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. 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	32	0	32
TfD	0	0	5	0	5
MfD	0	0	10	0	10
FfD	0	0	7	0	7
RfD	0	0	111	0	111
AfD	0	0	42	0	42

• 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 121 sockpuppet investigations
• 7 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 106 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 28 requested closures
• 120 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 19 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 7656 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin List of characters in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai 2024-05-03 18:04 2024-05-12 05:38 edit,move raised to ECP as one disruptive user is autoconfirmed Daniel Case Shakespeare authorship question 2024-05-03 14:22 indefinite edit Article name was changed without consensus SouthernNights Watermelon (Palestinian symbol) 2024-05-03 02:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Ze'ev Jabotinsky 2024-05-02 23:28 indefinite edit,move Yamla Khwaja Naksh 2024-05-02 19:21 2024-05-09 19:21 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Colombia–Israel relations 2024-05-02 19:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:R animal with possibilities 2024-05-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2524 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Malay name 2024-05-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Tiger Reth 2024-05-02 14:17 2025-05-02 14:17 create Repeatedly recreated GB fan Palestinian self-determination 2024-05-02 11:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Antisemitism in US higher education 2024-05-02 09:16 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Antisemitism in Columbia University 2024-05-02 09:15 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Somaliland 2024-05-02 05:29 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; going back to ECP and will log at CTOPS Daniel Case Battle of Ocheretyne 2024-05-02 04:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case 2024 University of California, Los Angeles pro-Palestinian campus occupation 2024-05-02 04:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:MC Stan (rapper) 2024-05-01 17:40 2024-11-01 17:40 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Lisa Fithian 2024-05-01 16:48 2024-05-15 16:48 edit,move Dweller Brizyy (Singer) 2024-05-01 14:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Randykitty 2023 in Israel 2024-05-01 14:50 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA Ymblanter Cliff Cash 2024-05-01 11:14 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip 2024-05-01 06:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Johnuniq Thomas Kaplan 2024-04-30 20:37 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry Moneytrees Nothing 2024-04-30 18:18 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: Something: upgrade to WP:ECP due to disruption from multiple confirmed accounts El C 2024 Israeli protests 2024-04-30 18:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case École Des Navigateurs 2024-04-30 03:14 2024-05-07 03:14 create Repeatedly recreated Liz L'histoire juridique des paris sportifs au Canada 2024-04-30 02:50 2024-05-07 02:50 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Island Rail Corridor 2024-04-30 02:47 2024-07-30 02:47 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Lil' Cory 2024-04-30 02:23 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz

User:Marina1banch Linkspam/Paid editing? Seeking guidance

I'm seeking guidance on how to proceed, and not necessarily any particular action.

All contributions by this user follow the exact same pattern: They add a "new" fact to the article, and always contain a reference with a link to an article on social.techcrunch.com - see the latest example (they are all the same, basically).

The user has been active for some months, none of their contributions cited any other reference than techcrunch and they did not make any other type of edit.

While each edit in itself seems innocuous, the overall pattern may indicate an agenda. I'm unsure on how one would proceed with this, so I'm bringing it up with the admins who may have more power to investigate.

I'll be leaving the required notice on the user's talk page, but they have not previously engaged on talk pages, even in a previous ANI case. Averell (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This was previously discussed here. Clear possibility of COI editing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I am the editor who started that COIN thread. On a behavioural basis, COI looks highly probable. Edwardx (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. It would be one thing if this user were citing something reliable, but the citations consistently go to unreliable reports, and the worse the content added in the pattern, the more likely that it's promotional, not a matter of someone trying to improve the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. As pointed out by Lordtobi, there are also links to theverge.com: [1]. You can compare with the contributions of Alexandra.cader, RichardBentley1980 and SusanJames83. Marina1banch started editing 6 days after these 3 users were blocked. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The user has now requested an unblock, though they still didn't add their view to this discussion. Averell (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

They requested unblock again. I have to admit that I‘m mildly fascinated. The goal was obviously to generate a lot of „legit“ edits in a small amount of time (they said in the unblock request they wanted to „build up“ their account). It may be possible that they actually do what they say - churning through some random news feed and turning each item into an edit; some kind of „edit farming“ For what purpose I can only speculate... Averell (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

SPA adding links to articles

• 203.118.137.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am not really sure what to make of this. In the Game of Thrones (Season 8) article, a critical review was added from an odd source, the World Socialist Web Site. The anon IP adding this reference has been adding other WSWS links to articles (link here. I'm not sure if the source meets the criteria of a RS, but it just seems damned odd that an avowed political action site would suddenly a good source of GoT entertainment reviews. It would be if Mother Jones started writing articles about Magic the Gathering trading cards. The anon appears to be an SPA, in that all of their edits are adding WSWS links or opinion from the socialist standpoint (sans sources).
Not sure what to make of this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I have notified the IP editor of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Ed. So, what happens when they don't respond to the notice of discussion? I'm betting dollars to donuts that, as an SPA, they won't be making an appearance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I also do parties and bar mitzvahs, where my renown for predicting the future is known (it is known, khaleesi) - the anon could not give a hoot about us; they are pushing a specific dialog and view. I am updating this so it doesn't stale date amidst the rest of the wackiness ensuing here.

All sources opt for a view, but is it not disingenuous to push a socialist view regarding a review of GoT? Even Sam got smacked down in the series for suggesting something akin to socialism. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This IP has made no more edits since 22 June so there is not much reason for admin action. Let me know if it continues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Any issues with the edits the SPA has already made? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:All BLP articles lacking sources

This category includes 96,013 pages and if the category was used correctly, all of those articles on biographies of living persons lack sources. From my understanding of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, a category like this should not exist. Clovermoss (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

What should not exist is a BLP without any sources, however I spot checked 5 articles from Category:BLP articles lacking sources, and 4 out of the 5 had more than one reference. People use the tag which generates the category for articles they feel need more sources, so those 96K articles aren't completely unsourced, many of them are simply undersourced, so there's no particular need for panic. If you're concerned, grab a few articles every day and add some references if there aren't any or they need more, or remove the clean-up tag if it's been used unwisely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I have marked quite a few pages as BLP sources, yet quite often someone then changes it to BLP unsourced ignoring the fact there is a EL right there. (Granted I have made the mistake of putting unsourced before, but I usually catch that and have not done that in years I believe.) Wgolf (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wgolf: '... BLP unsourced ignoring the fact there is a EL right there' - EL's are not references. A BLP with only an EL to the subject's twitter is still unsourced. Worse, a BLP where only said twitter feed is used as a reference is still essentially unsourced. (but I agree, there will be many articles where there are reference-quality ELs and/or to which quality references have been added which are still tagged as unsourced). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay those ones I do considered unreferenced if they have something like a Twitter/Facebook/Youtube only. There are some though that are just listed as that. (I have tried using https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ to sort some out-I have found quite a bit by having articles without the reflist tag. Though it still will include ones with refrences that don't use that tag but another one) Wgolf (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wgolf: What does EL mean? Clovermoss (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"External Link".--Jorm (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

In many cases an in-line external link can be considered a reference. It's not the ideal form, but it's a ref nonetheless.

Incidentally, the 4 out of 5 articles I mentioned above all had references in the usual format, not ELs, in-line or otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

As others have said, a big part of this is users not understanding the differences between a source or reference and an inline citation. A lot of users think a source or reference is not a source or reference unless there's an inline citation. This is also partly why there are a lot of incorrect BLPPROD taggings. Adam9007 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wheel of Fortune vandalism

So there's been on and off vandalism on the Wheel of Fortune (American game show) page. It usually takes the form of inserting vaguely related gibberish related to the show. Take for example, this edit, which changes some phrasing for no discernible reason while also adding nonsensical phrases like "How to Play Wheel of Fortune in January 3 1975 After Jeopardy Between Friday & Monday" and "to Earn $1,000,000 as 2015 or 2019". I run a Wheel of Fortune fan wiki, and I often find editors in the same IP range vandalizing my wiki in a similar fashion, such as this example. It's my understanding that IPv6 addresses of this nature are harder to rangeblock, at least from what i've been told before with this editor. Given the nature of the edits -- random words, Capitalizing Every Word Regardless Of Whether It Makes Sense, repeating words, always putting words in certain manners -- I have to wonder if our IP editor is special needs in some way. What would be the best way to keep them from continuing to muck up the pages? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Have you requested semi-protection or, perhaps better, pending changes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The article is already pending-changes protected, and has been for some time. Deor (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the IPv6 addresses that have recently edited the WoF page. They are all quite different and from what I can see an enormous distance apart in terms of number. Moreover, geolocating them turns up locations all over North America. I think someone's playing with proxies or a VPN service that hasn't been caught. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Then what would work? I deal with what is clearly the exact same editor on my fan wiki. As mentioned above, the article already is on pending changes, but the edits somehow get through anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's just a couple disruptive IP editors playing around on an article that has name recognition to them. Both are range blocked now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: My concern is that the edits are so ongoing, and have spread over to my wiki as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about vandalism to Wikia. El C semi-protected Wheel of Fortune (American game show). If there's more vandalism to the articles here on Wikipedia, I can block anyone who gets through the page protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, have you thought of requiring an account to edit? If you run it, I suppose you can make tons of configuration changes. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate responses to FRAMBAN

Let’s have a meta vote to see which of the following would be useful responses:

1. We all take a holiday and redirect any issues to ArbCom and T&S.
2. We all add naughty words to our signatures.
3. We community ban one random ArbCom member.
4. We all request to vanish.
5. We remain calm and wait for WMF to address our concerns. After all, they can’t write this encyclopedia without us. We are the ultimate power.

Thanks. Vote below. Jehochman ^Talk 02:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• 6. Wait until Doc James, Jimbo Wales and ArbCom report back to us, and make a community decision at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• 5. We're here for the readers. Internal governance matters, but the service we provide to the world is more important. I also support Cullen's suggestion, but at the end of the day, my service here, while mainly behind the scenes at this time is a part of the greater reason we're here: I volunteer my time dealing primarily with privacy issues and abuse. That enables editors who shouldn't have to face harassment, vandals, and LTAs to contribute better and in some cases to feel safer in real life. While there are plenty in the community who may not like me, I think one thing the FRAMBAN thing has shown is that the community wants and needs people who are actively engaged in it to have a role in privacy and harassment issues.
  This is why I will continue to serve as an editor, a sysop, and a functionary: I think my service helps the people who write the content that our readers read. I'm sure everyone commenting here can find their own reason to stay, because ultimately, whatever happens at the WMF, we created the product and the product is bigger than either the foundation or us. It is truly a gift to the world, and I don't think we should harm that because of an issue of internal governance. Questions should be raised and answered, and the WMF has not done a great job in responding to this, but that does not impact our product, which is ultimately the output of our editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I was reading up on that, and wow, that seems a pretty over-the-top response. And there is no appeal or word as to why from on high. How, very disappointing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Amen to that. If/when the project dies, the text, under a reusable license, will also not be lost. While it's alive, it's worth keeping up. —PaleoNeonate – 08:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Two thoughts. 1, I learned a long time ago in a RL work situation that I might be irreplacable, but I wasn't indispensible (when I quit they couldn't find anyone willing to do what I did, so they eliminated the position). In other words, Wikipedia would survive without me if I left. 2, If you do not enjoy what you are doing, find something else to do. - Donald Albury 08:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Edited 09:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'd like to think that a petition signed by lots of admins would have some impact. As I've suggested elsewhere, I'd suggest that the focus be on complaining about the WMF roaming into Arbcom's turf and not providing any advice on why it didn't trust it or the admins to fix the issue, or what we can do to fix the issues which generated this lack of trust. As for direct action, no I'm not going to either disrupt Wikipedia or allow vandals to disrupt it because the WMF messed up the procedure here. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support #6, although I must say, I'm getting antsy.S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• With every day that passes, I'm more convinced that the WMF is just waiting for us to dry up and blow away. I haven't made an administrative action since the shit hit the fan, FWIW, and my enthusiasm for this place is lower than it's ever been. Miniapolis 21:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Sphilbrick at this time. The WMF Board should not, however, get the idea that the community is going to hold off on taking action forever. Their time is getting short. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• We each have to follow our conscience. I handed in my bit because I answer to the community and served at their pleasure. I'm not willing to simply be a free janitor under the control of the WMF. What happens next will depend on whether the current lull is only a stalling tactic, or if the WMF finally understands that we are supposed to be a partnership. But each person has to do what they feel is right for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think the circle on this issue needs to widen; it started with an WMF action against an administrator, yes - but the response to that cannot remain with the administrators. This affects all of us from admins on down to the occasional contributor. If WMF can arbitrarily (and without recourse or protocol for a proper, transparent handling), they can do it to anyone. Not to get all Niemöller-y, but there is no way that this cannot be seen as a slippery slope into something like Wikipedia byut is not-Wikipedia.
  

I don't know Fram and have never interacted with him. I don't know what he is accused of. But this is Wikipedia, and transparency is our currency of note. This grievance needs a public airing, or the image of Wikipedia as a self-analyzing source of information dies - and I do not believe I am being over-dramatic in saying so.

So, stop surrendering the mops and go to work letting everyone know about this. Write an article about the controversy (like was done about Essjay). Link it through DAB pages so that folk don't think Fram was just the name of a Norwegian boat. Add the Fram story to the list of Wikipedia Controversies.

Transparency is the best disinfectant against back room decisions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you know any independent reliable sources reporting on FRAMBAN? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

<delurk>This is all i could find so far. It's a start, I suppose.<lurk> Baffle☿gab 21:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah....I handed in my bit too; somehow I can feel a change in the wind....community seems to matter less and less. Lectonar (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That is exactly why I handed mine in. It isn't about Fram, it's about the condescending way the WMF is acting towards the community, and this has been a growing thing for several years. My user page says more. And now WJBscribe has handed in his admin bit, crat bit, and retired over this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    • After a sidewards look at BN...we're not the only ones leaving/handing in our bits...Lectonar (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• I would never criticize any admin choosing to resign if they feel they can no longer make a contribution here or if they just no longer want to. But the project will continue, in some shape or form. Articles are still being edited, self-promotional pages are being tagged and deleted, noticeboard conversations go on, life continues.

One editor said that 421 editors & admins had commented on the FRAM page. That means that hundreds, thousands (tens of thousands?) of editors are either unaware, indifferent or are choosing not becoming involved and are instead focusing on the work. Different choices. I feel like the issues, involving the relationships between the admins/bureaucrats, English Wikipedia, ArbCom and WMF are seriously important for our future as a project. But please keep in mind that while the voices protesting WMF's actions are some of the most senior, experienced and trusted editors, they are a minority of the active editors. Most editors are still focused on the work, not the politics. I consider all of them, "our community", those who care about WMF and those who couldn't care less. We serve all of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I reiterate, that is why the larger community needs to learn about this. No one is suggesting that WMF be taken out behind the barn for a whipping; we need them almost as much as they need us. But they need to learn their place. We are the reason they have jobs, not the other way around.

Either we get some fuller explanation behind Fram's banning, or shit gets worse. When admins - the folk who support good editor and shoe the bad ones the door - start quitting because WMF is imperiously banning senior editors - there is a problem. And it won't get better.

As for the idea that "the Project will continue, in some shape or form", I imagine the good folk at Friendster and MySpace felt pretty much the same way. Until it was too late.

Maybe the Arbs and assembled admins need to write up a notice to WMF stating that this lack of transparency is unacceptable. They are just waiting for us to get bored and accept it because, you know, it only happened to one guy. It will only embolden them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a list somewhere of admins who have resigned and those considering resignation over FRAMGATE? I have only recently become aware of this situation but everything I have read thus far is shocking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Ad Orientem: Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram/Summary#Resignations. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks BK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

More generally, I've found Wikipedia:Former administrators/chronological/2019 (and the other years) perennially depressing pages to keep on my watchlist. —Cryptic 19:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Some sort of history merge

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask. In 2015, the article Marcus Louis was userfy-ed into one of my user pages: User:Starship.paint/Marcus. Since then, it was recreated as an article and still exists now: Marcus Louis. Could an admin help merge the histories of the pages? Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You're fast, thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus! :) starship.paint (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Office actions changed from a policy page to an information page

I've changed the Wikipedia:Office actions page from a policy page to an information page. It is clear that it no longer holds local community support to be considered a policy following the update of February 2019. –xeno^talk 13:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I've got the popcorn, folks, this should be entertaining. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rdfox 76: at least it brought you out of virtual retirement. Now that's a silver lining. ——SerialNumber54129 13:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Good edit! This looks like the beginning of regime change. I would like steps taken to take over the WMF. The WMF can be run by the Wikipedia community of volunteers. QuackGuru (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

We do still need a policy on the community's handling of office actions, yes? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Admin input solicited - Indian Society of Cinematographers

Hi fellow admins, here's my issue:

A variety of IPs (who are probably sockpuppets of now blocked user Roastedcocoa) keep spamming Indian cinematographer[2] and Indian film articles[3] with postnomial "ISC" every time a member of the Indian Society of Cinematographers is mentioned. This has been going on for several months. In biographical articles they add it after the subject's name in the infobox, in the lead, and they also continuously misuse |title=. I say misuse, because we have an |organization= parameter, and ISC (being an organization) is not an honorific or a degree, so "title" is wrong. I've asked about this at WikiProject Film and while not many people commented, the general feeling is that the postnomials probably don't belong in the |title= of the infobox and they shouldn't be used at individual film articles. In some cases I've left them after the person's name in the lead of a biography.

However, there is a serious marketing campaign going on. Here is an example of Roastedcocoa insanely adding 10 of these in a general article about Indian cinematographers. (Note that all the links are circular, too.) There was even an effort to hijack the general Indian cinematographers article. In 2017 it was a basic article with some mention of the ISC. In these edits an IP changed the entire focus of that article to the Indian Society of Cinematographers.

Some (but not all) IPs involved:

• 49.207.63.117
• 106.51.107.188
• 106.51.109.159
• 106.51.109.35

Tl;dr, at what point would it be fair game to add "Indian Society of Cinematographers" to our keyword blacklist? Also I'm open to other options, but that seems like it could be the most impactful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Consider posting at WT:WPSPAM to get some advice, and find out if this justifies adding a blacklist entry. If you are hoping to get admin feedback on your actions so far, they look justified to me. I have semiprotected Indian Society of Cinematographers for 3 months due to spam. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

TFD > 3 months

Hi. Please could someone take a look at this TfD, which has been open for more than 3 months? Just a note that I was active in the discussion, but would appreciate if this could be closed one way or the other. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Working on it. Primefac (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: thank you for looking at this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Close review - Village Pump discussion on spelling of category names

• Discussion: WP:Village pump (policy)#RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names
• Close: [4]
• Closer: Cinderella157
• Discussion of the close: WP:Village pump (policy)#Post closure discussion
• Closer notified of this review: [5]

I have not been involved in this issue, other than responding to the RFC. I rarely touch categories, and I don't much care what the final outcome is here. However I strongly object to canvassing, and I very much dislike bad closures.

Grounds for overturn:

• A closer's job is to assess community consensus and apply policies and guidelines. The closer acknowledges that they did not even attempt to do so in their closing statement and in the post closure discussion. The simply disregarded WP:Canvassing, and they blindly assessed consensus of the canvassed participants in front of them. I believe a reasonable closer could have accounted for the canvassing. If a closer finds that canvassing has irredeemably corrupted the process, they can void the discussion. They can direct that the RFC restart from scratch. It is within reasonable discretion for a closer to be unable to resolve a case of gross canvassing, however it is not within discretion to willfully ignore gross canvassing.
• I fully agree that a closer can disregard votecount and close on the basis of policy, or close on the basis of weight of argument. I have personally closed a 20 vs 10 RFC in favor of the 10. However a policy based close needs to cite a solid policy basis, and a "weight of argument" close needs to cite a solid and respectable explanation. One of my main goals when closing is to ensure that the "losing side" receives a rationale which they can (unhappily) respect. We do not have that here. The closer declared an overriding "weight of argument" for "The most compelling arguments are to embrace our differences". Huh? I don't recall ever seeing such a strange or hollow basis for closure. I am also puzzled how that has clear overriding weight against concerns of disruption-of-work.
• (edit: This is a supporting/explanatory factor, not a fundamental basis for overturn:) The closer has an unusually strong personal minority-bias on the language issue. A causal inspection of their usertalk reveals an exceptional personal inclination towards 's' over 'z'. In fact Google reports that "winterised" (with an s) is a borderline-fringe usage by 6.8% of the world. This evident personal bias, combined with a disregard for the blatant canvassing issue, combined with the fluffy-puffy "embrace our differences" rationale, creates an overriding impression of a Supervote.

I'm fine with however this ends up. But this close erodes confidence in our system of closures. Can we please get something respectable? A respectable outcome if possible, or a costly repeat-RFC if necessary. Alsee (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Supplementary information: This is the state of the RFC at the time of canvassing. It had been closed as The proposal has gained consensus to pass. The RFC was reopened and hit with a surge of opposes after the canvassing. Alsee (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the merits of the debate itself (fwiw, I supported standardisation) but I am really uncomfortable with the last objection here. When the question is a binary "do A or do B", everyone is going to look like a partisan if you approach it with this mindset. If you're going to challenge the closer for their use of a language variant, when they've expressed no opinion on the matter, who would be allowed to close the next one? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Gray I wouldn't have looked at their personal inclination, if not for the first two points. The first two points establish the problem with the close. I said that the third point combined with the first two create an overriding impression of a supervote. I consider it a supportive/explanatory factor. Alsee (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a rather strange closing statement but from a brief look I'm not seeing a consensus for much in that discussion. The discussion did establish that the relevant policies/guidelines can be read as supporting either option, and that opinion on the subject is pretty divided. That largely takes care of the main reasons for closing either way. Given that all English speakers use one of the two variants exclusively, every single possible closer would have the "bias" that's being claimed here. Hut 8.5 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The close needs to be re-done--it was an atrocious, wandering, closing statement that didn't actually summarize the discussion. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have rarely seen a clearer case of no consensus than that discussion. Opinions are hopelessly split, everyone is talking across each other, no solid arguments made to persuade anyone. Seems like a solid close to me,and one that needed to be made because it looks like the whole thing was a huge time drain. Wikipedia's ENGVAR split is always going to be a somewhat tricky issue, but by and large we get through it without dispute. Suggest people drop the stick and move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Amakuru, 3-to-1 support isn't usually considered a clear case of no consensus. Especially when opposes give no rationale that their position is in any way superior.
    (For those who missed my point, my reference to 3-to-1 support is before the RFC was re-opened and one disruptive individual selectively canvassed 11 wikiprojects to manufacture a surge of opposes.) Alsee (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    • If you're going to make accusations of disruption, at least have the decency to notify me. As for the accusation of "selective canvassing", this was a proposal to mandate that an English word had to be spelt in a way different to that used in several countries or regions. Therefore it seems eminently reasonable that editors from those countries or regions should be alerted to a discussion that would specifically affect them with a neutral notification (there was little or no point in posting it to American/Canadian etc WikiProjects as the proposal would not affect their categories. I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with this, unless they have a case of sour grapes over the fact that a large numebr of editors from said countries were opposed to the change. Number 57 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have responded in part to Alsee (the OP of this thread) in the post-close discussion here.

• I have not "ignored" the matter of VOTESTACKING.
• I have found "no consensus" (as distinct from "consensus against"). I am happy to amend if this needs to be made clearer. It is similar to the outcome of directing that the RfC start from scratch - an outcome acceptable to Alsee? If this represents the substantive reason for contesting the close, then I suggest there is "no reason".
• The most compelling arguments are to embrace our differences ≠ The closer declared an overriding "weight of argument" for ... - particularly in the context of a "no consensus" close. WP:5P5 identifies "principles and spirit matter more than literal wording". I am not invoking WP:IAR. The principle of ENGVAR etc is to "embrace our differences", rather than argue about them when they are if little consequence (to understanding). COMMONALITY applies where understanding may be compromised. The former is therefore more compelling, since this here, is not a matter of "understanding". This is a matter of identifying the underpinning principles of policy and guidelines (as I believe the OP has implored me to do) since the guidelines cited do not specifically address the issue. However, in the circumstances, this was an observation of the discussion and not a finding of "consensus".
• If I was brief in my close, and subsequently unclear, I apologise to the extent that the close template is a restriction. I believe it is reasonable to seek clarification of a close. I have responded to clarify. However, it is not appropriate to assume "bad faith", to misrepresent matters or to be uncivil in the process (see post close comments).
• I think that Amakuru's comments are particularly pertinent.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't recommend starting the RFC from scratch, at least not now. No consensus is a valid close of any discussion, and it means that at this time there is no agreement, and often a fair bit of dispute too. The result of such a discussion is to retain the status quo, whatever that is, and move on. Restarting is likely to just see the same participants come back and make the same points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - the views of the proposer @BrownHairedGirl: would be of interest. Oculi (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn. The close was exceptionally poor and fluffy, and gives no appearance of even attempting to actually weight the discsussion in light of the votestacking.

It is utterly disgraceful that Number 57 continues to deny that they engaged in votestacking. After numerous expalanations by numerous editors at several venues, Number 57 still has the gall to say I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with this, unless they have a case of sour grapes over the fact that a large numebr of editors from said countries were opposed to the change.

It's very simple:

1. Number 57 engaged in blatant votestacking by notifying only sets of editors who he considered most likely to agree with his view. Categories relating to neatly all countries may be renamed by this proposal, and editors from all countries may have views on this, but Number 57 chose to notify only those who he believed would support his view.
2. This was done stealthily, without any notification to the RFC that the notifications have been made.

Number 57 has been admin for nearly 12 years, and a prolific contributor (over 190K edits). He has participated in enough discussions over the years to know exactly what he was doing here, so the despicable manipulativeness of his conduct has no defence of ignorance or error. Any remaining shred of good faith I might assume in N57's conduct has been destroyed by his vile attempt to claim that objections are a case of sour grapes. This doubling-down on his highly disruptive misconduct makes Number 57 completely fit to be an editor, let alone an admin. If I have the time and energy to pursue the case for a desysopping of Number 57, I will do so ... and i will do it with great sadness, because I previously had high regard for Number 57's work.

The whole process of consensus-formation breaks if an editor (and esp a highly-experienced admin) betrays the community's trust in this way. Regardless of whether the community proceeds to give Number 57 a well-deserved desysopping and/or CBAN, the result of that duplicity should not stand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly on Arsenal W.F.C.

User:Marchjuly has repeatedly reverted my attempts to update the Arsenal W.F.C. article with a correct version of the club badge. The badge that is currently on the page is not only outdated (it uses the wrong name), it was never actually used by the club. It was a Twitter profile photo that was apparently chosen as a "solution" when a bot deleted the correct badge file (Arsenal FC.svg) for not having multiple NFCC templates (one for Arsenal FC, another for Arsenal WFC). I have fixed this by adding a second NFCC template, as we do for all other women's clubs that share a badge with corresponding men's clubs. And yet he still refuses to let me fix the page because he seems to think this three year old flawed compromise is law, and is holding out for one specific admin (User:Explicit) to "figure out what to do," even though obviously nothing needs to be figured out - one logo is correct and the other is wrong. Eightball (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to explain why the file was removed on my user talk page at User talk:Marchjuly#Arsenal Women, at User talk:Explicit#Arsenal Women and in edit summaries here. There've been a few edit conflict while posting which might have caused confusion, but despite what Eightball posts here, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is not some "made up hoop" that I've created. All he needs to do is discuss things with Explicit and explain why the close should be re-considered. File:Arsenal FC.svg was removed by Explicit when he closed the FFD discussion (see here and here; the file wasn't deleted at that time because it was still be used in another article. File:ArsenalLFC Twitter logo.png was deleted per WP:F5 because someone removed the file from the article and it became orphaned non-free use; this was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124#Arsenal W.F.C., Explicit commented in that discussion, and then restored that the Twitter logo file and re-added it to the article last month per this edit. Eightball re-added the other file with this edit and I removed it per Explicit. Eightball posted on my user talk about this here and I explained why I removed the file here, but we had an edit conflict. Eightball also posted about this at Explicit's user talk here and I responded here and here. At no point have I been trying to avoid discussion; I've been actually suggesting to Eightball how this might be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There would be nothing to resolve were it not for your involvement and insistence on reverting an obvious and necessary correction. The page was wrong, I fixed it, and now I'm spending hours of my day dealing with the fallout solely because of you. Eightball (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

And you to have the self-awareness to understand that what you are demanding I do in order to make this change (which, again, is obvious and necessary) is absolutely absurd and indefensible. Eightball (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly is correct. Per the result of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg, File:Arsenal FC.svg should not be added to any other pages, except for the one it is already used in. @Eightball: Please drop the stick; if you re-add File:Arsenal FC.svg to Arsenal W.F.C., I'll be happy to block you for disruption. If you have a problem with the result of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg, then please make your case at WP:DRV. -FASTILY 01:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion at DRV would likely just result in relisting the file for further discussion at WP:FFD, which would be a waste of a week. I suggest going straight to FFD, an editor did at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 20#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg. ƏXPLICIT 07:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I found a mistake on Wikipedia and it took me ten seconds to fix, and that should've been that. Now it's going to take me literal days to make that fix permanent because you insist on forcing me to lie to our readers until I jump through your hoops. This website is broken. Eightball (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I would have to think WP:IAR is relevant here. The admins and Wiki rules are only serving to stop me from improving Wikipedia. I have a very hard time accepting this. Eightball (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something here (and that's a good possibility, since I rarely if ever disagree with Marchjuly), but the FFD restricted use on sub-groups of Arsenal FC. The WFC is a separate entity. We have plenty of company logos that are used in more than one location, provided they have the non-free notice for each one. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Yup, I was right, I missed something (see below). Primefac (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Some editors do consider the women's teams to be "sub-groups" of the men's teams, but I don't think that debate even matters - as you say, there's nothing wrong with using logos in multiple locations so long as there are non-free notices for each one. I made this change but the admin involved in the discussion removed it, for reasons I can't possibly understand. The whole thing is immensely frustrating. Can you please chime in on the FFD discussion? They forced me to do this little dance and yet no one has even participated in the discussion. Such an incredible waste of time. Eightball (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-free files are only required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7, and they can be used in more than one article as long as each use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. Providing a separate, specific non-free use rationale, however, is only one (actually it's just one part WP:NFCC#10) of these criteria and doing so doesn't (as explained in WP:JUSTONE) automatically mean all of the other criterion are being met. The file had a non-free use rationale for the women's team article when it was first discussed at WP:FFD and this rationale was removed by the closing admin Explicit when he removed the file from the article. The file wasn't originally removed from the article for not having a rationale, but for other NFCCP issues; so, you recently re-adding a non-free use rationale to the file's page for the women's team didn't change anything from that FFD discussion. This is why you were asked to discuss things with the closing admin Explicit and this is why Fastily removed the rationale you added. What needed to be done is for you to establish a new consensus for the file's non-free use based upon the women's team re-branding in 2017; this is why Fastily suggested DRV and Explicit suggested FFD. A consensus can change over time, especially when there's some new relevant information to be considered per item 3 of "Deletion review may be used" in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but you just don't unilaterally decide such a thing yourself, particularly when it involves an administrator's decision, and you don't just claim IAR to justify ignoring an administrator's close because you think it was made in error. Now, that you've started a new FFD discussion about the file's non-free use, it's possible that a new consensus will be established in favor of adding the file to the article, which means that anyone who disagrees with that close will be expected to do exactly the same thing you were asked to do (i.e. follow CLOSECHALLENGE). -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I would strongly request that you stop interacting with me on this website. I will do what I need to in order to fix the article; I don't need any further harassment from you. Eightball (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a stupid question

I'm curious as to whether my fellow admins are aware that Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout states "Talk pages of indefinitely blocked users should be cleared of all content except the block notice. This block notice should explain the block reason, or link to the block log which does so" . I can think of instances where this very much is not the case and could impede block reviews, SPI cases etc. I only noticed when I saw edits such as this. Am I out of the loop on standard protocol?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless the editor has also lost talk page access, they would be fully entitled to remove all content. Including the block notice for that matter. Only declined unblock requests of the current block couldn't be removed. Per WP:BLANKING and WP:OWNTALK. So IMO it would be a mistake for admins to assume such material has not been cleared out. Of course the fact they could be cleared out doesn't mean admins need to do so although I think it can be common especially when it's not expected the editor will ever be back. E.g. non master sock accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. As long as talk page access is available the blocked editor is free to blank the majority of the content on the page themselves, but I don't understand why others should do so on their behalf.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've fixed the project page. I removed the subsection. It's absurd advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure how it even ended up there in the first place as it doesn't align with the blocking policy.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ponyo: It was added by Bellerophon (here) in 2011. It is an excellent thing that it has been removed, as such gravedancing is much favoured by wannabe admins and wikicops. ——SerialNumber54129 10:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Gumswick55

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

---

User_talk:ViperSnake151#Strange_IP

In my opinion Gumswick55 doesn't understand that amateur boxing, and Olympic boxing in particular, is not about national things, it's about the level of competion which one or another national Olympic team could have brought to the game, especially in such sensitive issue as in case of the boycotted Olympics (1980, 1984, 1988,) therefore articles on athletes and events that they've participated in should be free of any nationalistic agenda regardless of who was boycotting whom, the political things are of least importance in the sports-related articles (in my opinion, Gumswick55 with his ad hominem approach, and edits like these [6], has trouble complying with the WP:Politeness either, but that is not an issue of main importance.) 93.73.36.17 (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:SaskatchewanSenator ; Senatorsfansask

Please check

• SaskatchewanSenator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Senatorsfansask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.16.13.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 188.93.243.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

in connection to aforementioned User:Max Arosev, for the same reason: an edit war already in progress over the same article of little or no interest within two hours since previous account was blocked, (with another edite war in a bunch of related articles,) along with constant deleting related thread from my talk page, and from the article's talk page. (It seems that somehow the topic is sensitive to Max.) Thank you in advance. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I reported your IP. Hope that finally puts your destructive activity to an end. Senatorsfansask (talk • contribs) 09:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a sockpuppet report? Why the strong wording? I think this should be moved to the bottom section. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If you can help by moving it to the bottom section, I'll appreciate it very much (for I don't know how exactly to move it.) Thank you. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I meant that you should have said something like this at the bottom, but let's just leave it here.

Those users seem pretty familiar with Wikipedia even though they are very new users. How would they be able to know about the {{uw-unsourced2}} templates after being 1 hour on Wikipedia? It is possible, but only if you click on random links in the Wikipedia namespace. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I can easily answer that question. I’ve been using Wikipedia for a long time without being involved in editing. Now I saw an anonymous IP vandalizing this platform, and decided that it’s time to act. First, I undid some of his edits from my IP (188.93.243.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), then I decided to create an account (Senatorsfansask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). SaskatchewanSenator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)’s name (I noticed him fighting an anonymous vandal yesterday, he has been editing since 2007) served as an inspiration. 5.16.13.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is unrelated to me. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing since 2007? 93.73.36.17's earliest edit was in 2016. Besides, you should be replying using your account, not your IP. How was 93.73.36.17 vandalising? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about SaskatchewanSenator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who was reported by 93.73.36.17). Read it again. How was 93.73.36.17 vandalizing? He added SPECULATIVE, UNNECESSARY and CONTROVERSIAL content. SaskatchewanSenator has been editing since 2007, as he’a somehow a sock, according to 93.73.36.17. And, again, I forgot my account’s password (I told that, too). Yes, I have some memory problems, so I’ll stick with my IP. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Then it should have been talked about in the talk page. It isn't vandalism. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Look at that edit. He added a personal opinion in contravention to Wikipedia’s policies. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

But that's not vandalism. That's close to WP:COMMENTARY. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

In a number of instances the user is employing the same offensive expressions (cf. "dipshit IP", for example: 1, 2, 3, 4,) so I suggest edit histories should be checked also for the same connection to the aforementioned master account if that is technically possible. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's because 188.93.243.189 and Senatorsfansask are the same person. Apparently they forgot the password for Senatorsfansask. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that to an editor who doesn’t read the comments. Speaking of my rvts with “offensive remarks”, that’s my bad, I was too impulsive. Promise not to use that language again. I also suggest focusing instead on the contents of his edits. 188.93.243.189 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Let’s be civil and assume good faith. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School

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

---

I'd apprentice it if someone versed in copyright issues would take a look at the above article with an eye to removing the huge template in the history section. This school is in the midst of a controversy right now and it would be nice to have that template gone. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears Archer1234 took care of it. All that's left is to reconstruct something that isn't a copyvio out of it. John from Idegon (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot of copy removed. Please make sure a {{revdel}} request is placed. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Potential COI and Sock Puppet

Hello,

I have two users who work for the same company and edit in very similar ways. You can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Appiah Akoto their actions. Pambelle12 has had a huge history with deletions and seems to know quite a bit about the person who is being Nominated for deletion. Benebiankie Works for the same company as Pambelle and edited in a similar style. Note how they both used a bullet point with out a "Keep" or "Delete" comment. They made the same mistake. It seems suspicious and there is no COI tag either. Could someone please assist me in investigating?

Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it proper for an admin to censor a page of an unblocked user?

User:Bbb23 has reverted my talk page messages at the talk page of User:Cirt twice now, in his last edit summary saying this is an administrative action, the user is a sockmaster who hasn't (and can't) edited in over 3 years, leave the talk page alone. Looking at the edit history of that page I see he has been removing similar messages of other users under a similar rationale. This seems problematic to me on two levels:

• first, and of less importance: there is no indication that User:Cirt has been blocked (ever). If he was a sock or a sockmaster, isn't it customary to block them indefinitely in either case, regardless of whether they retired or not? There is no indication on Cirt's user or talk page he has been declared a sock(master) by the community, ArbCom or such. Without a proof of his wrongdoing, calling him a sockmaster seems like a WP:NPA. I did find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cirt/Archive, but the only person who confirmed that Cirt was a sockmaster is... Bbb23. I do not find it comforting that a single user, without community discussion or even so much as a second opinion by another admin, gets to decide by themselves whether someone is a sock(master) or not. (But, to keep it short, and per WP:AGF, I am not challenging Bbb23's call here, particularly since Cirt is inactive, so - who cares, eh; I am not posting here to defend his good name, or such; in fact I have no particualr reason to doubt's Bbb23's judgement here since he clearly has more experience with SPI cases that I do).
• second, here is the main reason I am posting here. Regardless of whether an editor is blocked, or is a sockmaster, I see nothing in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines justifying removal of other editors messages to their talkpages; on the contrary, the guidelines are clear: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.". Wikietiquette dictates that only the owner can remove messages from their talkpage, unless they are uncontroversial vandalism type of an edits. What policy gives Bbb23 the right to apoint himself a custodian of Cirt's talk page and decide what posts stay there and what posts do not? Particularly after I asked him not to remove my comment?

I think I and any other editors who wishes to do so should have the right to leave whatever messages they want at Cirt's talk page with no interference from others. I find in it very worrying when an admin gives himself extra rights that violate a guideline (TPG) and threatens others with their position ("this is an administrative action"). Sorry, to me this not administrative action, but administrative power abuse. I have full rights to leave comments at Cirt's pages, regardless of what his standing in the community in general, and Bbb23's views of him in particular, are. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• What the fuck? How is this a valid administrative action? It's not even explained?!? No one has the right to force-delete talk page comments outside of the purview of WP:TPO. Of course, this notion is flexible, such as if there's a good reason for a talk page to remain unedited without exception, but if that's the case, how are you just gonna revert a good faith editor with an edit summary of "no" without explaining what the hell you're doing?! Seriously?? By all face-value appearances, Cirt is a highly established WP:MISSING editor in good standing, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise. You can't just decide that no one is allowed to post on their talk page, without any policy rationale, or any rationale. That goes beyond every basic conduct standard we have. If Cirt is to be treated like a blocked LTA sock master who's not even allowed to receive messages, then at least block and tag. Don't just revert posters with no explanation. I literally have nothing against you, Bbb23, in fact, I respect what you do, but you seemingly never stop making these completely unreasonable and borderline-abusive actions that give me cause to speak out against. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding "By all face-value appearances, Cirt is a highly established WP:MISSING editor in good standing, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise" et al, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cirt. ‑ Iridescent 2 07:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cirt.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So why not just block him and end all this drama? What are we all missing? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Regarding the possible block of Cirt, it would be good to get a community's consensus before blocking and editor who can be described, to quote Swarm, "By all face-value appearances, Cirt is a highly established WP:MISSING editor in good standing". If there is community consensus that the linked SPI and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cirt with its shocking contents of a single sock is sufficient for a block, so be it, but I think more than one admin should endorse such an action when dealing with an established editor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Two socks of this editor have actually been blocked. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Given the lack of direct reply by Bbb23 either here on on his talk page outside reposting a SPI link that I've already posted, and other comments here, with none disputing my right to do so or citing any policy allowing an admin to arbitrarily censor another editor's talk page, I am planning on restoring my comment on Cirt's talk page since I believe this is my right within WP:TPG. If there is any policy that I should be aware of that indeed allows an admin to remove my talk page posts to another editor as 'administrative action', please do tell me this ASAP. TIA.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to see a good reason to be posting the talk page of this account to invite them to participate in an article with controversial political aspects. Given that they were caught using a sockpuppet to evade their topic ban on political biographies last October and December, no good is likely to come from this and it looks like an invitation for them to sock some more. I'm also surprised that Cirt hasn't been blocked as a procedural matter: using two sockpuppet accounts to try to evade a topic ban is clearly not on. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 has said he would block the Cirt account if it ever returned to editing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted Bbb23, on the grounds that neither Cirt nor Piotrus are blocked, and I cannot find a policy that says posting on talk pages of retired editors in good standing is a sanctionable offence. (See User:Ritchie333/Don't template the retirees, but that is simply good advice not policy). In turn, Bbb23 should read WP:OWN and WP:TPG and particular WP:3RR. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Cirt isn’t in good standing, he socked to evade a topic ban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If he wasn't in good standing, he would be blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, he will be blocked by Bbb23 if he returns to editing [7]. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not the same thing. GiantSnowman 11:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

To avoid future confusion, I’ve blocked Cirt. For more background on this, see this discussion about blocking stale accounts. Sometimes stale masters aren’t blocked since it doesn’t really matter much, but I think in this case it makes sense given that it’s a former longstanding editor. Letting Bbb23 know, and he can reverse me if he thinks it’s inappropriate as he handled much of the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts - Piotrus should not have posted, but Bbb23 should not have reverted, and Cirt should be blocked for socking. GiantSnowman 11:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I partially agree - Piotrus was within his (?) rights to post, especially given what he knew. However you are right on the other two aspects Nosebagbear (talk)

• I would say that an editor who has broken the rules to a point that they warrant an indef shouldn't be told they'd be blocked if they returned - just blocked. If only to avoid individuals slipping through the net in the future (which could happen if, say, Bbb23 ever left). This at least should be the case in the case of a remotely established editor. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Page history shows that Bbb23 has been routinely removing comments and xfd notifications from Cirt's talk page for several months. It's standard practice to notify editors when their creations are up for deletion, and in my experience it can be helpful to see past xfd nominations in case there's some sort of pattern. These removals are totally uncalled for. –dlthewave ☎ 12:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with those who say BBB's removals were improper. Generally, removal of talk page comments that aren't your own shouldn't be done. pbp 13:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• @TonyBallioni: I have reblocked Cirt as, if I had done it a long time ago, as was recommended by several editors, it would have been - and now is - a CU block. I've also, as is normal, tagged the userpage. I've left in Ritchie333's misguided revert because I don't intend to edit-war over something this lame. If editors want to invite a confirmed sock to edit, what can I say?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Abusive behavior and controversial edits by an IP

93.73.36.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received numerous warnings on his [talk page], yet he never ceased his dubious activity, and made many controversial and speculative edits that were later reverted. Examples: [edit #1], [revert]; [edit #2], [revert]. Senatorsfansask (talk • contribs) 09:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You haven't notified him about your ANI report. I've done it for you. I think this is a case of the user not having a neutral point of view. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)