Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
| Line 305: | Line 305: | ||
:I was assuming this was an arbcom matter and would be deleted. Since that doesn't seem to be happening, I've reversed the revdel.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CorbieVreccan&diff=next&oldid=1174969570] - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="color: #660099;"><strong>CorbieVreccan</strong></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 23:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
:I was assuming this was an arbcom matter and would be deleted. Since that doesn't seem to be happening, I've reversed the revdel.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CorbieVreccan&diff=next&oldid=1174969570] - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="color: #660099;"><strong>CorbieVreccan</strong></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 23:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
::Even if you thought that, how is that an appropriate use of RD3 by ''you'' of a mandatory ANI notification by another admin? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
::Even if you thought that, how is that an appropriate use of RD3 by ''you'' of a mandatory ANI notification by another admin? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::Again, I was told by Arbcom this was done. I was shocked and upset to see it. I've reverted and I apologize. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="color: #660099;"><strong>CorbieVreccan</strong></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 23:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
:::Again, I was told by Arbcom this was done. I was shocked and upset to see it. My understanding of the policy is that once Arbcom has handled it, it doesn't bounce back to a drama board. There are also privacy issues here that are of concern. I've reverted and I apologize. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="color: #660099;"><strong>CorbieVreccan</strong></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 23:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 23:23, 11 September 2023
| Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 36 | 2 | 38 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 52 | 30 | 82 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 1 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 6 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 127 sockpuppet investigations
- 29 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 6 Fully protected edit requests
- 2 Candidates for history merging
- 0 requests for RD1 redaction
- 106 elapsed requested moves
- 3 Pages at move review
- 36 requested closures
- 122 requests for unblock
- 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 16 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Proposal to modify WP:GS/AA scope
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After some discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan, there seems to be a consensus among myself and several admins who've enforced those sanctions (implemented in January) that they are de jure too broad and, in how they are de facto enforced, ambiguous as to scope.
- De jure too broad: GS/AA is the only extendedconfirmed restriction (out of 4 in effect + 1 repealed) that applies to an entire country or region. That is to say, there are sanctions for the Arab-Israeli conflict but not all aspects of Israeli and Arab life, for the Russo-Ukrainian War but not all aspects of Russian and Ukrainian life, etc. The fact that GS/AA applies to, say, the guy who played Chris-R in The Room or arguably even Kim Kardashian is unprecedented and unparalleled. On an admin level, this mostly hasn't mattered, because admins have declined to enforce these sanctions on non-conflict-related pages. But an ECR also applies to non-admins, particularly in its exemption from Wikipedia:Edit warring, which makes it ambiguous whether 3RR violations are in fact violations. (Consider someone who makes 4 reverts of an IP's valid copy-edit to Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023.)
- De facto ambiguous: As noted, admins have effectively treated this as a sanction for conflicts in the region. However, that is ill-defined. Some users have thought the sanctions only apply if both Armenia and Azerbaijan are involved. And what about matters, such as the Armenian genocide, that are primarily associated with another state? Furthermore, much of the misconduct plays out on articles about ethnic groups' past ties to particular settlements or regions.
Note also that the entire AA area is under ArbCom sanctions, so admins already have discretionary authority here. This is just a question of when that authority should be imposed by default.
Based on discussion with topic-area admins Courcelles, Rosguill, Firefangledfeathers, El_C, Callanecc, and Daniel Case, I propose the following reframing of the sanctions:ed. 20:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Political, ethnic, and military conflictsPolitics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction.- In the rest of the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic area, the community endorses administrators making liberal use of extended confirmed protection as an arbitration enforcement action.
The one objection voiced in preliminary discussion, by Rosguill, was about the history of ethnic land claims. I think that this falls solidly under the "ethnic conflicts ... broadly construed", but if that's a hang-up for people, we could that to the "explicitly including" bit. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I would write it down as politics (not political conflicts), history (added), ethnic relations (not ethnic conflicts), and conflicts (of any kind) of or involving (for example Azerbaijan–Turkey relations)...—Alalch E. 19:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- "History" was discussed in the preliminary discussion. The problem is, what's history? Or, rather, what isn't? Dan Janjigian appearing in The Room is a historical event (happened before quite a few of our editors were born), but I don't think is what you intend. I think Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts would address your concerns, and am fine with that with basically equal preference to what I said above. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think you may be right about "history" after all.—Alalch E. 19:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that new editors will misunderstand the new wording as only narrowly affecting the ongoing NK conflict if we adopt the propose wording, and I think the inclusion of history would aid in their understanding. Then again, the status quo is that many (most?) new editors in the area simply ignore GS/AA or otherwise fail to understand it until they are blocked for repeated violations past warnings, so I'm not opposed to the rewording more generally. signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts ... broadly construed
should be enough, but perhaps inserting something like "past or present" – egbroadly construed, past or present, and explicitly including the Armenian genocide
– would save the occasional back-and-forth. NebY (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- "History" was discussed in the preliminary discussion. The problem is, what's history? Or, rather, what isn't? Dan Janjigian appearing in The Room is a historical event (happened before quite a few of our editors were born), but I don't think is what you intend. I think Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts would address your concerns, and am fine with that with basically equal preference to what I said above. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- As an idea, maybe confine it to the Armenian and Azerbaijani nations, people and ethnicities? As written, the sanction includes the geography and the languages. My view would be that the early history of Zoroastrianism, Alexander the Great's early conquests, and the Armenian tongues and alphabets shouldn't be in scope and aren't what the drafters intended.—S Marshall T/C 11:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Can I suggest as the community considers these changes, that it also consider whether to
match the contentious topics procedure
and whether designate that AE can be used for enforcement per contentious topic procedure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)- Great idea. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, Tamzin has suggested creating a subproposal for this. I thought about doing so and then realized I'm not sure what benefits this would bring. Since any GS/AA topic, especially so if we adopt this narrowing proposal, would fall under the broader WP:ARBAA, I reason that AE is available already. Are there other potential benefits? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- No but that leads me to ask: what's the point of the GS if it's already covered under ARBAA? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- The GS is really just here to frame the extended-confirmed restriction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- No but that leads me to ask: what's the point of the GS if it's already covered under ARBAA? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, Tamzin has suggested creating a subproposal for this. I thought about doing so and then realized I'm not sure what benefits this would bring. Since any GS/AA topic, especially so if we adopt this narrowing proposal, would fall under the broader WP:ARBAA, I reason that AE is available already. Are there other potential benefits? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Great idea. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I support Tamzin's proposal. The tweaks help match the topic with its current interpretation by admins, and there's reason to be cautious about over-broadness. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't
involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both –
the same asinvolving Armenia, or Azerbaijan –
? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)- It is. The idea was just to be explicit about it, since apparently some users have been confused. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- WP:ANDOR is probably a good link to review. Izno (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Restored from archive; !votes appreciated
I've restored this thread from the archive. I've also modified the proposal above to account for the feedback regarding "Political, military, and ethnic conflicts". As to Barkeep49's suggestion, if he or someone else would like to open a subthread to propose putting GS/AA under WP:AE jurisdiction, they're welcome to, but otherwise I think we should focus on the core proposal here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Closing admin, please note support by Firefangledfeathers above. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support, as I trust the judgement of the enforcing administrators: if they believe it is needed, I think the adjustment should be made. Also, as a general principle blanket protection should be used in as narrow an area as is reasonable. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support the narrowing and the wording proposed by Tamzin. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'd really like for this to not get archived a second time without action. @HistoryofIran, Nythar, Levivich, Kansas Bear, Hemiauchenia, Magnatyrannus, Khirurg, LouisAragon, AirshipJungleman29, Demetrios1993, The Night Watch, LilianaUwU, Abrvagl, LaundryPizza03, Olympian, Guerillero, ProcrastinatingReader, Lol1VNIO, BilledMammal, Red-tailed hawk, Oaktree b, Aza24, Ermenrich, EvergreenFir, Buffs, Semsûrî, InvadingInvader, SilentResident, and TonyBallioni: This is everyone who made a boldfaced comment in the previous discussion and is able to comment here, plus the closer. Do any of you have thoughts on this proposal?One person who won't be able to comment here, tragically, is Nosebagbear (Z''L), so I'll copy what he said then, a characteristically wise comment that foresaw the exact problem we've run into:
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)I am reticent to support an automatic major restriction on such a scale as the entire (amended as of 2013) AA2 scope. I'm aware, of course, of the gaming risk, but I don't think we'd ever endorse such an action were there (say) a dispute nexus between the US and UK. I would support this restriction on the conflict between the two countries (broadly construed, by all means), but opppose a restriction on the individual countries and their topics.
- Support. I opposed the previous proposal because the scope was too broad, per the statistics I presented. While I haven't run the statistics for this narrower scope, I believe that narrowing the scope generally would be beneficial. BilledMammal (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support I'm fine with the proposal. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support This narrower proposal is much better than the last one. I am ever so slightly concerned about the endorsement of "liberal use" of ECP because that has a small potential of sparking an increase of frivolous protection requests in the A-A topic area, but I don't think that most pages that are applied protection will be outside of political, military or ethnic conflicts. The Night Watch (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support. ECP is a beyond necessary tool when dealing with the most contentious topics. I trust that admins will do the right thing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Nosebagbear. firefly ( t · c ) 20:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support. It's a reasonable idea of making the ECP restriction more narrow, because no other contentious topic area is this broad AFAIK. Otherwise, I'll echo Nosebagbear's statement: restrictions on the conflicts, not the countries as a whole. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I support the reframing proposed by Tamzin. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support – much proved as necessary by now. Thanks to Tamzin for taking the initiative here. – Aza24 (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support the narrower application, this will be more effective and clear, focusing on the core of the contentious A-A topic area. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 05:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support Last time I specifically objected to the overbreadth of the proposal. I agree that ECP is needed only for topics directly related to conflicts in Armenia and Azerbaijan, as opposed to, say, the Sevan trout (a fish found only in Armenia). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- But you know that trouts are VERY contentious on Wikipedia, right? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Just making sure I understand this correctly. The proposal is to go from
"A community discussion at the administrators' noticeboard has placed all pages with content related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, under the extended confirmed restriction"
to"Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction."
? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)- Yes, though there's the added bullet point about "liberal use" of ECP elsewhere in the AA topic area. I assume we'll keep the info about the community decision and as-of date in a later sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The problem with these disputes pertaining to Central Asia and the regions surrounding Iran is that they do frequently creep into matters that may not, at first glance, seem to strictly relate to the direct locii of those respective disputes. On this particular topic, I vaguely remember seeing a thread at ANI relating to the article Caucasus Albania, and I'm sure that anything relating to Iranian, Georgian, etc. cultural history within the geographical confines of what is currently Azerbaijan has the potential of flaring up into conflict. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. I would argue that it is largely due to the Historical revisionism/Historical negationism#Azerbaijan in Azerbaijan [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah it feels like only yesterday I was reverting some ridiculous genre warrior who felt called to assert that every successful individual and polity over the last thousand years in Asia was the product of a single linguistic group (turns out Semsûrî beat me to the ones on my watchlist), but none of those articles are covered by the current broader scope in any case: Xianbei, Rouran Khaganate, Ghengis Khan, Saladin, etc. Folly Mox (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Move to close
Nearing archival once more. Could somebody please close this? Happy to make any necessary changes to the GS/AA page myself. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I will do so presently, but I note that according to policy: If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. You don't need to wait for a closure to enact the results of a discussion where consensus is this strong. --Jayron32 13:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Return of Disruptive IP editor
This is my second report on the IP editor likes to follow me around and revert my edits. So far as I can tell, this editor uses this IP account solely for this purpose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/104.226.30.18
When I filed a previous ANI against this editor, @Lourdes told me to return to ANI should it happen again, and it has. Please see the former ANI notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#Disruptive_IP_editor
Also see their latest message on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Just_Another_Cringy_Username#Sue_Grafton/Kinsey_Millhone Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have been editing here for more than a decade, mostly uneventfully, as an IP. My edits conform to policy. I edit mostly while commuting, so my IP address changes regularly, even during a songwriting session. Cringy's previous complaint against me went unseen by me, because he violated ANI rules by deliberately failing to notify me of it. It should count for nothing. Cringy has a peculiar antipathy toward various notable writers, disproproportionately women, and tries to minimize content related to them, as though he were the reincarnation of Quorty, who I also tangled with. Stingy is trying to bully me by running to the noticeboard whenever I disagreed with him. This is not acceptable conduct. Vivian. 104.226.30.18 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you're that dedicated of an editor, why have you never registered properly? I can't help but notice that your IP only seems to surface long enough to revert a BOLD edit on my part. Your mention of Quorty also sounds similar to the IP who harassed me in this incident[2]. Wouldn't happen to know anything about that, would you? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked for 3mo. Lourdes 06:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes What is your rationale for this block? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 01:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- [3][4] Lourdes 04:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes Thanks for your attention to this matter. As I was reading over my talk page, I stumbled on a potential clue to the identity of the disruptive editor.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Just_Another_Cringy_Username#Sue_Grafton/Kinsey_Millhone
- Notice how the first comment is signed w/ a proper WP username (RSLitman) and the offending IP jumps in for the next one. I'm not saying it's impossible that another editor wished to join the discussion; however, IMO this supports my theory that RSLitman uses these IP's and probably others as socks for their more disruptive activities. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- [3][4] Lourdes 04:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Lourdes What is your rationale for this block? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 01:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 9 of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case ("MarioProtIV topic ban") is rescinded.
For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
LucenseLugo
Hello. I highly suspect LucenseLugo of being a sockpuppet do to his previous interactions with Venezia Friulano. I tried to open an investigation, but for some reason (it’s probably my fault) it didn’t work and format well. I don’t really want to try it again, but if anyone here wants to try it themselves then feel free to do so.
- Here are these interactions for those interested:
Interactions in question
|
|---|
|
- This user has also been very disruptive, as you can see on the history of his Talk Page *because he removes any content stating he is any, way, shape or form wrong*. He mainly does (Spanish) nationalist editing, and this was the Spanish empire article, so this might just be two people with the same opinion. However it is interesting to note that a very notorious cercle of socks are active for a very long time on that article. This is all now, do of it what you will. Have a great day ! Reman Empire (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
USS YMS-111
Your search does not find this minesweeper. This page: https://www.navalcovermuseum.org/wiki/YMS_111 shows that is did. Michael Pedi (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- That vessel is listed at List of mine warfare vessels of the United States Navy, Michael Pedi, but you can see from the red links there that there aren't articles for most of the individual ships. However, this noticeboard isn't an appropriate venue to discuss this issue (see the notice about its purpose at the top of the page). If you have questions about Wikipedia, please consider asking them at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Help required with range block
I recently warned 2001:1C04:4310:2800:B445:6544:EA7C:BC03 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) multiple times for adding unsourced population estimates (or changing sourced ones without a new source) at diaspora group articles. This behaviour is now continuing from 2001:1C04:4310:2800:58F:4990:6E84:549B (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Earlier disruption was coming from 2001:1C04:4310:2800:498D:E55:16B5:5944 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm not experienced in calculated range blocks and I know this is a challenge with IPv6 addresses, so can someone advise? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry: As a general rule of thumb, if the first four parts stay the same, it's usually a 64. In this case, I can confirm that 2001:1C04:4310:2800::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is the correct range. It seems non-shared and static since late last year. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, zzuuzz. I think I'd confused myself by including an erroneous address when I first tried to do the calculation, which gave me a very wide range. This new one checks out. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Searching for a missing wikipage: Rachel Moss
a year or so ago I found a wiki entry on my mother, Rachel Moss, daughter of Cyril Bailey and wife of Basil_Moss_(priest). The entry was much longer than for her husband and focused on her time in Birmingham, UK and her editorship of "God's yes to Sexuality". Cyril Bailey's page mentions her and the book. Her name is in red. Doe this confirm there used to be a page for her. And if so can it be restored? It contained no controversial or inaccurate information. I would be grateful if any administrators can throw light on this, and either explain why it was deleted or restore it. 144.82.114.250 (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. Rachel Moss is blue for me, and its history indicates it's not a new page. Animal lover |666| 17:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any evidence of any previous page for Rachel Moss (activist), the Rachel Moss you are looking for. No deleted edits for any of those articles, nothing in articles for deletion or the other usual places to look. Are you sure it was on Wikipedia? Antandrus (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- This wouldn't show up in AfD archives if the entry was CSD'd or PRODDED or draftified and then deleted after six months. It sure would be nice if there was a searchable "deletionspace" where people could find any titles that used to exist and their move/deletion histories. JoelleJay (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- That is indeed something I've wanted for a long time. Antandrus (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Antandrus as an admin you should be able to do this? If you go to Special:Undelete (note that there's no page specified, and you might need to add &fuzzy=1 to the end of the URL like so [5]) you should be presented with a search box that lets you look for deleted pages by title. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I can't find anything, and I've searched every combination of Rachel/Bailey/Moss/activist. According to the search, only 88 pages containing "(activist)" have ever been deleted, and none of them were called Rachel. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder if the OP was reading some of the references in the article? This obituary in the guardian [6] seems to cover most of the material they mention? I've looked through some archiving sites and that link seems to have been red in the timeframe mentioned. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's certainly a possibility. I looked to see if either her husband or father's article used to contain the information - they didn't - and I checked Simple English as well. So I suspect that might be it. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Fwiw, even the first edit for Cyril Bailey already contained redlinks for Gemma Bailey and Rachel Moss (activist; @Noswall59: Can you shed some light on this? Did you want to create articles for those redlinks? Lectonar (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder if the OP was reading some of the references in the article? This obituary in the guardian [6] seems to cover most of the material they mention? I've looked through some archiving sites and that link seems to have been red in the timeframe mentioned. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I can't find anything, and I've searched every combination of Rachel/Bailey/Moss/activist. According to the search, only 88 pages containing "(activist)" have ever been deleted, and none of them were called Rachel. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Antandrus as an admin you should be able to do this? If you go to Special:Undelete (note that there's no page specified, and you might need to add &fuzzy=1 to the end of the URL like so [5]) you should be presented with a search box that lets you look for deleted pages by title. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- That is indeed something I've wanted for a long time. Antandrus (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- This wouldn't show up in AfD archives if the entry was CSD'd or PRODDED or draftified and then deleted after six months. It sure would be nice if there was a searchable "deletionspace" where people could find any titles that used to exist and their move/deletion histories. JoelleJay (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Music (2021 film) editing
| I've blocked filer HumanxAnthro for 72 hours for disruptive editing in this thread. When he returns, he is welcome to pursue dispute resolution over this minor content dispute, although I would recommend instead finding something else to edit about. Almost seven million articles, maybe a billion issues to fix across them. Is this really the hill to die on? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
On Music (2021 film), Ssilvers is clearly attempting to maintain WP:OWNERSHIP of the article, reverting obviously contributive edits with bogus rationales. I first encountered this problem as early as 2022, when all I did was began merging opinions of critics together so that it did not look like a quote farm. They reverted with the following edit summary: "non-neutral changes. WP:N". Read my edit for yourself. What was "non-neutral" about simply re-writing the section into something besides quotes? What did notability have to do with it? This is a critical reception section of an article about a film whose notability has already been well-established. They have continued to reinforce their power like this on the article with this, this, this, this, this, this, this and probably others I did not catch when reading the edit history. Like the example I provided, these edits are all reversions to the addition of sourced content, done under disingenuous or unrelated summaries. Sometimes they inform the user to go to the talk page to begin discussion, ignoring the obvious reason the users do not that usually, when a discussion starts on the talk page, nobody joins in and nothing gets done. Believe me, I tried getting something resolved on the cast section of It (2017 film), and I got no responses, meaning the conversation went nowhere. This, plus the existence of WP:BRD and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, puts users in an inescapable position where they cannot do anything about the editor's poorly-justified edits. Which brings me to why I am starting a section here. This came to a peak when I adjusted the starring field of the infobox to reflect THAT of the poster, which any experienced film article editor on this site knows is a guideline set by Template:Infobox film to follow and thus approve. No experienced editor would seriously suggest it is debatable for consensus from other users to be needed... except Ssilvers and a couple of other editors. Ssilvers, Nyxaros (diff because I am linking user name), and InvadingInvader (diff because I am linking username) all promoted a reversion that border on WP:VANDALISM, under unsubstantiated-with-guidelines "I-personally-think", WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationales that no one editing film articles would consider genuinely. Nonetheless, they told me to "constructively discuss if they disagree rather than shut down", as if breaking a set-in-stone, fricking well-established guideline was disagreeable. When I brought the starring field back to how it objectively should be, I put these editors in their place: "Users, there is NOTHING disagreeable about guidelines of Template pages. Template:Infobox film explicitly states to "use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors." Guess what, all of these names are here, and the guideline says NOT to deviate from that billing. I am not wasting any more time on WP:COMPETENCE issues from you people. Ssilvers reverted again with this: "I strongly disagree with this. Use the Talk page if you wish to achieve a consensus to add these supporting players. They do not "star" in the film." Disagree with policy everyone has to follow? No way would I surrender to these users' ignorance and breaking of policy and legitimize this topic in the way some Holocaust denier would suggest it is debatable that the Holocaust happened. So Ssilvers, who led this effort to keep the starring field unrepresentative and guideline-violating, was provided a warning by me to restore it as it should or I am bringing the issue to admins. They reverted my warning with the following cop-out: "Use the article talk page, not mine." So guess was, Ssilvers, you are going to the principal's office for your misbehavior. All necessary diffs are linked for the admins to read for themselves, and all users will be notified on the talk pages. I am demanding at least a few-day block for what they are trying to do, and I hope the article is free from tyranny. It is disgusting to see a user with some leverage from writing featured content abuse WP:CIVILITY like this. Thanks. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
|
Vandalism on Superpowers
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_superpower In this arcticle users keep removing Brazil as a potential superpower, while Brazil is a potential superpower Morisfoint (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's not vandalism, Morisfoint. Vandalism has a specific and precise meaning on Wikipedia, and these edits do not qualify. The content that was removed was entirely unreferenced. In order to add content calling Brazil a potential superpower, it is mandatory to provide references to high quality reliable independent sources that describe Brazil that way. Instead of making accusations of vandalism, I suggest that instead you start discussing specific academic level reliable independent sources at Talk: Potential superpower. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Really, Morisfoint, I recommend digesting this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Morisfoint sockblocked by Bbb23. Bishonen | tålk 16:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC).
How much for approve an draft article needed?
Hello, after creation my article i can't (due to my work and intermediate english level) extend my article. dose it current contents are enough for submission processes? i'm sorry i'm totally new to Wikipedia community and i don't know where ask it. 5.234.37.150 (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please ask at the Teahouse or Help Desk. This is not an administrator issue, so it can be discussed in either of those locations. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- You may feel more comfortable editing the version of Wikipedia that is in a language with which you are more familiar. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the "premier" Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- The article has been submitted for review, so you just have to be patient. M.Bitton (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Worm That Turned stepping down
Please take this note as my formal resignation from the Arbitration Committee. I've been less available in 2023 than I'd like, and since we're near election season, I felt this was a good time for me to step down. Being an arbitrator is not the most appreciated role on the encyclopedia (something I've written about in the past), so I'd just like to express my personal gratitude to the remaining committee, who do so much work behind the scenes, dealing with things so the rest of the community doesn't have to. WormTT(talk) 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Noting for the formality of it, I'm giving up CU OS for now too, please. WormTT(talk) 14:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Worm That Turned stepping down
Removal of Confirmed user right
Can an admin remove confirmed from this account? I no longer have a use for this right now. I also do not know if this is the correct place to ask this kind of question. Koshchki123 2 (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Done. It is the correct place, and I have removed the right, per your request. --Jayron32 18:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Long-term meatpuppetry by two admins
It brings me no pleasure to do this. I just feel the need to say that off the top. If it brings me anything, it's nausea.
Recently, admin CorbieVreccan publicly disclosed that they share an IP address with fellow admin Mark Ironie. This was, as I understand it, the consequence of an email I sent ArbCom on 26 August, documenting a yearslong pattern of Mark acting as a second !vote or second set of admin tools for Corbie. I thank ArbCom for prompting this on-wiki disclosure, as it now means that the community can discuss this pattern of misconduct in the open.
Here is a modified version of the timeline I sent ArbCom, chronicling every non-mainspace, non-own-userspace edit Mark Ironie has made since 1 January 2020. Highlighted in yellow are interactions with Corbie. Admin actions, warnings, and calls for sanctions are underlined.
- 11 January 2020: An RfC !vote
- 12–14 Jan 2020, Talk:Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women/Archive 1 § Citation changes: Mark explains that they have restored content of Corbie's that was removed. The removing editor accuses both of sockpuppetry. Corbie responds that
it's interesting that you are accusing long-term admins of socking
and Mark says they already had the page watchlisted. The restoration was Mark's only ever edit to the article. - 13 January 2020: An action at RFPP
- 23 December 2020: Two actions at RFPP
- 11–13 January 2021, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 22 § Indigenous Ways of Knowing & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Replies to Corbie's noticeboard post about the article Indigenous Ways of Knowing. Once it's AfD'd, !votes delete, as Corbie before them.
- 17–25 January 2021: Some troubleshooting regarding Huggle
- 2–3 April 2021, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064 § User CejeroC disruptively editing: A call for a block and two follow-ups due to a mixup
- 1 August 2021: Two actions at RFPP
- 26–28 December 2021, Pretendian RM: Opposes move, as Corbie before them. Issues only warning to Walrasiad for personal attacks against Corbie at the RM, while defending Corbie's own comments there.
- 13 September 2022, Celtic Neopagan Reconstructionism RM: !votes neutral on "Paganism", opposes lowercasing "Reconstructionism", as Corbie before them. (Granted, in this case the two are coauthors of the article.)
- 17–20 September 2022, Talk:Reservation Dogs: Warns Revirvlkodlaku for edit-warring with Corbie. Then partially blocks Revirvlkodlaku from article and talk. This is Mark's only block since October 2019.
- 10 February 2023: Helping a new user set up their userspace
- 2 June 2023, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 1 § Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent: !votes explicitly per Corbie. (Granted, in this case both were pinged).
- 4 August 2023: Warns Skyerise for insulting Corbie at Template:Witchcraft sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
- 13 August 2023: Some troubleshooting regarding AWB
- 21 Aug 2023, witchcraft AN/I thread: Shows up to AN/I to support sanctions against Skyerise and Darker Dreams, Corbie's topic-area opponents, immediately after Corbie's own !vote.
As we can see from this, Mark almost never edits project discussions except to back up Corbie. While in a few cases Mark has had an independent reason to join in a discussion, in most cases they have had no prior experience, engaging only after Corbie did. Since 2020, 1/1 of Mark's blocks, 3/3 of Mark's warnings, 2/3 of Mark's calls for sanctions, 4/4 of Mark's AfD/RM !votes, and 2/2 of Mark's other talkpage participation have been in support of Corbie, with whom Mark shares an IP. It seems impossible, meanwhile, for Corbie to be completely naïve to this; as noted above, they were indignant when accused of meatpuppetry in 2020. (And I doubt this started only in 2020. It's just that before that Mark was more active, making it harder to find proxying behavior, and it is likewise difficult to sift through the 1,004 pages the two have interacted on, including 20 XfDs and 142 talkpages.)
Even if Mark did miraculously show up at each of these discussions independent of Corbie, that would still not change that they blocked, warned, or sought sanctions against four users who opposed Corbie in content disputes, a blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED and WP:MEAT. I will not prejudge an outcome here, pending responses from the two admins involved, but something must be done to make sure this never happens again. No user should have to worry that, when they cross one admin, that admin's IP-mate is going to show up and warn them or block them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Corbie has umm... Revdelled the diff of me notifying them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- This was handled privately with Arbcom. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I conferred with an arb prior to posting this and was told that their decision to not desysop did not preclude community review. Could you please explain why you revdelled my edit? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was told it was done. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- We have been on record with Arbcom as sometimes sharing the same IP for 18 years. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't started this thread because you shared an IP with another admin. There's no policy against that (else I'd be in trouble myself). I started this thread because the two of you have, while sharing an IP, acted in concert in both content and conduct matters, in a manner that violated both WP:MEAT and WP:INVOLVED. Disclosure to ArbCom does not exempt you from those policies. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I conferred with an arb prior to posting this and was told that their decision to not desysop did not preclude community review. Could you please explain why you revdelled my edit? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- That seems like a complete misuse of RD3 to me. A notification that's required (I know it was this template as I saw it before it was revdelled) per this noticeboard's instructions does not ordinarily fall under RD3. While CorbieVreccan is of course free to archive immediately or revert the notification, same as any other editor can, using the admin tools on this seems like tool misuse. I would suggest that they undo that revdel action. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Fine. But these issues are arbcom matters, not for the drama boards; I was told we only needed to post the disclosure. Tamzin is the one in violation here. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Tamzin is the one in violation here
Violation of what? Yes the shared IP issue seems to have been handled by ArbCom, but community review of a potential meatpuppetry issue isn't in breach of any policy or guideline I'm aware of. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:SPI (and per WP:MEAT, the same policies apply):
If you suspect sockpuppetry by an administrator, or if you need to submit off-wiki evidence for some other reason, you must email the checkuser team to open an investigation. Private information, emails, logs, and other sensitive evidence must not be posted on Wikipedia. All evidence related to a sockpuppet investigation must otherwise be posted on the designated page.
- CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)- As I said, Sideswipe, we went over all of this with Arbcom. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Nothing that's presented here has been private information. Any editor could pull the evidence together using tools like sigma on toolforge. Now if you think this is the wrong venue, we could I suppose move this to WP:SPI, but I'm fairly certain we've handled meetpuppetry issues at AN and ANI before. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- As I said, Sideswipe, we went over all of this with Arbcom. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Fine. But these issues are arbcom matters, not for the drama boards; I was told we only needed to post the disclosure. Tamzin is the one in violation here. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- This was handled privately with Arbcom. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Obviously ArbCom has not discussed the revdel of the notification. However, I can confirm that the committee had correspondence with the two admins in question. Yesterday, in concluding the correspondence, ArbCom requested that they disclose on their userpages that they share an IP. Based on public and private information that is what a consensus of the committee felt was appropriate in handling this manner. It's possible ArbCom will have more to say after further discussion, but I feel pretty comfortable posting that publicly without having consulted with the rest of the committee. The community has parallel jurisdiction on some aspects of this issue and can obviously reach their own decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think we've been put into a tricky situation then where this has already been to Arbcom, and while obviously the community has a say Arbcom is a much better tribunal for dispute resolution. SportingFlyer T·C 23:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Especially if it turns out that there are tool use issues. Hopefully what we've seen so far (the revdel) is merely a one-off mistake - to be apologized for and moved on from. - jc37 23:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, there was no dispute resolution here. I made a referral as an uninvolved admin and SPI clerk because then-private evidence was involved. Beyond an initial acknowledgment of receipt, I never heard back from anyone speaking on behalf of the Committee—just the informal discussion with the arb I mentioned above. The secrecy of ArbCom proceedings goes both ways: On the one hand, we should not assume ArbCom did something wrong in a situation where we don't know all the facts. But on the other, we should not infer meaning from a lack of sanction by ArbCom when we don't know what their internal deliberations looked like. Were they one vote shy of serious sanctions, or did they see it as barely an issue? We don't know. As Barkeep alludes to, the community has coequal jurisdiction in matters of admin conduct where the relevant evidence is public, and for good reason. Private ArbCom deliberations are not the proper venue to establish whether admins retain the community's trust, and ArbCom has never said otherwise. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think we've been put into a tricky situation then where this has already been to Arbcom, and while obviously the community has a say Arbcom is a much better tribunal for dispute resolution. SportingFlyer T·C 23:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
To be clear - from what I see, posting to WP:AN in this case, is posting a question of behaviour. That there is IP sharing involved seems incidental to the questions being posed here and the evidence provided. So yes, questions of behaviour fall under community review. - jc37 22:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
And to add to the above, I would like to know how an AN notice to a user talk page qualifies for revdel as "Purely disruptive material". Somehow, I don't believe that action was "explained to arbcom". And without further explanation, seems like an WP:INVOLVED use of the tools inappropriately. Here's the revert edit after the revdel - [11]. - jc37 22:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was assuming this was an arbcom matter and would be deleted. Since that doesn't seem to be happening, I've reversed the revdel.[12] - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Even if you thought that, how is that an appropriate use of RD3 by you of a mandatory ANI notification by another admin? DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I was told by Arbcom this was done. I was shocked and upset to see it. My understanding of the policy is that once Arbcom has handled it, it doesn't bounce back to a drama board. There are also privacy issues here that are of concern. I've reverted and I apologize. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Even if you thought that, how is that an appropriate use of RD3 by you of a mandatory ANI notification by another admin? DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)