Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	14	33
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	2	4	6
RfD	0	0	22	50	72
AfD	0	0	0	6	6

• 13 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 141 sockpuppet investigations
• 25 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 16 requests for RD1 redaction
• 55 elapsed requested moves
• 6 Pages at move review
• 25 requested closures
• 129 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 16 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (26 out of 7750 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Talk:Nagyal 2024-05-16 04:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Neil Hartigan 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Tad Jude 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Minneapolis 2024-05-15 17:15 2025-05-15 17:15 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Draft:CaseOh 2024-05-15 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dennis Brown Poot 2024-05-15 00:14 2025-05-15 00:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Spore (2008 video game) 2024-05-14 23:39 2024-11-14 23:39 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Jewish Institute for National Security of America 2024-05-14 06:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller Nava Mau 2024-05-14 03:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Andrey Belousov 2024-05-14 03:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Category:Hamas 2024-05-13 23:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Sde Teiman detention camp 2024-05-13 20:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Çankaya Mansion 2024-05-13 14:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:GS/AA Rosguill Second Battle of Latakia 2024-05-13 13:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Alien 2024-05-13 13:23 indefinite move lower to semi, time heals; requested at WP:RfPP The Night Watch Shays' Rebellion 2024-05-13 08:08 2025-05-13 08:08 move dang it. Not used to move protection, I guess.... Dennis Brown Chuck Buchanan Jr. 2024-05-13 02:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse 2024-05-13 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Michael Ealy 2024-05-13 01:22 2025-05-13 01:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: racist swinery Drmies Template:Nelson, New Zealand 2024-05-13 00:51 indefinite move Highly visible template that is vulnerable to macron vandalism Schwede66 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024-05-12 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Interracial marriage 2024-05-12 19:14 2024-11-12 19:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry RoySmith Template:FAQ/FAQ 2024-05-12 10:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers User:Arjayay/Rang HD 2024-05-12 10:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rang HD -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Rangiya 2024-05-12 09:27 2024-10-16 06:56 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: confirmed socks edit the article Ymblanter Vaush 2024-05-12 07:35 indefinite edit,move per WP:CT/BLP Primefac

Might ARBPIA-rules be needed for the war in Ukraine?

Many articles related to the war in Ukraine see heavy edit warring and frequent policy violations from IPs and very new accounts, to such a level that it becomes detrimental. A similar rule as for WP:ARBPIA would probably be beneficial, in other words, users would need to:be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days' tenure. While many disputes would no doubt continue (just as on articles related to ARBPIA)), applying this rule to articles related to the war in Ukraine might go some way to reduce the worst disruptions. Jeppiz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Usually when restrictions are proposed for entire topics at this board hindsight has shown they weren't really necessary in the first place, though the community usually doesn't agree to repeal them. See the Uyghur GS authorisation which has been used for 4 page protections, various other stale GS authorisations, and the topic-wide ECP restriction for India/Pakistan conflicts, which went largely unenforced though the community did eventually repeal that one. The ARBPIA WP:ECR rule is a huge exception to the rule, and only exists for two topic areas currently. There should be a very high burden of evidence required to institute the restriction on more topic areas. The evidence should include showing a chronic pattern of topic-wide disruption, to levels far greater than the disruption naturally present in any contentious event, especially current ones (e.g. consider anything current and American Politics related). In the meantime, there is WP:ARBEE and discretionary per-page ECP protections, which AFAIK has been working well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need for that at the moment - I think WP:ARBEE page-level and user-level actions are working well. A significant amount of the disruption I've seen has been from anonymous and/or new editors which can be contained via semi-protection, or ECP where warranted. Topic-level ECR would be using a sledgehammer to crack nuts at the moment. firefly ( t · c ) 09:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with firefly --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ditto, we already have tools in place to deal with this and by and large it seems to be working. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Jeppiz:, I fear that an external campaign is being organized outside Wikipedia to influence some articles related to the conflict, which would explain the arrival of brand-new and single-purpose users who are engaging in discussions on hot issues. I think there is a need to protect this topic. Mhorg (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg: Intriguing, I must say! Would you be willing to cite some examples/suspects? Because if this is true, we must assuredly do all we can to flush them out! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, I would like to show you this small collection of data. These are just the single-purpose or dormant users, who in these days have taken action to remove the "neo-Nazi" label at the Azov Battalion[1]. I fear that there is an ongoing campaign outside Wikipedia, perhaps through some blog\forum\reddit, to intervene on the article. Therefore I ask some admin to consider protecting the page from users with less than 500 changes. In addition to these users, there are dozens and dozens of anonymous users interventions, all pushing in that same direction:

• Good dog rex 2 total edits: he says that the Azov Battalion isn't a part of the neo-nazi movement [2]
• OlgaAlska 2 total edits: says that the current article is "Russian propaganda" [3]
• Baylrock 3 total edits: join a RFC and says that the paragraph about "Nazism" is "a potential lie spread by Russian propaganda"[4]
• JKWMteam 3 total edits: says that "This article is deliberately and regularly edited with disinformation describing Azov as extremist and neo-nazi guilty of military crimes, with questionable sources as proof." [5]
• Wked00 3 total edits: says that they want to change "neo-Nazi" to "right-wing".[6]
• Averied 6 total edits says: "Could we just add "presumably neonazi"??"[7]
• Metalsand 9 total edits: says the group "is not strictly neo-nazi"[8]
• Editdone 21 total edits: says that the current article "is being used for propoganda"[9]
• Disconnected Phrases 86 total edits, single-purpose user for Azov Battalion[10]: says that "The idea that the Azov Battalion is "a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine," is straight Russian propaganda".[11] Literally, it would be propaganda a 2021 RFC[12] in which dozens of users participated and defined that part of the text.
• Berposen 88 edits on the English wiki, 37 edits from 2020 to 2021: says that "neonazi faction separated from the battalion" therefore: it would mean that the battalion is no longer neo-Nazi.[13]
• PompeyTheGreat 376 total edits with 8 edits in 2022[14]: says "a lot of the claims in this article are either factually untrue, echo Russian propaganda"[15]--Mhorg (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Many editors note issues with the Azov Battalion page. User:Mhorg was already reminded about NPA and SOAP here. There is a procedure for dealing with socks. Infinity Knight (talk)

New editors make a lot of very good points. Many of those that are coming to the Azov Battalion page are in Eastern Europe, possibly are active editors on other wikis, and often have better access to the facts on the ground. They may not always be neutral - I wouldn’t be either if my children were in danger — but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are making stuff up, or that they need to be excluded.

For instance, the claims in the article absolutely *do* echo Russian propaganda. I suppose it is possible that Russian propaganda could be correct, as they have such a high regard for the truth, but I personally prefer my Wikipedia articles to have reliable sources. The sources absolutely *were* questionable, and it’s not me saying it, it’s the reliable sources noticeboard. There is an arguable case to be made that the battalion *is* right-wing, or once *were* neoNazi. I have not yet looked at the new sources for “is neo-Nazi”. Possibly the admin that got involved on the RS page has managed to get them to find some actual sources, in which case yay and I will believe them. But as of yesterday or the day before, the sources for “is neo-Nazi” in the lede at Azov Battalion had been uniformly laughable.

I think that valid input is valid input. IPs and new users or not, the fact that people keep coming to the page to say it has problems may just possibly be not so much due to an “Azov Battalion edit-a-thon” as some have suggested —-they are rather too busy keeping Russians out of Europe for that—- as it is to the fact that the page does indeed have problems. If meat puppetry is suspected, then an SPI case is the remedy, not excluding valid input Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian-originated meatpuppetry has been a commonplace on this project for several years, and looked exactly like this one - dormant and new accounts and IPs showing up out of nowhere to make a point, not bothering (pr pretending not to bother) to read previous discussions, and hoping to win by a sheer number of votes. In most cases, CUs can not help, only blocks and protections can. Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Ymblanter: for your opinion. Given this situation, and since we are having an important RFC on this issue, wouldn't it be possible to prevent users under 500 edits from participating in these discussions? Mhorg (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I can not act as administrator in this topic area, and honestly I think that a broad ban such as in PIA topic area is not yet needed. Even in the PIA topic area, non-extended-confirmed users may participate in the discussion. I do not have an opinion on the specific Azov discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, another dormant account jumped in the new RFC, Tristario with 12 total edits. I think it is not possible to have such an influence on the debate from this kind of users. There is a risk of distorting the content of the encyclopedia. @Rosguill:, sorry for the ping, could you please check if this situation (including the 11 cases listed above) is normal? Mhorg (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Another brand-new account, AndrewDryga (3 total edits) on the Azov, writes:[16] "Remove "neo-Nazi" from the definition of the battalion" Mhorg (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Another dormant user Mihaiam, first edit of the 2022, 120 edits on English wiki from 2007, says that[17] "It's disrespectful to the Ukrainian government" to show the political orientation of the Azov Battalion. Please, can anyone take a look at all these cases?--Mhorg (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Another brand-new account, Radar2102 (19 total edits) on the Azov, writes:[18] "The term “is a” neo Nazi unit conflicts with later information in this article that states the unit was depoliticized. It’s also very inflammatory".--Mhorg (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban review/revisiting/appeal

• SecretName101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Original ANI discussion
• Talk-page discussion
• Earlier appeal

It has been over five months since @El C: put in place a topic ban on my account. I would like to appeal now for a revisiting/lifting of the topic ban. El C has advised that, due to time limitations at the moment making it difficult for them to provide me with a timely verdict in reviewing the topic ban, I appeal to a user board such as this instead of to them alone.

I would like to first apologize for any and all pain or damage poor judgement on my part brought on Wikipedia. I better understand now that, particularly in editing articles pertaining to living subjects, there is a high level of caution that needs to be measured. I much better understand that, if a draft article that feels limited in scope an appears to paint a overly-negative picture, it is best for it to either go unpublished in the article space, or at least first go through other hands for review and revision first. I much better understand that, when such an article deals with someone who skirts the line between sufficient notability and inadequate notability for this project, it is best to practice particularly great caution.
___________

Months ago, I believe, El_C told me something along the lines of the best way to demonstrate that I contribute to the project with good faith was being that I proceed to make positive edits where I can.

Some of the work I have done over the past several months includes the following:

In related edits, I improved Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson, and spun-off/expanded Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, First impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson and Second impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson.

In related edits, I improved William McAndrew, expanded 1927 Chicago mayoral election, created William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign and Administrative hearing of William McAndrew, and made minor improvements to other related articles. William McAndrew was elevated to a "good article" by me.

I enhanced and created a number of other articles related to educators.

I improved Thomas Menino, and created the spun-off article Mayoralty of Thomas Menino.

I have made less major improvements to the articles of a number of long-deceased judges and politicians.

I made improvements to other articles.

I published new articles such as Michael Cassius McDonald, Benjamin Willis (educator), Unbuilt Rosemont personal rapid transit system.

In other edits, I undertook an ambitious change to the categorization of articles and categories related to United States constitutional officers and United States constitutional officer elections. I also made similar improvements for other United States election sub-categorization. I also created many redirects for election races described in sub-sections of larger articles. I also improved the category keys on many election articles. These involved thousands of edits.

I made other categorization-related edits as well.

I began work on drafts such as Draft:Impeachment inquiries in the United States.

___________
I hope the community will give consideration to this. If there are any questions or requests they have for me to help you in reaching a decision, I urge them to feel free to ask me.

SecretName101 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Permalink to relevant AN thread. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• I too happened across this and wondered what on earth was actually being appealed here, which led me to this lengthy talk-page discussion on it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• SecretName101, You mentioned the Thomas Menino article, so I took a quick look. How are this edit concerning Robert Kraft and this edit regarding Elizabeth Warren not violations of a topic ban "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed"? That's as far forward from the topic ban as I looked, because I came across these as soon as I started to look and wanted to stop there and ask this question first, before any further examination, in case I'm misinterpreting something. Begoon 13:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s been months, so I do not have a clear memory of every edit. But I suppose I must have seen those passing mentions as integral to a full biographic picture of Menino in their respective subsections. But seen them as merely biographical of Menino, not Kraft or Warren. Since it was a BLP ban, I figure I must have thought a passing mention that was necessitated to paint an integral fact on a diseased individual’s bio was not an biographical edit on on either Kraft or Warren. Neither changed a bit the narrative how Wikipedia portrays their bios across the project, I must have figured. I suppose I felt it problematic not to include his support or opposition of stadium construction, as that was a key development in its subsection. And Menino’s endorsement of Warren was well stated in other articles (such as 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts), so it was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretName101 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

So you thought it was ok, while topic banned from all edits concerning living persons, broadly construed, to edit about living persons anyway if you could mentally excuse it? Or you thought the topic ban was too broad? Or you didn't understand the topic ban? Or you just didn't take enough care? Sorry to be so inquisitorial, but I'm struggling to understand if you knew you were violating the ban, somehow thought it was up to you to decide if a very clear ban applied depending on your own flawed interpretation, didn't think about it at all, or thought nobody would notice? If you could clarify that it would be helpful in case I decide to look at any more of your edits. Thanks. Begoon 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not a photographic memory of every moment of my life, so asking me to recap my exact in-the-moment thinking on everything I have done in five months is an ask I cannot oblige. But I had, during my ban, asked for clarity before on what it covers, and how to navigate it, and been given very little guidance in return. I have attempted to navigate confusion over this. A moments, there have been edits where I went “shit, was the the wrong conclusion?” After I hit publish. SecretName101 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so you're basically saying you violated the ban but it wasn't your fault because nobody explained what "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" meant (despite the linked conversations above)? There's a viewpoint that would say - "Well, ok, nobody pulled him up for this as he went along." There's also one which says "Why on earth should we? it was very, very clear and we don't have time to police every sanctioned user who wants to edit outside a clearly defined ban. We can only really look when they appeal the ban and we discover they didn't comply with it, unless something is spotted in the meantime". Where do you stand on that? Begoon 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There have been small edits I have made after being un-fresh in my memory on the topic ban outline, and that I later (upon refreshing myself) went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. But they had already been published by that. Which has me paranoid here (and hesitant to appeal) out of fear I’ll be attributed intent to deceive or violate, rather than being understood to have practiced misjudgment or poor memory of how to interpret the topic ban. It’s been five months. Early into the topic ban, I was figuring it out. And later into it, my memory of how it works subsided or got foggy. So there are a few changes I would not go back and make, for sure. But I did not intent to sneak them in unnoticed or deceive anyone. It’s tricky to adjust to a topic ban’s outlines, and tricky not to have your memory of its rules fade amid five-months of drama-filled life. I apologize for mistaken edits, and would request leniency/understanding, instead of the usual rush-to-judgement and condemnation I feel I have been repeatedly met with in these months. The point of these bans is to negate damage to the project, not inflict pain or punishment upon the user, as I understand, so the question should be whether I have been or will be causing harm to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Let me ask you a couple of questions then:

• Why can't you indent your replies properly (half-kidding, but it's really quite annoying that you expect others to clean up after you - I've had to fix your posts 4 or 5 times now... If you wanted to show willing you could do something with the random snippet you plonked, unindented, below this while I was typing it - I have no idea what, if anything, it responds to... struck, because they finally did do that...)
• What did you do that led to the ban? Here I want you to describe what happened in great detail: why it was wrong, why you did it, what you think about it now, etc..
• How would you handle the same situation now - again, in great detail, please? Begoon 15:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The word concern had thrown me off at moments. “Concern” generally means “be about” “scrutinize” “analyze”, all which implies principal involvement and not passing relation. Passages like those you mentioned were about Menino, not the others. The sentences were about Menino what Menino did and how he acted, not the others. I am sure that my understanding at the moment was that those were not as clear a violation of the spirit or letter as you currently see it. SecretName101 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

For the question of what led to my ban: I created an article on an individual I believed surpassed the notability threshold for their business exploits (having established a nationally notable music club/bar and received accolades for it). In retrospect, since the article was an incomplete picture that leaned negative, and since the individual's notability was so-marginally above the threshold, I would have not published the article if I could do it over. Instead, if I desired to see it removed from the draft-space to the article space, I could have requested other users review it, modify it, and balance it out to the best of their abilities. I should have certainly asked for further eyes on it. More ideally, I would have instead created an article focused on the bar/club for which they were notable for running, and only had a redirect under their name unless I could create a more adequate article in the future. SecretName101 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that the article indeed was poorly-considered. It painted too negative a picture on a figure that do I believe is notable, but I also believe threads the line between sufficient and insufficient notability for this project.

I think I would have done a faster about-face to the community, instead of wasting time focusing on arguing with those who were attempting to prescribe malicious intent to my creation of the article.

The article was foolish, but was in no way an effort to defame the individual. The primary content that painted a negative picture was sourced to a reliable newspaper, and was not a smear. However, that still does not excuse that the article painted an unbalanced portrait on someone who did not urgently necessitate an article on the project. It would have been better to leave there being no article on the subject than an unbalanced one. SecretName101 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I also mistakenly did not take a closer look at one online source I used. It was not reliable. However, it was not a source that led to the unbalance of the article. Nevertheless, it was a giant f-up to include that as a source. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

These are almost encouraging answers. You still seem to think there are scenarios in which creating the article might have been a good idea though? Could you expand on that? Begoon 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think if the article had been far more balanced, and more thorough, there would have indeed been a case to make that it had a place in the article-space. The subject of the article indeed (in sources) appears to be an (at least regional) celebrity who founded a quite notable business venture. The subject also generated more recent headlines for more recent actions (such as fundraising for, I think it was, police carrying AEDs), a promised upcoming biography with headline-generating claims about their relationship with their ex-spouse, and other actions/ventures. There are grounds that this was indeed a notable figure. A balanced article on the individual certainly could warrant a place on this project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No. It really would not. I'm very concerned that you still profess to think that. Begoon 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Elaborate? SecretName101 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A topic ban is not to be given to someone simply because you disagree with the notability of a potential article subject. That's to be resolved in deletion discussions.

A topic ban is for someone who has given tremendous detriment to the project.

I myself have disagreed with the notability of articles the Wikipedia community has decided to keep. It is quite possible I am wrong to think there could be enough notability behind this subject, but that is not a heinous sin. But I would urge you not to render a verdict on your absolutist stance that there is no potential argument for this individual having been notable enough. SecretName101 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that this isn't the place to debate whether a totally hypothetical article could be justified, as opposed to the "...speedy deleted shady attack page of a subject whose marginal notability would qualify him having his bio deleted as a courtesy anyway" which we had, so, yes, let's not get carried away with that speculation. My apologies for the tangent. Begoon 23:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, disagreeing about whether a single individual has just-enough notability for Wikipedia or not is not a cardinal sin that should bar anyone from being allowed to edit parts of Wikipedia. So that should not be the crux of your judgement at all. SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to say that "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" was unclear because of the word "concern"? I don't, quite honestly, think that's a sensible thing to say to the generally intelligent people who will be reading this. Some of the things you are saying are close to plausible, but that is not one of them, and reeks of desperation. That's not how you'll get a topic ban removed. If you weren't sure then why didn't you ask? If I look at later edits will I find more cases of you ignoring the ban because you thought it was subject to your own interpretation rather than seeking clarification? It was very clear, regardless of your apparent intention to skirt it by the "letter" or "spirit". There was nothing open to interpretation however much you might like to wikilawyer it now. Begoon 17:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Concern" is the operative word. I never made any intent to ignore the ban. But I indeed have stated there are moments I am retrospectively worried were unwise edits with the ban, but at the moment had judged to be fine, either through fading of my memory of the language of the ban (which indeed happens over months) before I refreshed myself, or due to lack of initial clarity on what the ban entails. I am confident that a phishing expedition will find cases in which you will question my edits out of the 8,000 or so edits I have made in these months. If you want to make your vote punative based off of these, it is your prerogative to. But I urge you to instead judge on the principle premise: is my editing malicious and harmful to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Phishing expedition" (sic), "punative" (sic) - wow - any more ridiculous knee-jerk responses you want to utterly fail to understand then, for good luck, amusingly spell wrong and baselessly fling in my direction?

I don't think you are intentionally malicious, but I do think you lack BLP competence and nothing you've said here has really made me reconsider that opinion yet.

What, to you, is the most important consideration when we edit articles about living people? And how did you let us down?

Anyway, I'm conscious that I've already said more than I ought to in one discussion, so I'm going to make this my last comment and let the consensus form. Good luck. Begoon 18:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Most important consideratio? I mean, for the survival of the project, not getting a defamation lawsuit seems a major concern.

But in general having accurate well-sourced content that paints a proper (as-balanced-as-possible) portrait is the benchmark. SecretName101 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean, there are several “good articles” and b-class artices that I am the primary contributor of that are BLPs, so I do not think I am incompetent with BLPs SecretName101 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully this "competence" now encompasses an understanding of why "Subject is an American businessman and convicted fraudster" is not an advisable first sentence for an article on a person of no real notability, which would be the first google result for their name. Begoon 00:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It has been acknowledged that the article was ill conceived. That point has been run into the ground by me. To characterize one misconceived article as representative of my editing on BLP versus the totality of my previous contribution to it is simply unfair.

I have explained how I had seen similar (perhaps equally wrong) intros on articles of more notable subjects, and made the wrong conclusion that this was standard practice for articles on convicted individuals. I had not regularly created articles on subjects convicted of past crimes, so that was new territory, and I made a major misstep.

I have repeatedly owned that that article was badly conceived, have I not?

have owned that the article was badly conceived . Have I not? SecretName101 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What I'm still struggling to understand here, though, is that you claim general BLP competence, yet profess inability to properly understand an extremely clear topic ban "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" because your "memory of how it works subsided or got foggy". Can you see how that might be a concern? Begoon 13:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, I explained that the operative word "concern" is one that gave me trouble. "Concern" typically implies principal relation to something. SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I really don't appreciate that your first reason for voting against lifting is that you believe I denied "obvious" motivation for creating that article. I resent that users have been attempting to force a false-"confession" of malicious intent. I had no malicious intent, and I will not lie that I did. It is a sad state of affairs that the rule-of-thumb of assuming good faith on Wikipedia is being so blatantly violated, and I have been repeatedly reprimanded for not agreeing to make a false confession. I made a mistake, and I have admitted that repeatedly. I urge others to take that at face value please. SecretName101 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal of topic ban. The question is whether the BLP topic ban is still needed to prevent disruption to the project. Secret's statements indicate he understands what he did wrong and what to do (or not do) in the future. As he is a 12-year editor with >80k edits and an otherwise clean block/restriction log, I believe the block can be lifted without harming the project. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think they indicate that at all. I'm still unclear that the editor understands what they did wrong, and I'm concerned that they appear to have treated the topic ban as an inconvenience to be wikilawyered around, rather than a restriction to be complied with - but I'm going to wait until they clarify that and answer the questions, rather than !voting prematurely. Tentatively, I'm thinking that now that they seem to retrospectively be beginning to understand the problem and sanction we should let them comply for a few months more with that understanding, and then judge the results again, but let's see how it pans out... Begoon 17:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support lifting topic ban given their answers, it's unlikely that they will repeat the inappropriate behavior that got them sanctioned initially. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I'm not convinced that someone who created basically an attack BLP, and cannot, apparently, properly understand the extraordinarily simple parameters of the resultant topic ban is an editor we should extend BLP editing rights to. The parameters for BLP editing are simple and clear - we do no harm. An editor so prone to wikilawyering on the edges of rules and restrictions is not suited to the role. If they can't understand a perfectly clear, black and white, topic ban to the extent that they insist on wikilawyering it in their appeal and explain their misunderstanding as being because their "memory of how it works subsided or got foggy" then I have no real confidence that they will be able to respect the BLP policy itself, going forwards. And that could impact real people, again. They should give this serious consideration and perhaps appeal again later when their understanding is clearer. Begoon 13:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal of topic ban. If ever there is a clear cut case, I would think this would be a fine exemplar. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• With regret, I also oppose for now. This was an arbitration enforcement sanction, in response to the creation of an article that was speedy deleted as an attack. I revisited the discussion and the previous appeal, in which I made a statement, and am struck by SecretName101's responses to Begoon above, which do not show an understanding of why the article was inappropriate: the at best marginal notability of the subject, coupled with the wholly inappropriate emphasis in how it was written. Moreover, they show the editor has several times violated the topic ban, which forbade edits concerning living people "broadly construed". I appreciate that SecretName101 has found this a severely constricting topic ban given their interest in politics. I appreciate that they did ask for clarification, but editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons  ..., broadly construed is very clear: SecretName's responses above, and the edits given as examples by Begoon, show that they did in fact understand, they just didn't want to believe it could possibly be that broad a ban: There have been small edits I have made ... that I later ... went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. I am not imputing to the editor an intent to deceive or violate; but they should have reverted those edits when the realization hit, and tried harder to keep within their topic ban. [I]t was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia is neither here nor there. This editor was under a topic ban imposed for something rather grave and had already appealed once without success. They knew their next appeal would be evaluated in part on how well they'd honored it. But they violated it repeatedly, it appears, and hoped no one would notice, or that it didn't really matter. I'd like to give them full credit for continuing to write and improve articles, even though looking at the examples they cite, I still find their writing clumsy, stringing together bits from the sources. But maybe they dislike my writing style, too; this time I resisted the temptation to meddle. What matters, unfortunately, is that they still are unable to recognize the gravity of the problem with the Stevenson article, and they have not been able to adhere to the topic ban. So in my view, there is no basis for lifting the topic ban yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was extremely unimpressed by the original issue and the fact that the OP tried to deny what was very obvious in their motivation for writing that article, and I am equally unconvinced by the further evasive answers to Begoon and the fact that they still don't appear to understand the problem. Also, they're not even keeping to the topic ban anyway, as per the examples above - and also a number of edits like this. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The OP does not get why they were topic banned in the first place --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support he apologized and admitted his mistake. This editor has done far more positive things for the project than this one screw-up, so why prevent and disincentivize overall productive editors from doing more good work? It looks to me like he got the message loud and clear, he's not a vandal, or purposely seeking trouble, and I'm not seeing any signs that he is/would be a repeat offender. Atsme 💬 📧 02:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Appeal to End topic Ban

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

---

Hi friends! In February 2021, I was unblocked by 331dot, agreeing to the topic ban about WP:ARBIPA for six months. There has been no breach from me in fourteen months. I request the topic ban should now be removed, so that I might keep on editing the maximum number of articles I know about. Thanks Sinner (speak) 03:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC) Sinner (speak) 03:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This editor has just scrubbed their talk page, in an unsuccessful attempt to hide the context behind this topic ban. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazim ZarSinner shows that they simply do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and are trying their hardest to keep a mediocre self-promotional autobiography that utterly fails WP:AUTHOR. Cullen328 (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. See also self-promotional linkspamming [19] and this promotional draft [20] where Saair/Nazim ZarSinner refers to himself as an 'important poet'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll agree with the decision made by administrators, now I want to create an article about well-known Indian poet and writer Koshy AV. I'll begin it in draft space and shall submit it for review rather than introducing it to article space myself. I agree, I have gone too much about myself and shall abstain from mentioning myself in article space in future. But, articles related to WP:ARBIPA should be considered separately from my person, they are about cities, cultures and festivals of mine and neighboring countries and will be a better space for me to participate than other topics. Sinner (speak) 06:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Except, Nazim, if we can't trust you to follow some fairly simple rules about autobiographical content, then that will also make us reticent to believe you can engage in a controversial space effectively. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since being unblocked 14 months ago you have made 42 edits, 16 of which have been to articles. Of those 16 edits 13 have been self promotional spamming, two have been trivial punctuation fixes and this edit to an article on a village [21] (and your comments on it's associated talk page [22]) seems to be skirting the boundaries of your topic ban from WP:ARBIPA geography. Your remaining edits consist of you scrubbing your talk page of warnings, removing information that editors used to identify your COI, changing your username and trying to prevent your autobiography from being deleted. You have made nowhere near enough edits for anyone here to be able to judge if the issues that lead to the topic ban have been resolved, and many of the edits you have made are problematic in other ways. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Insufficient editing since sanction to demonstrate an ability to play nice with others, the actual few edits you've made haven't really helped the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as noted above you haven't made many edits since being unblocked, which means we don't have much evidence to tell whether you will create issues in these areas if you are unbanned. Normally for a request like this we would expect a substantial editing history which allows people to make that determination. The few edits you have made include deleting a load of relevant material from your talk page and defending an article about yourself at AfD, which is not a good start. And the topic ban wasn't for fix months, you weren't allowed to appeal it for six months. Hut 8.5 09:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Removal of my confirmed and extended-confirmed user rights

I have no intention to edit articles locked by the grey and blue locks, though I had done so multiple times in the past. I do understand that this can be seen as an unnecessary move, however, I don't really like having user rights but not using them much. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: It's impossible to add or remove autoconfirmed status as it's an "implicit user group" that is applied by mediawiki. Extendedconfirmed can be removed though. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

192.76.8.70, I never knew that! Still, I don't think I'd have a need to edit blue-locked articles, as my main topic of interest is about aerospace stuff. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done here. Should you want it back in the future, you can leave a message at my talk page or request it via the usual means. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended confirmed isn't really a higher bit, it just makes you a "normal editor". Not sure I like removing that from editors, and I worry that will cause more problems than it solves, as there will eventually be an article they want to edit that requires it. EC protection on articles is becoming more common. Normally, removing EC is only done as a sanction for gaming the system, and again, it isn't an advanced bit, just a normal one for anyone that's been here a few months. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand it when people request removal for philosophical reasons, and kind of understand it when the removal is intended as a symbolic "break" from Wikipedia. I share your ambivalence about other instances too, but it's certainly possible not to come across extended-confirmed pages for long periods of time if you don't edit in contentious/sockpuppet-ridden areas. For this case, if someone doesn't want it (and knows what it's about), I'm not going to force them to hold on to it. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Koavf’s behavior

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

---

Hi. I think that Koavf is about ready to be unblocked, because of his behavior on other wikis and more than 1,000,000 edits on this wiki.

Procedures:

• Please warn Koavf on his talk page that he is reminded about WP:3RR.
• Report any continous incidents to WP:ANI/WP:AIV/WP:AN3RR.

I respect your help. Regards, 172.58.19.84 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If Koavf wants to request an unblock, he should do so the normal way that we expect every blocked editor to do, not have some anonymous IP do it for him, no? CUPIDICAE💕 21:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Prax, This is just an community/advice thing. I did not expect you to reply immediately. 172.58.19.84 (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Your expectation of a reply is irrelevant, if Koavf wants to get unblocked I'm sure he knows how to do request it. CUPIDICAE💕 21:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Proposed motion to modify the Arbitration Committee Procedures

The Arbitration Committee is voting on a motion to modify the procedures to clarify activity expectations for its clerks.

For the Arbitration Committee, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Guerillero, where do I confirm [my] desire? El_C 22:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Password resets blocked for blocked IPs?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T109909

I posted a question/section at Help talk:Reset password#Why is Special:PasswordReset blocked for blocked IP ranges? that may be of interest to administrators. The purpose of this section is to inquire why IP editors subject to a block (direct or range) do not have access to Special:PasswordReset, and I assume there may be administrators that either know why this is, or even may question why editors not logged and using a blocked IP do not have access. (I'm posting this notice here since I assume there are not a lot of page watchers for Help:Password reset.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Steel1943: this sounds like phab:T109909. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thanks for finding that phabricator ticket. Seems that means this is an unintentional situation, and has been reported but not fixed after ... wow, almost 7 years. Dang. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Steel1943 seems like it may have initially been a side affect, but may have become sometimes useful. I won't go in to the WP:BEANS issues here, but the overall situation appears not be upstream - not a local setting that we can do anything about. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux I noticed the same. I've added my grievance to the issue in the ticket notes, and I may add more based on the inquiry you stated since maybe this needs to be something that each individual Wikimedia project decides on rather than making it global. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounds to me from [23] that maybe the problem isn't so much that no one has bothered to fix it, but that's disagreement among developers over whether it should be fixed. However making it a setting each project can choose, that may involve a fair amount more effort. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like something that the communities (plural) should decide, rather than devs, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Fuck, if you'll pardon the expression, me. I had to jump through hoops (and get treated like an idiot along the way) to get back into my account when hit by this years ago and it's still not fixed? DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

For the moment, it looks like blocked users see MediaWiki:Blockedtext when they visit Special:PasswordReset. It might be helpful to add a link or some information to that page about what users can do in this situation. Anomie pointed out on Phabricator that any other user not affected by a block can reset another user's password, so the solution is as simple as using the IP talk page or UTRS to request that a reset link be sent. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Well it does require divulging your private email address. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it can be done with just the username? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Depends if the user opted in to Send password reset emails only when both email address and username are provided. or not I suppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Editor Praxidicae Has Violated 3RR Rule

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

---

Soborno Isaac is Da Vinci Laureate (South Africa) & Hon. Mayor of Little Bangladesh.

The editor Praxidicae has violated Wikipedia's 3RR Rule, by reverting edits on one page at least three times in a 24-hour time period. Furthermore, that editor has repeatedly nominated the page for deletion, claiming that the subject of the page is not a "7 year old Professor", even though the page does not mention that. And even though the subject of the article is the Honorary Mayor of Little Bangladesh, Los Angeles, this editor took the liberty of going to the Little Bangladesh page and remove not only the subject's name, but also his citation, whilst citing "lol no". Finally, he wrote that the subject of the article is a "joke and hoax," which is derogatory language unfit for Wikipedia. Please take action.

--AnonMan64 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This is patently ridiculous. I reverted obvious vandals REMOVING AN MFD where the instructions state "DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE" until it's closed. That is specifically WP:3RR exempt. I edited the Los Angeles page once and it wasn't reliably sourced and we don't generally include honorary mayors, especially without a reliable source in infoboxes, which you'd know had you bothered to even discuss it with me.CUPIDICAE💕 19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also for the final time, I am not male. CUPIDICAE💕 19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing actionable here as far as I can see. First off I only count three reverts in the page history ([24], [25], and [26]), and secondly two of those three involve reverting the removal of a MfD notice which is forbidden to do, and which I would count under the vandalism criteria of WP:3RRNO -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that Praxidicae has repeatedly used defamatory language to describe the subject of the article, stating they "appear to be a joke or hoax" and leaving the comment "lol no" after removing the subject's name from the Little Bangladesh page. Furthermore, there are other editors who can revert the MfD -- there is no need for Praxidicae to do it repeatedly. All of this suggests that Praxidicae may have a personal interest in the subject. KizWhalifa (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Get with the program, the wording that referred to it as a hoax is a DEFAULT WIKIPEDIA BASED TEMPLATE DECLINE. Get over it. CUPIDICAE💕 20:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Stating that the article submission is a joke or a hoax is a description of the article, not the subject of the article. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! May I ask how you found your way to this draft article after only a dozen edits? MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The answer to your question awaits, MrOllie. CUPIDICAE💕 20:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• That's an interesting user name pattern I've seen before about 5-6 years ago when a certain editor was blocked ... but as far as I've known, then never socked, so this is probably someone else ... but all that will probably be discovered in the sockpuppet investigation. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, turns out the editor I was referring to does have archived SPI reports, but none of the socks have the same naming pattern as the master, so feel free to disregard me on this! Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

COI edits attempting to scrub/delete Monica Gandhi Wikipedia entry

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

---

The Monica Gandhi article has been repeatedly altered in the last few days by sockpuppets from University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), which is where Gandhi works. They have been deleting cited passages. In addition, one of the sockpuppets added the deletion template to the article a few hours ago after protection on the page lapsed:

• Monica Gandhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Monica_Gandhi (AfD discussion)

Accounts in question:

• Wikiscientist578
• 128.218.42.66 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 128.218.42.191 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 128.218.42.215 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 128.218.42.189 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 128.218.42.107 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 69.181.180.133

Asking for extended page protection and intervention with the sockpuppets. Thank you.

TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems like it would be better suited to WP:COIN rather than AN. CUPIDICAE💕 19:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The unregistered editors all had their last edits before User:Wikiscientist578 was created, so I see no sockpuppetry here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

ECP protection seems to be unwarranted at the moment. Furthermore, while COI-edits are likely and a concerns, TheNewMinistry's ascribing those edits to the subject herself as in this section title, and in edit-summaries, is a BLP-violation, as are comments such as this one and this one. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've redacted one of the BLPvios on the talk page. TheNewMinistry, you may want to self redact the others. BLP applies to talk space as well as article space. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I blocked Wikiscientist578 indefinitely. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• I ran into this by RfPP patrol chance, but it seems like Monica Gandhi (whom I've never heard of prior to that) has some enemies. Perhaps deservedly, perhaps not, but it'd be best if whatever is going on there is kept away from Wikipedia. And who is TheNewMinistry (an account created a couple of weeks ago), a user who erroneously thinks that the point of the protection was to retain that addition, like, by fiat (what, because the original RfPP requestor labled that removal as "whitewashing"?). I have argued in detail that that this addition is WP:UNDUE, an argument which TheNewMinistry, upon reverting, did not respond to substantively. This is weird stuff and it makes me uneasy. El_C 22:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  My account was created over 16 years ago.TheNewMinistry (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  In which case you should have been fully aware of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. Still, weirdly unsubstantive. El_C 22:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  User:FlightTime asked the now-blocked user on the talk page to wait for concensus before removal, but you went ahead and removed it anyway without allowing discussion. I was completely in the right to revert your edit, especially since you were playing the "I'm an admin but this isn't an admin edit" game.TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  They can ask whatever they like, but WP:ONUS is still a thing. And I wasn't playing. After adding Ds/talk notice|topic=covid an hour earlier, I thought it was worth mentioning. El_C 23:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  And I could have invoked WP:BLP or WP:COVIDDS as an admin to remove that addition (at least until consensus for inclusion was clearly demonstrated), but I chose not to. Perhaps I was too naïve about the prospects of a reasoned and... substantive engagement. So maybe I should have done that. But it looks like more WP:BATTLEGROUND, either way. El_C 23:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• There's an emerging consensus against it, so I've removed it until there is consensus to include. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It is a recent contested addition that is obviously BLP-sensitive, so it should at least wait until there's a clear consensus to include, yeah. --Aquillion (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Just to emphasise what Phil Bridger said above, there's nothing wrong with an editor editing from IPs then deciding to register an account and only using that single account, actually it's very normal state of affairs and is definitely not sockpuppetry. Also editing without ever having registered an account is still something we allow, and this includes when using dynamic IPs. Again it's not sockpuppetry. The only exception would be if an editor uses the multiple IPs in such a way that they imply they are multiple people e.g. if they participate in a discussion and say I agree with the other IP even though the other IP is them. If an editor has an account and still edits without logging in, or edits from multiple accounts, that gets even more complicated but from what I can tell, there's no evidence that happened here. Since the account was blocked, if another account appears, or editing from those IPs resumes that would be a problem if they are indeed the same person. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I saw just now an edit summary where someone removed something for being "NPOV". People get the terminology mixed up, which really does not help. Ironically, it's "conflict of interest" in the section heading above. I edited without an account a long time before registering an account, too. Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• And I now see Special:Diff/1077745306 and Special:Diff/1077922015 to Ashish Jha, which casts Talk:Monica Gandhi and Special:Diff/1083326240 in a different light. Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

TheNewMinistry is clearly and unambiguously using biographies of living persons to promote a conspiracy theory: see Talk:Monica Gandhi, where this is made explicit. I can think of no reason at this point why at minimum a topic ban wouldn't be appropriate. To my mind, the only question is as to the scope. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important for people looking up media talking heads on Wikipedia to know they may have ulterior motives. Otherwise this is just LinkedIn. Gandhi only has a page here because a user who has created thousands of profiles for arguably non-notable physicians authored Gandhi's page in July 2020 and then announced it on Twitter like she had completed a paid gig. I have a problem with that, and anyone concerned with the site's integrity should too.TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever read the Law of holes article? If not, I'd recommend doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're the one issuing threats, I'm just explaining myself. No hard feelings, friend. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not 'issuing threats'. I'm making suggestions as to the appropriate response to someone who seems unable to understand even the basic principles of fundamental Wikipedia policies, and seems intent on self-destruction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I want to run a hypothetical by you. You know, since anything I say is a conspiracy now. Let's say, hypothetically, Emily Oster, leading advocate that kids don't get sick with COVID and that schools should never close, has been proven to be funded by billionaires Charles Koch and Peter Thiel. Let's say, hypothetically, that connection was reported at this link. Wouldn't it be prudent, since COVID cases are rising again, to include that disclosure as part of Oster's Wikipedia page? Wouldn't parents want to think twice about her dozens of op-eds claiming that masking children is akin to violence? Couldn't including that information on Wikipedia, in turn, save lives? TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what's prudent. What matters is what reliable secondary sources say, taking into account WP:BLP, WP:DUE weight and WP:NPOV in considering what we mention, which will entail considering things like the number and quality of sources. If you're here to WP:right great wrongs, you're at the wrong place. Start a blog or something. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

TheNewMinistry is now using this noticeboard as a platform for multiple WP:BLP violations

See their posts in the section immediately above this one (and those at Talk:Monica Gandhi for further evidence). At this point, a topic ban, as I suggested earlier, may well not be sufficient. Wikipedia is not a platform for conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You implied I was a communist on Talk:Monica Gandhi and now are trying to silence me when I nicely ask you to discuss a reliable source whose topic raises a larger question. Same as it ever was. TheNewMinistry (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And for the record, AndyTheGrump admitted that he isn't neutral and always sides with the subject of articles regarding BLP matters when he was recently disciplined:

"And frankly, going off-topic slightly, I'd show a little more concern for Wikipedia's insistence on civility between contributors if Wikipedia wasn't routinely obnoxious to outsiders who get featured in e.g. biographies they haven't asked for, and complain, only to be showered with waffle about 'conflicts of interest' (which doesn't actually mean what Wikipedia thinks it does), and generally treated like something the dog dragged in for complaining that we've got things wrong. There are double standards involved, and they really don't cast Wikipedia in a good light."

I don't think anyone with this view should be addressing BLP matters and should recuse himself. TheNewMinistry (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I stand by everything I wrote in that comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And I am asking you to recuse yourself. You have two dozen blocks on your account, so it seems like you don't know when to quit. I don't want any trouble, just a fair shake from someone without bias. Thank you. TheNewMinistry (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

'Recuse myself'? What the hell is that supposed to mean? This isn't ArbCom... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're trying to punish me for my political leanings - please do the proper thing and hand the case off to your contemporaries so you don't let emotions influence your conduct. Since you've been the only admin keeping this conversation going for the better part of 6 hours, I'd say you might alone in that pursuit. Can we be friends now? TheNewMinistry (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I've never claimed to be an admin. I'm just someone who "sides with the subject of articles regarding BLP matters" when Wikipedia contributors abuse their editing privileges and violate fundamental Wikipedia policies to push their own agendas. And no, I'm not 'friends' with such people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Topic-banned: I have, as a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBBLP, topic-banned TheNewMinistry from making BLP-related edits because over the course of this multiple-day discussion (here and at Talk:Monica Gandhi) they have demonstrated no understanding of the BLP policy or an intent to follow it. A longer explanation is available in the sanction notice. Abecedare (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  (subst:AN-notice) template was never left on my talk page to inform me I was subject of discussion on the administrator's noticeboard per Wikipedia policy - AndyTheGrump misrepresented himself as an administrator and started new heading about my conduct without properly notifying me. TheNewMinistry (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  • You started the discussion. You could have left yourself a message if that made you feel better. Subsections of existing discussions don't require new notices to be sent out (only if they include previously unaware editors). Furthermore, you were aware of this new subsection, you replied 9 minutes after it was opened. If you are trying to get a block in addition to your topic ban, feel free to continue with this wiki-lawyering. Otherwise, it might be wiser to drop this line of discussion completely. Fram (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    @TheNewMinistry: can you provide evidence AndyTheGrump has ever misrepresented themselves as an admin? Every editor who isn't restricted from doing so is welcome to participate at AN, so if you assumed that AndyTheGrump's comments meant they were an admin, sorry but that's your own fault. (There's virtual nowhere on Wikipedia which is restricted to admins with the exception admin sections on WP:A/R/E but non admins can still participate there just under a different section.) They definitely aren't the only non admin participant here besides yourself, there's me and others I won't bother to name since it's irrelevant. As for the rest, what Fram said. Since we analyse every participant's behaviour at ANI if you start a discussion you need to pay attention to it, no one is likely to inform you if we start discussing a boomerang. It doesn't matter whether we discuss it under the main thread or a subsection since that's simply a way of better segmenting or managing things, this discussion is still clearly part of the thread you started. Further you quickly became aware of it anyway so your complaint is just silly. Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    I requested admins address an issue I had on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding COI. The situation was addressed and I thought it was a closed topic. But then I kept getting notifications from the Administrators' noticeboard yesterday, and like an admin confirmed to me last night, AndyTheGrump is just some random person who likes to backseat moderate and cheerlead. He has more edits on talk pages than he has actually contributing content to the encyclopedia. If I knew he was just some random person and not an actual admin waving his dick around (like I thought he was based on the way he was talking / threatening sanctions on my account) I never would have escalated/continued my conversation with him. I apologize to the admins - to the rest of you pretending to have authority...I don't know what purpose you serve here and ask that you stop confusing people. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    You may want to lay off commenting on someone's edit ratio when they still have more mainspace edits than you have total edits. The ratios can be misleading, like my own. I've answered near on 10,000 edit requests, so I have a huge number of talk space edits.

    As for authority, Wikipedia runs on consensus, so for the most part admins just have additional buttons, not much additional authority. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Bad faith editor at Intensive farming (possible sockmaster)

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

---

Lately I have been noticing that Wikipedia has an unlikely number of "incest" typos.

For example, the name "Winchester" is often mis-spelled as "Wincester" (wincest is an internet meme, for the few innocent souls who weren't aware by now).

While in certain cases these are accidental, in other cases they appear to be intentional.

See, for example, Keyboardwarrior23's edit at intensive farming.[27] He mis-spelled "insecticide" as "incesticide" in the wiki but not in his edit summary.

I would have filed a COI case, but I don't know which sock this could be linked to, and the SPI are too heavily burdened right now for me to do that on a good conscience. Sorry, I just had to lay it on you folks for tonight. Thank you for your time. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• In that diff, they spelled "insecticide" correctly once and incorrectly once, and the rest of the content they contributed seems reasonable. It may be that people are trying to sneak the word "incest" into the encyclopedia, but I do not believe this is a deliberate instance and I think you should look for patterns of behaviour before singling any individual editor out. Reyk _YO! 00:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Noted, but see the username, and lack of other edits. It is puzzling to me that someone could accidentally mis-spell something when this appears to be copied & pasted, with the typo conveniently outside of the edit summary. But it is definitely happening elsewhere.[28] -- Hunan201p (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

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

New(ish) edit non-admin closing AfDs - queries being ignored on Talk page

KevinNov3's account was created on 22nd January 2022 and immediately set about making gnomish edits on templates. Strange editing behaviour for a "new" editor. Their most recent bout of edits involved closing AfDs as a non-admin closer. This resulted in a number of editors questioning the rationale on KevinNov3's Talk page, including me. So far, the queries have been ignored even though this editor has made contributions since some of the queries were posted. I've looked through some of the AfDs including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Makers (2nd nomination) which I commented on and a non-admin should not be closing these AfDs (and in my opinion, many of the close decisions are wrong). I'm not sure what the solution is but I think the AfD closes should be reverted and perhaps an admin might advise/warn this editor to keep away from AfDs at this time? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, between 0712 and 0720 UTC today they closed seven AfDs in eight minutes. Even if they are correct in their close, that's not much assessment going into it. It's not as if any of them were snow/speedy, with 20 !votes all saying keep, that hardly needs examination at all. But these are nuanced. Having said that, they do seem to have started at the back of the queue, which makes a change  :) SN54129 18:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Huh. Well they`ve certainly found the gadgets preference page. It`s however disconcerting that they do not respond to any comments on their talk page. Oz\^InterAct 18:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I am still on the first page of their contributions and I have reverted three AfD closes so far. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Sinitsyn (closed as Keep despite a 6-3 Delete count) is a shocker - especially when you look at the Keep voters. I am going to keep combing through these and may partial block the editor from Wikipedia space if there are any more really egregious closes. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I see you, like me, considered Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hippogonal an OK close  :) but then, even a blind pig can find a mushroom in the dark... SN54129 18:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a couple are fine. I've since found two more that were wrong, though, so I've partial blocked the editor from Wikipedia space until they respond. They don't appear to be using a mobile device so they should be seeing their messages. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you also revert the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Makers (2nd nomination) please so that I may respond to the latest comment? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Keep in mind that any experienced editor, or anyone for that matter, can revert an obvious case of a WP:BADNAC close. You certainly don't need to be an admin to do that. :) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies @HighKing, I just saw this request. I'll revert my close. Wasn't aware of this thread at the time. Star Mississippi 02:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A short block, partial or no, may get their attention. Looking at the contribs, I am not entirely sure this editor is acting in bad faith. They`ve just dived into actions better left for more experienced editors or admins. I also found on their talk page one word response to one notice, so at least they have responded to something. The user page indicates they are from the Philippines, so due to a possible language barrier, they may not understand completely what they`re doing. Oz\^InterAct 18:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's more than just disconcerting that they do not respond to any comments on their talk page. WP:ADMINACCT requires that you explain your actions when questioned. Failure to do so led to three desysoppings by arbcom earlier this year. When you're performing a WP:NAC, you're acting in an administrative role, so this applies to NACs just as it applies to admin closes. The pblock from project space which was imposed seems entirely justified. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Black Kite, I think that was the right call. Yesterday, I had to revert a particularly ambitious close they made at TFD that I wouldn't have attempted myself! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a shame we can't do partial blocks from e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/*, because this does mean that KevinNov3 can't participate in this discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is - I did mention in the block notice that they should respond on their talk page, but to be honest the unblock request that you just declined does not fill me with hope anyway. Black Kite (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment AfD is tremendously important, because it is the (almost) final arbiter of what material we have in Wikipedia. It's not logical that we permit anyone to close an AfD while we're very fussy about who carries out AfC reviewing, despite the fact that (1) AfC's criteria for acceptance defer to AfD (see WP:AFCPURPOSE), (2) anyone can bypass AfC at any stage, and (3) when this happens, it's AfD that makes the decision on whether the article stays. To create a practical example, if Joe Bloggs creates an account jbloggs and edits an article about Joe Bloggs (amazing person) and gets it declined at AfC, all he needs to do is move it to main space himself, wait for the nomination to AfD, create a suitable sock and close the AfD discussion as "No Consensus" despite all the sensible people saying "delete". The only way out is then to come to ANI, or start a sock-puppet investigation and all these time-consuming things. Wouldn't it be better if all AfD's were closed by trusted individuals who've demonstrated adequate knowledge and skills to do the job fairly? I appreciate that this isn't in keeping with Wikipedia's philosophy that all editors are equal; but we've already abandoned that philosophy in AfC, so shouldn't we also abandon it in the - more influential - AfD? Elemimele (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if all AfD's were closed by trusted individuals who've demonstrated adequate knowledge and skills to do the job fairly?

It would be lovely, but there just aren't enough people willing to do the job for it to work that way. The backlog would become insane rather quickly. It's better to leave it open for non-admins to close the easy ones, and just deal with the occasional problem like this one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced we don't have enough admin willing to do the job. Some AfD discussions linger, because they're hard ones, but there are certainly more admins who close AfD discussions than any other XfD I'm aware of. Instead I see a fair amount of non-admins, as here, who jump at chances to close discussions rather than doing it because there's truly some backlog or need. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I used to quite regularly visit WP:AFD to tidy up old AfDs which were lingering, but in recent times backlogs have been minor and quite often (indeed, today is an example) there have been none to do at all. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought Black Kite's pblock to force discussion was a good action and anticipated that this discussion would end with some sort of topic ban from closing discussions (given Liz's comments about problems extending beyond AfD). However given their unblock attempts, the idea that a Wikipedia pblock might actually be what's necessary after all is increasing. Their inability to understand what was being asked of them - to communicate here - or even what the problem is suggests that they perhaps don't have the competence to do project space work. Hopefully they can still turn that around. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• They appear to lack the competence to edit here. I'm not sure whether it's a language or maturity issue. Star Mississippi 19:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it appears to be both. I think that they are on the way to a CIR indef. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing AFDs

A good question has been raised, which maybe should be moved to Village Pump Policy, and that is who should be closing AFD discussions:

• 1. Admins only.
• 2. A subset of all editors or of all extended-confirmed editors, as is the case for AFC and for NPP.
• 3. Any autoconfirmed editor, or any extended-confirmed editor.

It is currently any editor. Usually it works well enough, just as almost everything in Wikipedia usually works. Sometimes there are issues.

My own thought, to bounce around, maybe here, maybe at VPP, is:

• A. Define a privilege for the closing of AFDs.
• B. Establish that editors having this privilege may close an AFD as Keep, No Consensus, Delete, or any other closure, and that non-admins may tag the article as G6.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• WP:CREEP. As you say, usually it works just fine, and it's easy enough to correct when it doesn't. We need fewer rules, not more. I can barely keep up with the mountain of new policies over the last decade. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for closure

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

---

Hi

I ask and admin or an experienced user to close Talk:Eastern_Ukraine_offensive#Requested_move_18_March_2022. There are consensus to move to Donbas offensive.--Panam2014 (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Closure requests go to WP:ANRFC. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Changes to the functionary team

Following a request to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of Ks0stm are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 19:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionary team

67.53.214.86 and WP:BLP again

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#67.53.214.86 and WP:BLP.

---

The same 67.53.214.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) IP editor after 3 month block is still adding information to WP:BLPs that is sourced to definitely not reliable sources, such as compromat.ru for example, with concerning BLP implications: example, i.e. continuing the same destructive edits as Jayjg and Ymblanter noted before. --Xunks (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. Blocked for 1 year. --Jayron32 12:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

How can I fix interwiki links when Wikidata does not allow me to

Permission to speak freely. I am sorely piffed. There's a page Fiano (grape) and a corresponding page on the Italian wikipedia, Fiano (vitigno). However the enwiki page does not link to the Italian one on the interwiki links. The problem is that the interwiki links are supplied through that expletive of a thing called "Wikidata". I have tried to fix this by clicking on "Edit links" and trying to add the "Fiano (vitigno)" from the Italian wiki to the Wikidata item, but ran into a problem (apparenly that article is already assigned a different Wikidata entry, so a merge is needed.)

I have absolutely no desire to participate in Wikidata.

So how can I improve Wikipedia, by linking to the appropriate article in a different-language Wikipedia, without dealing with that expletive Wikidata?

-- 2001:16B8:1E93:E600:8DF1:2D28:36CD:CB85 (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you can. I've gone ahead and merged the two items on Wikidata. Rather fond of the project myself, but your mileage varies. Mackensen (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks! It's great there are helpful folks around this (and related) project(s). (And apologies for the rather Unparliamentary language above.) -- 2001:16B8:1E76:1100:8DF1:2D28:36CD:CB85 (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Had a Wikidata merge not been possible here, putting a plug in for {{interwiki extra}}. I've used it on a number of pages where enwiki covers "Death of John Doe" but not "John Doe", while other wikis do it the opposite way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Washington shooting

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

---

Just as a heads up: these edits at Edmund Burke School are by an account Raymond Spencer that shares a name with the suspect, as noted by the Washington Post. Possibly no action is needed but a few eyes could be of value. Abecedare (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• The account should be blocked per WP:IMPERSONATE, and unblocked if they can confirm who they are - in which case a PBLOCK from that article may be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The account's first edit was on April 12th, making impersonation seem rather unlikely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Confirming that the Functionaries team and WMF staff have been alerted to this situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Looks like account has been renamed, new username has been suppressed etc. Probably nothing more for AN to do. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

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

When a source removes information

If a source has been edited to remove information (such as a birthdate) do we remove it from our article or do we use web archive to "recover" the earlier version of the source to keep the information in our article? I find WP:BLPPRIVACY lacking guidance about this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context. I would certainly treat removing a birth date from a publication as a red flag, possibly a sign of misinformation or a correction or some other good reason, and look at removing it here. I think BLP would probably say something about strong sourcing, which this doesn't sound like, in general. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz I get the impression that online biographies, such as about key executives or academics, are these days leaving off such details due to concerns about identity theft and other personal online security concerns - issues that were not so prominent some years ago.

The example I found that prompted me to come here is a "professor profile" on a university website. It did state the subject's DOB when our article was originally written a decade ago but has since been edited to remove it. We have two options; dig up and cite the old version of the professor profile to maintain verifiability of the DOB, or else remove the DOB from our article.

Where does the balance lie between preserving key biographical detail, or respecting the privacy of a BLP subject by ommiting it? We could, in theory at least, wait until the subject dies and then use obituaries to reinsert the DOB, if following the current source by removing it (while the subject is alive) is the preferred option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

In that particular case, I'd say if you can't dig up an archived version, it should go. If you can, and that is the only usable ref, it's up to local consensus, personally I'd say remove. As a middleground, you could use the archive to cite YOB and leave out DOB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Getting a general idea of the age of an individual is probably more important/useful than the exact age, so if the exact DOB has been pulled, I'd say it's reasonable to re-add the YOB with the archived ref. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. In some cultures many people don't even know the exact day when they were born - the celebration of birthdays is far from universal. For many subjects it is encyclopedic to know when they were born to within a few years, to place them in the right context, but the exact date is unimportant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

We have a whole Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard that specializes in this sort of question, note. Non-administrators deal in this stuff, too. Uncle G (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Football-related AFDs

Could an uninvolved admin please review the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Campbell (footballer) (and other open AFDs in the ). I closed the linked discussion with consensus to keep the article, but I am concerned about the decorum of some of the comments at that page. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• no notifications sent User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)