours of work, and that's before factoring in discussions such as this one and the further examination of other closes they've done. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree that closing such a discussion should take no more than 2 minutes. One must read the discussion in order to determine if it is in fact controversial or noncontroversial. That takes longer than two minutes. I'd estimate NACing an AFD to take 10-30 minutes per AFD. It's true that a DRV is the same 10-30 minutes, but per participant, so you have a multiplication effect. Taking the lower bound of 10 minutes and using some round estimates to make the math easier: 10 minutes x 300 closes = 3,000 labor-minutes. 10 minutes x 7 DRVs x 10 participants per DRV = 700 labor-minutes. I admit this is some fuzzy math, but I think it illustrates the point. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think we may have a different bar for the level of obviousness expected from a NAC. I think that, particularly in the case of an editor who has been repeatedly warned at DRV to stay away from contentious or close calls, the only closes that should be performed are ones where the discussion is essentially unanimous, where an uninvolved closer is a formality. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's exactly right. To me, "obvious" doesn't mean "unanimous", and it doesn't mean "requires no weighing of votes", it means "the outcome is obvious to any experienced editor", even if that obvious outcome requires weighing votes. For example, I think it's OK for for a NAC to discount "IAR keep" votes, or to discount blocked sock votes, or to apply ATD. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  By the way, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatih Mehmet Gul at the time of closure (before the socks were blocked), would a "no consensus" closure have been wrong? This is unrelated to the question of re-opening it now that they are known to be socks. Animal lover |666| 18:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think that at the time of the close it was on the borderline between deletion and no consensus, with an even vote count but a balance of discussion favoring delete. But bringing it back to the question of whether NAC is appropriate, I think it's worthwhile to discourage NACs in such situations, not just because of WP:RELISTBIAS but also to save the non-admin's time--it's not saving the project time to have non-admins pore over discussions for a good 10-30 min only to come to the conclusion that delete is the correct outcome, in which case there's nothing they can do and the time has been wasted. This issue could be avoided if we adopted a convention to allow NACs to recommend deletion closes, which apparently is already sort of the practice at CfD where deletion first requires a lot of non-delete-button-related cleanup _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hm, I don't think that's quite the point of contention between our understandings. I agree that it's fine for an NAC to discount "IAR keep" votes, or to discount blocked sock votes, or to apply ATD (and that failure to do so may itself be a problem!), but that the resulting consensus arrived at should not be ambiguous or leave room for interpretation. NACs should not be closing discussions as no consensus when there is a plausible interpretation of the balance of debate favoring deletion, even if an admin coming in and closing it as no consensus would be defensible. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Levivich's analysis. I also see nothing wrong with the closures presented, including the redirects since ATD is key. One of the !voters in the list of songs states that he's "not opposed for a redirect". Besides, a redirect doesn't hurt at all. SBKSPP (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Deletion policy as written does not require editors or closers to consider ATDs or to implement them against consensus to delete. The redirects were both pointless and lacking in any P&G support, and as closers are expected to evaluate the legitimacy of AfD participants as well as their arguments' validity none of the BADNACs noted by Rosguill above can even be justified as the type of "redirect-as-compromise" close that might be acceptable from e.g. a 5d-1r-2k !vote landscape. Every single keep !vote in those AfDs should have been ignored even in the absence of blatant socking. See my !vote above. JoelleJay (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Frankly I'm surprised that someone who I have down as "most uncooperative AfD behavior ever encountered" should now be in the habit of closing them. The second half of any of their !votes used to be, literally, "that's my opinion, I'm not ever going to change it, so don't bother responding, kthnxbye". Not having visited many non-STEM AfDs recently, I possibly have missed a complete heel-face turn there, but chances are that someone with that approach to deletion discussions should not be closing even uncontroversial AfDs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• We don't do numbered !votes for ban proposals, or at least shouldn't, so I have combined the support/oppose/neutral sections above. @Levivich and Animal lover 666: This has involved slight refactoring of your comments; feel free to modify further as you see fit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I imitated the formatting of a community ban proposal that was on AN when I started drafting. I just realized that the Support, Oppose, and Neutral subsections match WP:Requests for adminship. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Just a quick comment, IMO we should consider a DRV overturn as at least effectively 2 errors. I haven't looked into the details for these DRVs but I assume the normal procedure was followed for them all and the editors concerned first approached Superastig explaining their concerns but this wasn't enough to convince Superastig to do something (probably overturn their close and leave it for someone else). For this reason, simple raw counts of their 'error rate' is IMO somewhat flawed for something like this. Indeed IMO I would consider failing to properly take on board concerns about your close especially as an NAC and where there's been a consensus you have had problems before, as something which should count for more than "2 errors" if you wanted to put it into raw numbers. As I haven't looked into the details, as there is mentioned of January, it's possible that Superastig wasn't able to take on board the DRV feedback for all challenges as some were partly simultaneously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 11:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  I skimmed through the notification diffs from the table: my count is seven after discussion and three with no prior message. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm still undecided, as I've had both good and bad interactions with SuperAstig. They make plenty of good closes, but this was definitely an example of a bad close and a negative interaction with him when I asked about it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

IP keeps making malformed AFD of page, in order to replace page with 'rejected' draft

There's too many diffs to show, but User:122.53.47.47 keeps nominating List of longest-reigning monarchs with (what appears to be) a malformed nomination, in the hopes of replacing it with a rejected draft. This might be a WP:CIR issue. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

don's it a 'rejected' draft 122.53.47.47 (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The IP has been temporarily blocked for disruptive edits. Looks like they're now trying to create another draft list article on their user talk page. WaggersTALK 14:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Undoubtedly BFDIFan707 whose latest socks have thing for largest X. @HJ Mitchell FYI. Not sure 31 hours will be enough unfortunately. Star Mississippi 18:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the IPs latest edits have made things seem less about their competency & more about their possible deliberate disruption. I too, now suspect socking via editing signed out -- GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

They appear to have a friend at 122.2.121.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Mayhaps a checkuser or someone better at ranges will wander by Star Mississippi 23:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Also IP 112.206.195.194. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Definitely need someone better with range block than I to sort this out. Star Mississippi 14:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

These IPs can't meaningfully be range blocked. Whack a mole is called for. IznoPublic (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking for mentors

Howdy hello folks! Would you like to help out with editor retention? Like working at places like the Teahouse? You should become a mentor! Just go to Special:EnrollAsMentor. Its pretty easy: you get auto-assigned editors who can ask questions on your talk page. I'm a mentor, and I get a few questions a month from my mentees. Its nice because the newbie editors get a more personalized touch and have help built into their interface. More details about the program can be found at Wikipedia:Growth Team features. Editor retention is one of the best things we can do to improve Wikipedia; your help makes a difference! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I got defeated at the Introduction message section. Introduction message introduces you as a mentor. Please keep this shorter than 240 characters. No wikitext is allowed. Is this an introduction to possible mentees? Is it cataloged someplace? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Yes, its what your mentees will see. It is cataloged at Special:ManageMentors. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"I get a few questions a month from my mentees" is there something I"m doing wrong as a mentor? Because I almost never get any questions from my mentees. And I have the number of mentees assigned to me set to "about twice the average" and I have 42 pages of mentees (set to show 10 so if each has 10 mentees on it, that's 4,200 mentees assigned to me) and I rarely ever get any questions asked from them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf To be fair, you've already had four questions this month and we're only a week in, so I think you're more than on par for questions :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair, it probably feels like less because I don't answer all of them either due to poor phrasing meaning I can't understand what they're asking or it's something that should be taken care of elsewhere (I tend to exclude questions from KingAviationKid at this point since they've established themselves as a relatively decent editor). However I don't usually receive many more questions, and most of the time the editors who ask me the question never return, so they often don't see the answer or acknowledge it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You probably get fewer questions because you're bad at math. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm relatively ok at math! I just... struggle sometimes... ok maybe a lot. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have exactly $\int _{-4}^{4}\sin {x}\,dx$ mentees, as of right now. :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Blaze.exe has stopped working ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The integral evaluates to zero. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

DC GAR/CCI

I will send the mass messages for the Doug Coldwell Good article/CCI assessment later today. Please speak up (on the talk page there) if anything in that writeup, or any of the other linked messages at WP:DCGAR (to go to 95 user talk pages and 223 article talk pages), needs attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Page Redirection with same name

i believe that there is no difference between:

1. Violence against transgendered people
2. violence against transgender people

the 1st one redirects me to Violence against LGBT people and the 2nd one has its own article. can we redirect first one to 2nd one? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Sakura emad, this isn't really the place to start a discussion about redirects. You're further encouraged to boldly make your suggested change, as it doesn't seem that there's been any prior discussions or edits suggesting a consensus to the contrary. If there's any further disagreements that need to be hashed out following the edit, either the talk pages of the relevant articles or an WP:RFD would be appropriate next steps. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Article moved to the talk namespace

Would an administrator or perhaps someone more familiar with page moves please take a look at New Right (Denmark). Someone probably believing the title of the article was incorrect boldly moved the article to Talk:Nye Borgerlige. My guess is that they wanted to move the page to Nye Borgerlige, but just made a mistake. I've moved the page back to it's original title, but there are probably some redirects that now need to be deleted. FWIW, I only came across this because the non-free logo being used in the main infobox of the article was flagged as a WP:NFCC#9 violation after the page was moved to the talk namespace. I've got no opinion on the accuracy of the article's title. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I changed the redirect. So it looks OK now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Graeme Bartlett. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Reiner Gavriel

Reiner Gavriel destroys 3 authorative sources here and replaces them with 1 non-authorative source: [6][7]. If something doesn't fit his narrative, he calls it biased and not neutral: [8]. If you check Durdzuks, Ingush people, Vyappiy, you will see that he has a pattern. It's good to mention that the person seems to not like people of Ingush origin as to why would he want to add Phallic statue image to Ingush people article, his 2 colleges even said that it's unnecessary. Insulted me here by saying that I have "shown over and over again that my sources are either simply bad or straight up non-existing": [9]. Hopefully the adminstrators will resolve this issue and bring back the authorative sources and stop Reiner from vandalising them. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• You provoke him, write against the Chechens. Add sources with completely different information. Товболатов (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

None of those "3 authorative sources" were "destroyed". In fact you are the only one who had removed one source, which I simply readded to the article. It's outrageous of you to accuse me of "not like people of Ingush origin" and then claim I have insulted you for pointing out that several articles of yours were deleted for shockingly bad sources and that you have lied about sources before, as you can see here. Regarding the Phallic statue, it is part of the Ingush history and played a big part of local pagan cults. I have tried finding a middleground with you but you were not willing to work on it, preferring removing it because "writing this in this article is an insult not only for me, but for many Muslims!". Anything you don't like should be removed, anything you like, even if the source is exceptionally bad, should be added. That is simply not how Wikipedia works. As I can see you have been blocked from the Russian Wikipedia for doing this. I sincerely recommend staying neutral and realistic. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• You removed the 3 authorative sources and replaced them with 1 non-authorative source here:[10][11]. Denying the reality isn't helping you at all, you removed following text: sfn|Крупнов|1971|p=37sfn|Волкова|1973|p=153sfn|Жданов|2005|p=71. I was banned in Russian Wikipedia 2 months ago because I was unexperienced user and did some mistakes, but this shouldn't matter as I have changed and now only edit everything neutrally and with using authorative sources which you usually like to destroy. I always edit the page neutrally, however you vandalise the articles associated with Ingush and revert my edits calling it biased, despise me sciting authorative sources or you just call it "vandalism" when it's not. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Again, none of those "3 authorative sources" were removed, they were moved because I replaced "Ingush society" with "Chechen and Ingush society", which it is, no matter what your personal opinion is. There are Vyappiy Chechens. You can't deny that, it's a fact. You are nowhere close to being "neutral", it was pointed out several times in articles you have created and were rightfully deleted. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• • Reiner Gavriel first of all as you know Ingush and Chechen sources on the matter of ethnicity aren't authorative and aren't neutral, they are interested parties. Not only your single source wasn't reliable, but it didn't even back up your claims — Nataev simply claimed the society as whole Chechen and he also claimed Kostoevs (which is ridiculous). I have told you so many times but it seems that you're not understanding: Chechen Fyappins are offspring of Ingush Fyappin taip Torshkhoy that migrated to Aukh and the Chechen Fyappins are very small minority compared to the Fyappin society in Ingushetia that is Ingush. There's nothing hard to comprehend. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов I didn't provoke anyone. Reiner removes 3 authorative sources and adds 1 not authorative source as a replacement, reverts edits and calls everything "vandalism" and "biased narration". He puts images of Phallic statues in Ingush people, is this normal to you? It's clear that his intentions are bad and he wants to make fun of the Ingush. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• This is a related dispute to the one opened at the section on Таллархо above. There have been extensive attempts to resolve through discussion on relevant article talk pages, but the involved editors are at an impasse as far as the use and admissibility of sources related to the crux of the content dispute, and rather than escalating to an appropriate dispute resolution process the conflict has devolved into edit warring across multiple articles to a degree of intensity that makes it difficult to tell if anyone is in the right at a glance. Таллархо crossed the line by making ethnonationalist personal attacks so that was a good block, but I'm concerned that WikiEditor is now trying to win the dispute as a whole through ANI. I'm going to try to dig around more and possibly impose page protection on some of the affected pages, but would appreciate more independent eyes on this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I unfortunately need to step away from this for some time due to other appointments I have today. I will note that I came within a hair of blocking WikiEditor for personal attacks against Reiner Gavriel and the general pattern of disruptive editing across multiple articles (which appears to be continued from ru.wiki, where they were blocked for falsifying information), but was not able to research the dispute to a degree where I would feel comfortable following through. Elements giving me pause are that while I do speak Russian, I'm not familiar enough with the relevant scholarship to be able to identify at a glance who is correct about claims of removing "authoritative" sources, and that there may be some validity to the accusation that Reiner Gavriel is placing undue weight on the prominence of the phallic cult among Ingush peoples, as I can find relatively few results concerning that topic when I search for it in English on Google Scholar. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• May I please know where did I try to "personally attack Reiner"? I didn't personally attack him, and I always try to be as professional as possible without any insults. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Rhetoric like destroys 3 authorative sources, accusing them of vandalism, and accusing them of harboring anti-Ingush sentiments without providing clear supporting evidence are all forms of personal attacks. Accusing Reiner of filing frivolous sockpuppet reports and calling it It's one of his favorite things to do when opponent is winning in the argument is further a personal attack in the absence of evidence to back that assertion up. And this is just a list of examples taken from this specific discussion section at ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Rosguill, you should see that while we were discussing with Reiner in Vyappiy, he tried to immediately get me and another user Muqale blocked with false accusations: [12], but this case was quickly closed and his attempt to get me blocked for false reasons failed. It's one of his favorite things to do when opponent is winning in the argument. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill Hello, WikiEditor1234567123 tries to send all participants to the block with such requests. This is not the first time he changes accounts often. There is an experienced participant here who is well acquainted with this situation for more than a year. He is a Russian-speaking administrator Ymblanter, he can give you advice in this situation. There are a lot of articles on Ingush topics hoax WikiEditor1234567123 knowing that the sources here are not particularly checked, it expands these articles and creates legends. People who understand this begin to roll him back, he accordingly starts a war. Several times I found one information in the sources, and WikiEditor1234567123 writes something completely different. There were two of his articles, they were deleted; in general, it was written that the Ingush defeated three empires. From his first edits, he made a war here with other participants.--Товболатов (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Look at these articles there at the very beginning that he created. Even the administrator was surprised by Ymblanter.

1. .List of wars involving Ingushetia # Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving Ingushetia
2. .Nazran conflict. # Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazran conflict (2nd nomination)

When he realized that the article would be deleted, he began to quickly correct the information there. But still, the article looked very fantastic.--Товболатов (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов The admins found nothing on me in your investigation, I didn't abuse multiple accounts, so what's the point in still spreading this false accusation? In Nazran raid I was warned and since then stopped editing that page, accepting the "result". About the two articles, I made mistake making them and I greatly apologize for that however they were deleted and it's been month, no need to bring up the past. If you check my recent created articles (16 articles), they are all well made with authorative sources and neutral point. Why not talk about the fact that you tried to make Ингуши в Турции deleted but this was denied, here: [13]? Why not talk about the fact that in Russian Wikipedia, you insulted Ingush, here:[14][15][16]. You try to send all your opponents into block by accusing them of sockpuppetry which can be seen here: [17][18]. Most of the stuff that you accuse me of are false and I would appreciate if you wouldn't make such big accusations, thanks. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Tell us how many of your articles were sent to drafts after suspicions about the administrators' fake.--Товболатов (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Only two of your articles have passed the test, the rest weigh at the Unknown. No need to brag.--Товболатов (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Well, you yourself confessed two months have passed and you continue the war. I can't believe you.--Товболатов (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• • • Товболатов EXCUSE ME, where did I insult your parents and why mention my parents!!? Where did I insult you? I wasn't raised either to make false accusations of people and attribute such things to them, this is unacceptable! I never insult someone's parents as this goes against any kind of norms. As I have mentioned many many times the admins found NO CONNECTIONS with other accounts that you said I have connections. I was proven innocent and this should be the end of that. Why are you deliberately trying to attribute such things to me? Rosguill is this normal? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

      The accusation by Товболатов regarding insults towards one's parents should be struck unless it can be supported by evidence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• • • • Rosguill this isn't the first time that Товболатов has made false accusations about me, he tries to take me down by making such accusations, however that one is just unacceptable! Not only he attributed such thing to me but also brought my parents into this matter and implied that I was raised wrongly! This is clear as day personal insult! WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• • • • • Well, I’ll take a picture about my parents, but explain where and when I insulted you? this is another participant in the Russian Wikipedia, we will take off a simple dispute over the article. you don't participate at all. He wrote to me and I wrote to him. This is all without proof that I insulted you. WikiEditor1234567123 . Rosguill is this normal?? without proof. If I insulted someone, the Russian administrators blocked me long ago like you WikiEditor1234567123.--Товболатов (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

          I think it's pretty clear that WikiEditor is interpreting the statement you made, and then removed in this edit, as an insult directed at their parents. You have removed the statement (striking would have been preferable), so that is now largely moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

        • Rosguill, first he made that wild accusation and brought my parents and insulted me and my parents by implying that I was raised wrong. Then he removed his statement as you too saw here: [19] and then tried to make a fool out of me. It should be clear that he's just making as much accusations as possible about me to take me down, he and his colleague were trying to do that by saying that I do Sockpuppetry however the admins found nothing on me and proved that I'm innocent. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill this is not the first time he is trying to distract everyone here from the topic, to mislead other participants. How he misleads readers WikiEditor1234567123 he again tries to avoid responsibility as he did last time. You can fall under his influence, be careful. I already see that you wanted to block him now you have changed your mind. I would not believe him yes he writes well here. But as soon as he returns to satatya, he will immediately start a war.--Товболатов (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123 Why do you say that I offended you this account Anceran in Russian Wikipedia is yours??--Товболатов (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill There is a link where an Ingush participant insults my parents. I can provide.--Товболатов (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• How is that "Ingush participant" connected with me in any way? The admins have proven that I have no connections so please refrain from those accusations. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов, if that insult is unrelated to WikiEditor then there's no need to bring it up here. My sense is that both of you are trigger happy to find offense at each other right now, and that everyone would benefit from taking a step back and seeking uninvolved input on the content disputes, without continuing to edit war. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, the previous administrator told me if this member continues to break the rules or make wars, then I can apply here.Товболатов (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I meant my comment more in the sense that all parties to this dispute have clearly already provided the relevant evidence for others to look through, and that further back-and-forth between you at this noticeboard two is unlikely to help your case here. Evaluating the evidence will take time because of how long this conflict has been going on for, the less-than-stellar behavior on display from both sides, and the relative obscurity of the subject matter. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it was him before that a member with this similar name Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor wrote to me and insulted me from this account Roberson4096. Here is insult can you check if he is or not.--Товболатов (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor that's him for sure @Bbb23: Hello! The accounts Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor and Niyskho belong to Kist-Dzurdzuk, who is blocked on ruwiki. I understand --Товболатов (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

User:CaptainObjective

[20] Wqxjgp (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes? Could you explain in more detail? Also, you did not notify the user as it clearly says at the top when you edit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this editor is following CaptainObjective around and reverting them. Before this edit they made only 11 edits. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

And not a single warning to CO for any of the reverts, which, I believe, were disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggest boomerang. wqxjgp is harassing CaptainObjective. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

By reverting edits like this? You'd be in favour of that type of change, Rockstone? — Trey Maturin™ 19:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• There are evident language issues, but the OP has emailed me to accuse CaptainObjective of being a banned user from the Persian WP, saying they first wanted to contact "Media Wiki" directly. They have also asked for my direct email address, which I will not be providing. It seems there is a deeper issue here, but understanding and communicating in English, for both editors, is a problem. — Trey Maturin™ 20:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  I received an email from them earlier as well, saying pretty much the same thing and mentioning that their were having issues with communicating in English. The last part in particular is concerning, as communicating in English is certainly required here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Lauriswift911: a self-proclaimed nationalist and sockpuppeteer?

Lauriswift911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): This user's contributions are questionable and alarming. On his user page, he's written that his ideology is "nationalism". In light of this, it's no surprise that he has been pushing nationalistic views on English Wikipedia. Here he added unverified information without any sources. It's clearly original research. This edit is potentially vandalism - he replaced the current mayor of a town in Kyrgyzstan with a previous one. Here he removed an Uzbek name of the same town where half of the population is Uzbek without any explanation whatsoever. And by the way, the user has been indefinitely blocked on Russian Wikipedia. Probably for similar shenanigans. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently Dylnuge raised concern about this user edit-warring on the article about the Kyrgyz-Tajik clashes back in November 2022, but at the time it was determined that he hadn't violated WP:3RR. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

And then as recently as last month Kazman322 pointed out that the user had admitted to violating Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, to which Lemonaka replied by saying that his account had been compromised and that it had to be reported. It seems no action was taken. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the list goes on an on! Here Bogomolov.PL wrote the following:

User:Lauriswift911 is a sock-puppet of the User:Cianzera (checkuser test in Russian Wikipedia): blocked indefinitely in Russian Wikipedia (2 September 2022) with reason Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry [29] The English Wikipedia on the personal page of this account User:Lauriswift911 says that his nickname in social networks is @cianzera and his ideology is Nationalism. 23 January 2023 account Lauriswift911 attempted to create a duplicate account called Cianzera911 [30]. This account created the article Kyrgyz Confederation 20 January 2023. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

And finally, as recently as last week there was a discussion on this very page entitled Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#WP:NATIONALIST bickering on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyrgyz Confederation about this very user! As DIYeditor has rightly pointed out, some of the articles created by Lauriswift911 are potentially hoaxes. After Bogomolov.PL commented by writing I guess we are dealing with a cross-wiki vandal who has created a whole "team" of sockpuppets. He works on the subject of Kyrgyzstan, primarily the history of Kyrgyzstan, the discussion was simply archived and no action was taken. How come? I strongly believe that it's about time some action was taken against this user. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It was already directed by Salvio_giuliano and Bbb23 that this be taken to WP:SPI if there is evidence of WP:SOCKPUPPETry. It would pay to prepare this kind of report beforehand and keep it as terse and to the point as possible, focusing on links to behavioral issues that would be grounds for administrative action per relevant policies. As always, beware of WP:BOOMERANG as I often find these nationalist disputes have elements of the same behavior on both sides. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, well noted. Next time I'll put together everything first before posting. I'm not too worried about his socks. I'll let you guys look into it. What worries me are his contributions. Someone needs to closely review his nationalistic, unfounded, and deceptive contributions. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It is worth noting that in response to your invitation to participate in the discussion, the user wrote "uzbek = slave" in the Kyrgyz language. Kazman322 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Yes, 'kul/qul' indeed means a slave in Turkic languages. It's a clear violation of WP:NPA. This user is just crying out for a block. The sooner, the better. And when he reverted one of my edits earlier today, his edit summary was ''uzbek language ≠ not language'. He's now edit-warring. I'd say action needs to be taken against this character asap and his contributions should be mass deleted. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Indef blocked for the insults against Uzbeks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems Th3Shoudy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of his socks -- it's been confirmed on Russian Wikipedia and therefore indef blocked there. I wonder if a sock is automatically blocked when another account of the same user is blocked. If not, I'll just keep an eye out on what he does with his other accounts (Cianzera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Foggy kub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kozaryl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also seem to be associated with this person). بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Chapmansh

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

Shira Klein is Chapmansh. Chapmansh published this yesterday promoting the narrative of a sitebanned harasser. Chapmansh smears several Wikipedians, in their item that is part of a wider mud smearing campaign. The item was at the very least ghost written by an indef banned manipulator and harasser, who tried outing people, harassing their families, etc. Chapmansh needs to be banned per NPA, Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, etc. Jamarast (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I wonder what the enforceability of NPA and ASPERSIONS - both internal guidelines - is on this kind of offwiki activity. Probably between zero and nil. (Also, FWIW, the editor is a WikiEd instructor, and I don't think they have ever interacted onwiki with any of the editors they named in the journal essay.) W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 11:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of NPA and ASPERSIONS. It's an issue of WP:OUTTING: attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. Volunteer Marek 12:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I would note that if this does indeed fall under ASPERSIONS, so does the claim that The item was at the very least ghost written by you-know-who. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 11:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating. It's essentially a really long talk page rant with outing, published as a peer-reviewed research article in a reputable journal. I think the next edition of the Signpost just got booked solid. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elmidae Precisely 🙂, that’s what it is. A really long talk page rant with outing, published as a peer-reviewed research article in a reputable journal. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not necessarily saying their narrative is wrong - frankly I have no idea what y'all are doing in that area - but I have never seen that combination of scholarship and individually-targeted message board excavation before. Not sure this blurring of the boundaries of "research article" and "someone on the internet is wrong" is a good idea. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly I was the among the first to ask ArbCom to ban users (in particular, one of the users implicated in the cited paper) who were circumventing NPA by posting accusations of proxying/meatpuppetry on Wikipediocracy under the same nick they use on WP instead of actually saying that on WP, and this during an active ArbCom case. But the proposed ban will do more harm than good.

1. NPA refers to attacks made on Wikipedia - even if we can qualify them as personal attacks, these were off-wiki. To be fair, enforcement should be equal, so if that didn't provoke a ban, this shouldn't either.
2. ASPERSIONS concerns claims that are unsubstantiated and cast people in negative light (defamation). At the very least the authors substantiate their position. There are problems with this paper (like downplaying the problems Icewhiz caused or Grabowski not being a totally impartial observer of the situation, given his prior Disputes with Piotrus) but ASPERSIONS is not that.
3. The item was at the very least ghost written by [Icewhiz] this is an aspersion against Chapmansh, please substantiate. "It's obvious" arguments are not good enough. Nobody really has even got evidence of them contacting Icewhiz to begin with.
4. Chapmansh did not edit in the area of concern (or really engage with any of the editors on-wiki), so the ban is pointless. The way to prevent these concerns are either addressing the authors, or publishing rebuttals in the press, or suing for libel.
5. As for OUTING, I would advise all these who think they were outed to not post about this publicly (it only makes the outers confirm they were right). For the same reason, I will refrain from telling in public if the information posted in the article was public knowledge or not to consider this an OUTING violation. This must be addressed privately with admins and/or T&S.

In short, this request is pointless and is on shaky ground policy-wise. I think no one should opine on the OUTING allegation in public. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"all these who think they were outed to not post about this publicly (it only makes the outers confirm they were right)" - I am not clear on what your logic is here - are you saying that by publicly pointing out the WP:OUTTING the outers can feel successful in their harassment? That's a judgement call best left to the target of the outing, no? Volunteer Marek 14:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the instructions for posting on AN say this: Oversight and revision-deletion:

If the issue or concern involves a privacy-related matter, or involves any potential libel or defamation, do not post it here (emphasis on original). At least the OP did not say "OUTING" (he only said as much as that the piece is defamatory), but you shouldn't have publicly confirmed or alleged that. READ THE WARNING POPUPS BEFORE POSTING (too late at this stage, though). Just tell these guys what you believe had not been public knowledge but was disclosed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I was interviewed for this piece even though I'm not credited (some are here). I provided links to the Jan Żaryn discussion but I was not consulted on the final version of that part of the text. My opinions did not become part of the final version of the text. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:OUTING is a shield against harassment, not against scrutiny (see WP:HA#NOT). Shira Klein and Jan Grabowski aren't some Wikipedians taking their on-Wiki grievances off-Wiki, but serious scholars engaged in a serious, peer-reviewed study (for which I was also interviewed). The paper is now out; accepting the suggestion by Jamarast (talk · contribs) would be seen not as protecting anyone's identity, but as vindictive muzzling of scholarship. François Robere (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, a caveat to WP:OUTING is if "[the] person has voluntarily posted their own information... on Wikipedia". Since the editor supposedly "outed" by the paper has used their real name on Wikipedia in the past, this doesn't seem like a violation. François Robere (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chapmansh: is indeed "some Wikipedian" which means that our policy apply to them as much as to anyone else. This includes outing, especially when it's done in what appears to be a gratuitous and vindictive manner. And this is a clear cut violation which at the end of the day is no different than when User:Icewhiz began posting private information of Wikipedia users on twitter, including info on how to harass their children and employers. Indeed, the wording in the article is verbatim taken from Icewhiz's doxxing. Oh and recall that this is an area under Discretionary Sanctions, which Chapmansh (who has been on Wikipedia for more than ten years so cannot plead ignorance in this respect) is well aware of since their article references these very same Discretionary Sanctions. Volunteer Marek 14:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

One cannot be outed after editing here for years under their real name, voluntarily disclosing their identity on their own userpage, and then (publicly) renaming their account after being sanctioned by arbcom. Out of respect I won't drop diffs but it's all on-wiki and public and has been for over 10 years. After being sanctioned in a topic area, one cannot use a rename to hide the history while continuing to be disruptive in that same topic area. Levivich (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

First, this is not true. WP:OUTTING says:

Personal information includes real-life name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not.

Posting personal information EVEN IF someone has edited under their real name is still WP:OUTTING.

Second, unless you're referring to Piotrus nobody mentioned in that article "edited Wikipedia for years under their real name" nor did they "disclose their identity on their own userpage" as far as I'm aware. The only thing that has happened is that some people were doxxed previously, also with the intent of harassment and this has been used to identify them and, well, doxx them again.

On a related note, since both you and Francois Robere took part in the process of creating this article I would appreciate it if you didn't comment on this issue since you were, however indirectly, involved in this WP:OUTTING. This particularly applicable due to the fact that your comments appear to be written in "I know something I know something but I won't tell" insinuations and possibly interpreted as prodding others to search further. Also, please remind me, have you been asked to refrain from such activity previously?

Finally, trying to excuse doxxing and outing by claiming that someone is "continuing to be disruptive" not only violates WP:ASPERSIONS (if you wish to file a report about any disruptive activity in the topic area, you know where to do it) but is also, well, quite disturbing since it's basically saying "they were doxxed but they deserved it!". Other users have tried similar excuses in the past and as we all know, ended up being site banned. Volunteer Marek 15:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I just checked the paper and the three times they mention an editor's real name, the footnote at the end of the sentence links to a diff in which the editor self-disclosed on-wiki. (Are you seriously denying editing under your real name for years, until your first arbcom TBAN? If you want, I can post those diffs on-wiki?) Being interviewed by a researcher doesn't constitute taking part in writing the paper and certainly not outing. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha, selective quotation is truly an art form, isn't it. The article accuses me of dismissing a complaint at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070) because it "require[d] way too much digging"--conveniently leaving out that I said "too much digging for an incident" (yes, italics mine) and that thus ANI was not the right place for the very complicated complaint. In a later comment in the same thread, also referenced in the article, I suggested arbitration, AN, and SPI. User:Chapmansh, really? Drmies (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I am surprised to find myself cited in this Journal of Holocaust Research article, from an AE request I acted on years ago. Prima vista, I don't see anything actionable with respect to Chapmansh in this article. It is offwiki conduct, and it appears at first glance to be bona fide historiographical research (even if with a very peculiar focus and expressing a point of view about whose merits I have no opinion). And Jamarast does not cite any specific passages from the article and does not explain how specifically they violate Wikipedia conduct policies. If any action is required, in my view, it would be against Jamarast, for casting aspersions against a fellow editor in good standing by associating them, without evidence, with a ban-evading sockpuppeteer. (By way of a disclaimer, I was contacted by e-mail by Chapmansh in 2022 and asked to be interviewed for what I assume would become this article. I declined.) Sandstein 16:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sandstein, I agree with you. I think we need to set aside the Icewhiz business here because that's not what it's about. It's distasteful that he gets so much airtime in that article but that's not relevant for us as admins/editors; "ghost-written" is just really beyond the pale, and all of us who have published in academic journals should take offense here. Jamarast, are you now rethinking the charges you made, and how serious they are? I hope so. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Long-term pattern of hounding and disruptive editing by User:The Banner

This December 2022 issue, relating to a long-term pattern of disruptive editing, came to my attention while following up on my 2023-01-28 notice of a FAR needed for Minneapolis, an FA I have followed intermittently since 2007.

History

The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has two topic bans in place: a 2020-11-12 two-way interaction ban and a ban from nominating articles at AFD (more on that below).

Previous ANIs (there are more—I stopped looking after these):

• Hounding raised in 2017 and closed with no consensus by Kudpung
• July 2016 AFD related, closed by Fences and windows with another topic ban
• October 2015, AFD related
• January 2015, civility

Relevance to AFD and notability: 2022-10-31 banned from nominating articles at AFD by Vanamonde93 per this ANI discussion of hounding and improper use of AFD. The comments from other editors about competence merit a thorough read and reveal issues directly relevant to The Banner's December 2022 activity:

1. Fram raises hounding,
2. GiantSnowman raises the “clearly notable” aspect of The Banner’s AFDs
3. Several editors in that discussion point out the articles AFD’d are highly notable.
4. Star Mississippi mentions that The Banner has learnt nothing from this discussion or is being deliberately obstructive
5. Drmies says this is a good time to take those concerns seriously
6. Levivich says indef would be better
7. A unanimous topic ban from nominating articles AFD is enacted

which brings up to The Banner's related activity at Minneapolis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

December 2022

See these sources for the Owamni restaurant and their dates:

1. The New Yorker, feature, 2022-09-19
2. BBC, feature, 2022-09-28
3. PBS, feature 2022-05-05
4. NPR, feature, 2022-10-24
5. The New York Times 2021 restaurant list “50 places we’re most excited about right now”
6. NBC News 2022-11-24

In this 2022-12-16 discussion, SusanLesch proposed an image of the Owamni for the Minneapolis article which was created by Another Believer and which SusanLesch had previously edited on December 15, 2022.

• 17:59, December 17, 2022 SusanLesch points out the Owamni’s notability to The Banner
• 19:20, December 17, 2022 The Banner acknowledges having read that post
• 19:38, December 17, 2022 The Banner follows SusanLesch to the Owamni article and tags it as not meeting notability, non-neutral, and containing weasel words (I’m at a loss on all three of those tags)
• And in the ensuing talk discussion The Banner does not back down

Considering everything pointed to The Banner over years of discussions about AFD, notability and hounding (including a topic ban for same), following SusanLesch to this article to place not just the notability, but three gratuitous tags, suggests that stronger action is needed. The appearance is that, since The Banner can no longer AFD, they hoped that the notability tags would achieve the same end. This seems to be a continuation of hounding problems, and skirting of the AFD topic ban, while ignoring how clearly notable the article subject is, along with gratuitous tagging just to round out the civility, hounding and competence issues.

This editing is disruptive, has been going on for years, and comes in particular at a time when SusanLesch has been diligently laboring away at the lengthy lists I park on talk of things that need to be corrected to maintain FA status. It appears to me that Levivich had it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Notification: [21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @SandyGeorgia. While I haven't interacted with The Banner since the fall AfD referenced above, I recall thinking and possibly commenting in the thread that the ban was going to be a bandaid, and the problematic conduct would just move elsewhere since, as quoted above, he hadn't learned or enjoyed obstruction. Star Mississippi 14:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

There are other pieces I have to add, but I ran out of time and have to get out the door for an app't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

User:The Banner--why did you make this edit? An experienced editor knows that this is exactly the kind of thing that should be able to stand with primary sourcing; it's a relevant comment in the context of the origin of the things they serve, and it's properly ascribed and gives motive for the restaurant's choices. I'm not putting this here to convince you, because I think you know this, and I know this isn't a revert of SusanLesch; I'm commenting on it because it is not a good edit and it seems to indicate a refusal to drop a stick that you picked up with this edit, an edit that I don't really understand: there were no weasel words ("decolonized menu" is NOT weasel words), there was no dispute (you posted on the talk page much later), and there was reliable sourcing for a nationally recognized award. While I believe that Another Believer's write-up of restaurants is sometimes problematic, and that I had a minor disagreement (if that) with SusanLesch (see Talk:Minneapolis/Archive_9), what I see in the history of Owamni--how is that not you following them, and then continuing on the talk page in that fashion? I have been your friend, colleague, and sometime defender for a decade or more and what I see on that talk page saddens me. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

iPad editing from car hotspot, Drmies, there is more ... keep looking, The Banner just keeps gutting reliably sourced and relevant info (as if a restaurant's architecture is irrelevant ?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• I had to ask The Banner to please leave me alone recently. The hounding, the retaliatory tagging, the repeated removal of sourced content, the combative talk pages discussions, actively interfering with my Good article nominations, etc, got to be too much. I do not want to interact with this editor and I do not want them interacting with me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Talk:Bailey's Taproom/GA1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)